A Rejoinder to Asiya Mohammad Ahmad

Dear madam Asiya,

I have read your post concerning Hon. Muhammadu Bashir Sa’idu and Hon. Malam Jafaru Sani, following their decision to leave the ADC and return to the APC.

I respect your right, as a wife, political associate and citizen, to defend the political position of your husband, Malam Nasir El-Rufa’i. However, I believe the accusation of “betrayal” deserves a more careful and balanced examination. Strong political disagreements should not make us abandon fairness, particularly toward people who stood with us during difficult moments.

Let us begin with one simple question: what exactly did they betray?

Did Hon. Bashir Sa’idu sign an agreement that he would remain in the ADC permanently?

Did Malam Jafaru Sani surrender his constitutional right to choose his political party?

Did either of them promise that they would support every political decision made by Malam Nasir El-Rufa’i for the rest of their lives?

If the answer to these questions is no, then leaving one political party for another cannot, by itself, constitute betrayal.

It may be a political decision you strongly disagree with. It may be disappointing. You may believe it was the wrong decision.

But disagreement is not automatically betrayal.

Where was the betrayal when loyalty had a price?

This is perhaps the most important question.

When Malam Nasir El-Rufa’i was detained and his political associates were also facing detention and pressure, where were the people you now describe as betrayers?

They were standing with him.

On 7th April 2026, the Kaduna ADC publicly raised concerns over the detention of El-Rufa’i and several of his associates and described the situation as political persecution. Whatever one's view of those allegations, the public record shows that his associates were publicly standing with him at a time when doing so carried considerable political consequences. This was why Hon. Muhammadu Bashir Sa'idu was detained before the Primaries election.

So we should be careful not to rewrite history simply because political circumstances have changed.

A person does not become a traitor today because of a political decision he made after standing with you yesterday.

If Bashir Sa’idu was a good man when he stood with El-Rufa’i during difficult times, then his character should not suddenly become questionable merely because he has chosen a different political path.

Political disagreement does not erase history.

Loyalty is not permanent political obedience.

There is a distinction between loyalty and obedience.

A loyal associate can disagree.

A loyal friend can make an independent decision.

A loyal political associate can eventually decide that his political future lies elsewhere.

The democratic system exists precisely because citizens retain the right to make political choices.

Nobody should be expected to surrender his political conscience simply because he once worked with, supported or benefited from another politician.

And this principle must apply equally to everyone.

If Malam Nasir El-Rufa’i is entitled to make independent political decisions, then Bashir Sa’idu and Jafaru Sani are entitled to do the same.

Political mentorship does not create political ownership.

The question of “anointment”

You also suggested that they also slept and they were expecting an “anointment,” despite being told that the election would be free and fair.

With all due respect, this is where the conversation should become more substantive.

The real question is not whether contestants were told that an election would be free and fair.

The real question is:

Was the process actually free and fair?

That question cannot be answered by an assurance alone.

It must be answered by evidence.

Were the rules clear?

Were they applied equally?

Were all aspirants given equal opportunities?

Were the ADC members properly accredited?

Was voting conducted transparently?

Were complaints properly considered?

Were the results supported by verifiable records?

These are legitimate democratic questions.

If the process was free and fair, then the strongest response to criticism is not to accuse disappointed contestants of expecting anointment.

The strongest response is simply to demonstrate the fairness of the process.

A disputed primary deserves evidence, not insults.

There have been public disagreements concerning the conduct and outcome of the ADC governorship primary.

Those who questioned the process have made allegations; those allegations should not be treated as established facts without independent evidence.

But equally, those who defend the process should not dismiss every complaint as evidence that someone expected to be anointed.

There is a middle ground:

Examine the evidence.

That is how mature political movements resolve internal disagreements.

The double standard must also be addressed.

There is another matter that deserves honest reflection.

Malam Nasir El-Rufa’i himself has had political mentors, benefactors and senior political associates.

His rise into national public service was closely connected with the political establishment of the Obasanjo administration and with then Vice-President Atiku Abubakar.

Yet over time, El-Rufa’i developed his own political identity and took positions that differed from those of people with whom he had previously worked.

That was his right.

Nobody should condemn him simply because he exercised political independence.

But if that principle applies to El-Rufa’i, it must also apply to the people who once worked with him.

The same freedom that protects the political independence of the mentor must protect the political independence of the protégé.

Anything else is a double standard.

We should not weaponise gratitude

One of the unfortunate tendencies in Nigerian politics is the transformation of past assistance into a permanent political debt.

“I helped you, therefore you must always support me.”

“I appointed you, therefore you must never disagree with me.”

“I stood by you, therefore you must remain politically loyal to me forever.”

That is not a healthy democratic principle.

People can be grateful without being permanently politically dependent.

People can respect their former leaders without agreeing with every political decision they make.

And people can appreciate what someone did for them while still choosing a different political direction.

Gratitude should be remembered, but it should not be weaponised.

Madam Asiya, let us be fair to everyone

You have every right to defend your husband.

But those who once stood beside him also deserve fairness.

Before calling them betrayers, we should remember the difficult moments in which they stood with him.

Before questioning their character, we should acknowledge their contribution.

Before accusing them of seeking anointment, we should ask whether the political process actually met the standard of fairness that was promised.

And before judging their decision to leave the ADC, we should recognise that political association does not extinguish their right to make independent choices.

The issue is bigger than Bashir and Jafaru

This is not merely about two individuals.

It is about the kind of political culture we want to build.

Do we want political associates to be free to disagree?

Do we want internal democracy to be genuine?

Do we want political parties where contestants can compete without fear of being labelled disloyal if they question a process?

Do we want political disagreements resolved through evidence and dialogue rather than accusations?

I believe these are the questions that deserve our attention.

Finally, let us remember where they stood.

Madam Asiya, nobody is asking you to support Bashir Sa’idu's decision.

Nobody is asking you to agree with Jafaru Sani.

Nobody is asking Malam Nasir El-Rufa’i to surrender his political convictions.

But the same political freedom that we demand for Malam Nasir El-Rufa’i must be extended to those who once stood beside him.

They supported him when supporting him was not necessarily convenient.

They defended him when his political circumstances were difficult.

They stood with him when his associates were facing detention and political pressure.

If they have now chosen a different political road, we may disagree with that decision.

But let us not allow political disagreement to erase history or turn former friends and associates into enemies overnight.

A political disagreement should remain a political disagreement.

And if the word “betrayal” is going to be used, it should be reserved for an actual betrayal—not simply for the exercise of political independence.

The strongest political leaders are not those who demand unquestioning loyalty.

They are those secure enough to allow people who once stood beside them to make their own decisions—even when those decisions are different from theirs.

Let us disagree without destroying one another's character. Let us debate without rewriting history. And above all, let us apply the same standard of fairness to ourselves that we demand from others.

Engr. Anas Adam