A Dangerous Game of Ambition, Power and Political Contradictions
By Shariff Aminu Ahlan
Politics is indeed a dangerous game — a battlefield where some desperate and manipulative individuals go to extreme lengths to protect their selfish interests and satisfy their personal ambitions, even when such ambitions may negatively affect the very people they were entrusted to lead and represent. While some leaders genuinely pursue political goals with honesty, patriotism, and sincerity, others are driven by blind ambition regardless of the consequences attached to their actions.
There is hardly any need for a lengthy introduction about Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso. He is undoubtedly one of the most recognized political figures in Northern Nigeria — a man whose name has echoed loudly across the nation’s political landscape for decades. To many of his loyal supporters, he is regarded as a political giant and a dominant force in Kano politics. But to his critics, he is seen as an egocentric and self-centered politician who constantly projects himself as the undisputed political godfather of Kano State and one of the most influential politicians in the North.
Over the years, Kwankwaso has carefully positioned himself as the political savior of Northern Nigeria — a man claiming to possess answers to the region’s endless challenges, ranging from insecurity and poverty to marginalization and economic hardship. He often portrays himself as a patriotic leader deeply concerned about the fate of the North and its people.
But one important question remains unanswered: Is Kwankwaso truly fighting for the North, or merely fighting for himself?
This is where the contradictions begin to surface.
Kwankwaso and his supporters have consistently portrayed the APC as the major problem confronting Northern Nigeria. They repeatedly accuse the ruling party of failing the region and insist that it must be rejected politically. But if APC is truly the enemy of the North as constantly claimed, why then has Kwankwaso repeatedly shown willingness to negotiate with the same APC behind closed doors?
Political insiders and public discussions have repeatedly alleged that Kwankwaso’s major condition for joining any political alliance revolves around securing either the Presidency or the Vice Presidency. That revelation alone exposed what many critics describe as the true face of his politics.
Suddenly, party ideology, manifesto, economic policies, insecurity, northern suffering, and regional development appeared secondary. The urgent need to rescue the North from hardship seemingly became less important than personal political ambition.
Had APC granted him the Vice Presidential ticket or a major power-sharing deal, would Kwankwaso still be attacking the same party today? Many believe the answer is obvious.
Ironically, the same man presenting himself as the loudest defender of Northern interests would most likely have become one of APC’s strongest promoters overnight — mobilizing his supporters to campaign for the same administration he now criticizes. That alone raises serious questions about consistency, sincerity, and political integrity.
Critics argue that this exposes a deeper reality: Kwankwaso’s politics may not necessarily be about Northern liberation, but rather about personal political relevance and access to power.
Even more controversial was his political alliance and support for Peter Obi during the presidential contest. To many northern critics, this move appeared shocking and contradictory considering the accusations often directed at Obi regarding his perceived silence during attacks on northern traders in parts of the Southeast.
Many northerners still remember periods of unrest where Hausa traders reportedly suffered destruction of businesses and loss of properties in some southeastern states. Critics have often accused Obi of failing to strongly reassure northerners during those tense moments. Some also interpreted certain administrative policies during his tenure as discriminatory against non-indigenes.
Ironically, it was Kwankwaso himself, during his time as Governor of Kano State, who once took a strong stance against ethnic retaliation and reportedly cautioned against actions capable of escalating regional hatred. At that time, many across the North praised his leadership and statesmanship.
But today, many of those same supporters are left wondering: What changed?
How did the same Kwankwaso who once positioned himself as a defender of Northern interests later openly align himself politically with individuals many northerners accuse of harboring anti-North sentiments?
To critics, the answer is simple — political ambition.
They believe the alliance had little to do with patriotism or protecting Northern interests, and everything to do with positioning himself closer to power and reviving his presidential dream.
Questions have also continued to trail Obi’s alleged closeness to separatist agitations and his perceived silence regarding pro-Biafra elements. Critics frequently reference his comments concerning Nnamdi Kanu and separatist movements as evidence of political sympathy toward groups many Nigerians consider divisive.
For Kwankwaso’s critics, supporting such a political movement while simultaneously claiming to be the defender of Northern unity appears deeply contradictory.
This is why many political observers now argue that Kwankwaso’s politics revolves less around ideology and more around strategic personal advancement. To them, every alliance, every criticism, and every public posture ultimately revolves around one thing — power.
And that is the revelation many believe his loyal supporters refuse to confront.
Haba! Kwankwaso.
Shariff Aminu Ahlan
APC Intellectual Warrior
realahlan0101@gmail.com