Follow Us on Google
By Usman Farouk
There are moments in public life when leadership is measured not by the strength of a politician’s rhetoric, the size of his political following or the number of battles he wins, but by his ability to exercise restraint when provoked, preserve human relationships amid political tension and refuse to descend into the arena of personal bitterness. Such moments reveal something deeper about character. Governor Uba Sani’s recent comments on his relationship with his predecessor, Nasir El-Rufai, offer an opportunity to reflect on the place of respect, maturity and compassion in political leadership.
At a time when questions about the relationship between the two men have attracted considerable public attention, Sani has chosen a tone that is notably restrained. Rather than turn the situation into an opportunity for political point-scoring, he has insisted that he has never spoken ill of El-Rufai and has no intention of doing so.
“I have never spoken anything bad about him, and I will never speak anything bad about him,” the governor declared during an interview on Trust TV’s Daily Politics. The statement may sound simple, but in the often unforgiving world of Nigerian politics, where disagreements can quickly become public confrontations and former political allies sometimes become bitter adversaries, such restraint carries significance.
The temptation to respond to controversy with controversy is a familiar feature of political life. When relationships become strained, supporters take sides, political commentators search for hidden meanings, and every public statement is examined for evidence of hostility. Yet Sani appears determined not to allow the atmosphere surrounding the El-Rufai matter to dictate his own conduct.
His position is particularly important because he was asked whether he feared El-Rufai’s political influence ahead of the next election and whether he was concerned about the former governor’s continued detention since February. These are questions capable of drawing a politician into speculation, defensiveness or an exchange of accusations. Sani, however, returned to a consistent message: he had nothing against his predecessor and would not speak against him.
That response speaks to a principle that should occupy a more prominent place in public life: political differences do not have to erase personal respect. A successor may have his own responsibilities, priorities and approach to governance without being compelled to disown the person who occupied the office before him. Likewise, a former governor’s political influence does not automatically make every interaction with his successor a contest for supremacy.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Sani’s comments was his refusal to take ownership of a statement reportedly made by one of his supporters, suggesting that El-Rufai should remain in detention until after the election.
“The person that made that statement was speaking for himself. He was not speaking for me,” he said.
This distinction matters. Political supporters sometimes make extreme statements in the name of loyalty, but responsible leadership requires the ability to draw a clear line between personal positions and the words of others. Sani did not endorse the comment or use it to advance a political argument. Instead, he distanced himself from it.
In a political environment where inflammatory remarks can deepen divisions, that clarification was important. It reinforced his insistence that he would not turn the former governor’s circumstances into an instrument of political hostility. It also demonstrated why public office holders must be careful about the conduct of those who speak in their name.
Sani went further by declining to publicise whatever private steps he might have taken to demonstrate regard for El-Rufai. He explained that respect should not become a performance for public applause.
“As a matter of respect, many things I’ve done to show my respect for him, my regard for him, I don’t think I should come out and say it,” he said.
There is an important distinction between public relations and genuine human regard. The former often seeks recognition; the latter does not always require an audience. By choosing not to disclose private efforts, Sani presented his position as one rooted in personal conviction rather than a desire to win public approval. Whether or not observers agree with every aspect of his account, the principle he articulated deserves consideration: not every act of kindness or respect needs to be converted into a political announcement.
His remarks also offer a wider perspective on how former leaders should relate to those currently entrusted with public office. Sani said he maintains relationships with former governors and consults them on governance and development matters. He specifically mentioned former governor Ahmed Makarfi, whose advice, he said, informed discussions around road construction, including the Soba-to-Zaria road.
He also cited consultations with former Vice President Namadi Sambo, from whom he obtained the design of the Government House project.
These examples are significant because they challenge the idea that political succession must be accompanied by the rejection of everything associated with a predecessor. Government is a continuous responsibility. Roads, institutions, public infrastructure and development priorities do not begin and end with an individual administration. Experience accumulated by former office holders can remain useful long after they leave office.
Sani captured this point when he observed that a governor does not have a monopoly of wisdom. His emphasis on humility and listening is a reminder that leadership is not diminished by seeking advice. Indeed, the willingness to learn from people who have occupied the same office can strengthen decision-making and promote continuity in public policy.
This approach is particularly relevant in Kaduna, a state with a complex political history and significant development challenges. Successive administrations have inherited unfinished projects, competing priorities and public expectations that cannot be addressed through political rivalry alone. A culture of consultation can help preserve institutional knowledge and prevent development from becoming a casualty of changing political relationships.
None of this means that disagreements should be suppressed or that public accountability should be sacrificed in the name of personal loyalty. Former and serving officials remain subject to the law, and questions surrounding any individual’s detention must be addressed through appropriate legal and constitutional processes. Respect for a former political leader cannot replace due process, just as political differences should never become a justification for personal persecution.
That distinction is essential. Maturity is not silence in the face of wrongdoing, nor is it an obligation to agree with every decision made by a former ally. It is the ability to separate legitimate institutional processes from personal vendettas and to ensure that public responsibilities are not reduced to private quarrels.
Sani’s declaration that he has nothing against any of his predecessors, and that he anticipated challenges from the beginning of his administration, also reflects an understanding of the burdens of public office. Governance inevitably attracts criticism, disagreement and pressure. A leader who expects universal approval will struggle to navigate those realities. A leader who understands that challenges are part of the assignment is better positioned to remain focused on the work.
Ultimately, the El-Rufai matter is bigger than the relationship between two politicians. It raises questions about how power is exercised, how political disagreements are managed and whether public life can accommodate civility even in moments of tension.
A portrait of a good man is not established by one interview or a carefully chosen quotation. Character is judged over time, through consistency between words and actions, respect for institutions and the treatment of others, particularly when circumstances are difficult. Sani’s latest comments offer a public statement of the values he says he wishes to uphold: respect, restraint, humility and the preservation of human relationships.
In a political culture often dominated by sharp exchanges and public displays of hostility, his decision to avoid speaking ill of a former leader provides a different narrative. It is a reminder that political authority need not come with personal bitterness, and that the end of an administration does not have to mean the end of respect.
For Kaduna and Nigeria, the larger lesson is worth retaining: leadership should be measured not only by the projects delivered or the policies announced, but also by the character displayed in moments of disagreement. Political power is temporary; the manner in which people treat one another can leave a more enduring impression.
Uba Sani has made his position clear. He says he will not speak ill of El-Rufai, and he does not intend to turn private gestures of regard into public trophies. The test, as always, will be the consistency of conduct over time. But the message he has chosen to put forward is one that public life can use more of: disagreement without dehumanisation, succession without contempt, and leadership with room for respect.
• Farouk, writes from Abuja, FCT
