Why El-Rufai’s travails should not undermine power rotation

The attempt to turn Mallam Nasir El-Rufai’s current political travails into an argument against power rotation between the North and South is misplaced.

While it is regrettable that a former governor who played a significant role in President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s emergence is now at odds with the government he helped to install, his predicament should not be converted into a collective grievance of the North against the South-west.

When El-Rufai supported Tinubu in 2022, his intervention was celebrated as a personal political achievement. He was praised for helping to build northern support for a southern presidential candidate at a time when the contest over zoning had divided the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). 

If his decision earned him personal recognition, why should his present political difficulties be treated as a betrayal of the entire North?

The distinction is important. El-Rufai’s support for Tinubu was a political choice, just as his present differences with the administration are part of his individual political experience. 

His predicament may deserve public scrutiny, but it does not automatically establish that the South-west has betrayed the North.

This is not to suggest that the former Kaduna State governor should be denied fair treatment. Allegations against him must be handled in accordance with the law, and his rights must be respected. If there is evidence of political persecution, it should be investigated. 

But the appropriate response is to demand justice and due process, not to threaten an entire region with the collapse of a national political understanding.

The central issue is whether the difficulties of one politician should determine the future of power rotation in Nigeria. They should not.

Power rotation is not a personal agreement between El-Rufai and President Tinubu, nor is it a favour that one region grants another in exchange for political rewards. 

It is a mechanism for managing Nigeria’s diversity and reassuring its constituent regions that the presidency is not the exclusive preserve of any one section of the country.

Since 1999, the rotation of presidential power has helped shape political negotiations between the North and South. Although it is not a perfect system, it recognises a fundamental reality: Nigeria’s stability depends not only on electoral numbers but also on inclusion, mutual confidence and the willingness of competing interests to accommodate one another.

Those seeking to use El-Rufai’s travails to discredit rotation must therefore answer a basic question: what alternative do they propose? Should the presidency be determined solely by the numerical strength of a region, regardless of the consequences for national cohesion? 

Would abandoning rotation strengthen Nigeria, or deepen the suspicion that one part of the country intends to dominate the others?

The North, despite its considerable population and electoral strength, cannot sustainably produce a president without political support beyond its borders. The same applies to the South. 

Presidential elections require coalitions, negotiations and alliances that cross regional boundaries. No region can reasonably assume that its numerical advantage alone is sufficient to guarantee lasting political success.

President Tinubu’s emergence in 2023 was the outcome of a broader political process involving many individuals, organisations and constituencies. 

El-Rufai played a role, but he was not the sole architect of the victory. To suggest that the North single-handedly handed the presidency to the South-west is to exaggerate the influence of individual actors and overlook the contributions of other Nigerians.

Equally, the silence of some southern politicians over El-Rufai’s predicament cannot fairly be attributed to the entire South-west. Neither the North nor the South is politically homogeneous. Individuals and groups within each region hold different views, and the actions of some cannot automatically be imposed on millions of others.

There is also a difference between supporting a president and endorsing every action of his administration. Northerners can criticise Tinubu’s government, demand fairness for El-Rufai and question specific policies without abandoning power rotation. Defending the rights of a political figure does not require turning a dispute with the government into a regional confrontation.

The real danger in the argument advanced against rotation is that it makes a national principle dependent on the personal fortunes of political actors. 

If every disagreement between a politician and a president becomes grounds for rejecting cooperation between their regions, no political arrangement can endure. Alliances change, interests diverge and political relationships deteriorate. Institutions and national interests must, nevertheless, remain bigger than individual disputes.

The North should, therefore, separate its legitimate concern for El-Rufai’s treatment from the broader question of presidential succession. His case should be addressed through due process, while the future of power rotation should be determined by considerations of equity, stability and national unity.

In 2027, the choice should not be between defending El-Rufai and preserving rotation. Nigeria can demand justice for an individual while sustaining a political arrangement intended to strengthen the federation. These objectives are not mutually exclusive.

The lesson is clear: El-Rufai’s political travails should not become an excuse for regional distrust or a pretext for abandoning power rotation. The presidency belongs to all Nigerians, and no region can sustainably claim it without recognising the interests and aspirations of others.

Nigeria needs justice without regional hostility, political competition without collective blame, and power rotation that strengthens the bonds of a united country.

Abare, a public affairs commentator, writes from Lafia, Nasarawa State