Muhammad Garba
Recent commentary by Hassan Sani Tukur, Senior Special Assistant to the Kano Governor on New Media, circulated on social media, seeks to present current political developments in Kano as evidence of an unbroken and unquestionable ideological bond between the administration of Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf and the Kwankwasiyya Movement.
Read also: The $700bn Question: Is Nigeria Trading Resources for Dependency?
That narrative is, at best, a selective reading of history and, at worst, a deliberate misrepresentation of Kano’s political reality.
It also reflects a familiar tendency in the state’s political discourse to reduce governance to tests of loyalty rather than a sober assessment of power, responsibility and constitutional authority.
Such arguments rely heavily on emotional allegiance and selective memory, while ignoring the structural realities that confront any elected governor.
Ordinarily, this kind of mawkish commentary might not warrant a response.
However, given the risk of misleading the public, particularly by those who view politics solely through the prism of a narrowly defined “ideology” that often serves specific interests, it has become necessary to set the record straight.
It is worth recalling that what later came to be known as the Kwankwasiyya ideology did not originate solely with Senator Rabi’u Musa Kwankwaso.
The people-centred movement was initially articulated and advanced by figures such as Engr. Rabi’u Sulaiman Bichi, Dr Akilu Sani Indabawa and Dr Yunusa Dangwani, among others.
Over time, however, the movement was effectively appropriated and reshaped into a platform for advancing a personal political agenda.
This evolution explains why many of those who were instrumental in its formation are no longer aligned with its most prominent figure today.
In Kano, “ideology” has frequently been elevated beyond its proper role as a guiding philosophy and transformed into a mechanism of control; one used to legitimise political dominance and delegitimise independent decision-making.
However, history consistently shows that what is often branded as “ideological betrayal” is, in reality, the predictable tension that arises when an elected governor begins to assert autonomy in the face of overwhelming external influence.
Kano’s political trajectory reveals a recurring pattern, which suggests that the central issue has never truly been ideology or a commitment to a so-called people-centred philosophy.
Rather, it has always been about the moment a governor concludes that loyalty to the people and to the constitution must take precedence over allegiance to a single political authority, regardless of that authority’s stature or past contributions.
This context makes simplistic comparisons between the administrations of Dr Dr. Abdullahi Umar Ganduje and Alhaji Abba Kabir Yusuf deeply flawed.
Such comparisons ignore critical differences in background, experience and political maturity.
Dr Ganduje assumed office as a deeply seasoned administrator.
Long before Senator Rabi’u Musa Kwankwaso rose to national prominence, Ganduje had already established himself within the federal bureaucracy, rising to director level and serving as a commissioner.
At a time when Ganduje was overseeing a ministry, Kwankwaso was still an Assistant Director at the Water Resources and Engineering Construction Agency (WRECA).
Expecting a man of such professional depth and institutional confidence to function indefinitely as a subordinate after becoming governor was, from the outset, unrealistic.
Governor Yusuf’s political journey, by contrast, unfolded largely within the personal and political orbit of Senator Kwankwaso; first as a personal assistant and later as an in-law.
While such relationships may operate effectively within a mentorship framework, they become untenable when transferred wholesale into the constitutional office of a state governor.
Governance does not permit the Government House to function as an extension of any private political structure, no matter how popular or historic.
The political developments of early 2026, including reports of Governor Yusuf exploring alignment with the APC while parallel loyalty mechanisms are activated elsewhere, have once again exposed a central illusion in Kano politics and the belief in the existence of a “perfect subordinate.”
History has repeatedly shown that even blood ties cannot indefinitely sustain such an arrangement.
One of the most persistent claims in Kano’s political debate is that Dr. Ganduje deliberately abandoned inherited projects out of spite or ideological deviation.
Read also: Kebbi APC Rejects ADC Claims of Political Persecution
While emotionally appealing, this narrative collapses under factual scrutiny.
Ganduje approached governance from the standpoint of due process, sustainability and accountability. Many inherited programmes were burdened by questionable insertions and opaque financial arrangements.
Declining to continue such projects without proper scrutiny was not sabotage; it was administrative responsibility.
Recent events lend further weight to this position. The ongoing investigation by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) into the alleged ₦1.5 billion foreign scholarship scheme under the Yusuf administration reportedly points to a troubling gap between funds released and students actually deployed.
These are precisely the types of concerns Ganduje raised years earlier.
Expecting any governor to blindly perpetuate programmes simply because they are branded as “ideological” places sentiment above the collective interest of the people of Kano.
Contrary to claims that Ganduje stalled development, his administration redefined it.
Through policies of continuity, consolidation and refinement, he completed projects inherited not only from the Kwankwaso era but also from the administration of Governor Ibrahim Shekarau.
The Muhammadu Buhari Specialist Hospital in Giginyu and the Khalifa Sheikh Isyaka Rabi’u Paediatric Hospital on Zoo Road; both initiated under Shekarau and abandoned at early stages, were completed under Ganduje.
His administration also delivered the Aminu Dantata Flyover, completed many of the five-kilometre roads, advanced the Tiga Independent Power Project and institutionalised free education through the Kano State Free Basic and Secondary School Education Law of 2020.
This in addition to the initiation of new viable projects that included Prof. Hafsat Ganduje Cancer Treatment Centre, Aliko Dangote Integrated Skill Acquisition Centre, Muhammadu Buhari Interchange/Underpass, Dangi Interchange/Underpass, Panshekara/Madobi Junction Underpass, Sheikh Qariballah Flyover, Kofar Mata Flyover, among others.
These achievements are incompatible with the caricature of a leader hostile to development.
Rather, they reflect the posture of a governor unwilling to reduce the office he occupied to a department of what many perceived as a privately owned political enterprise.
Today, Kano finds itself at a familiar crossroads and a political dilemma.
The same independence for which Ganduje was once vilified, now appears to be the posture Governor Yusuf himself is being compelled to adopt as political realities shift and the gravitational pull of the federal centre intensifies.
This recurring pattern reinforces a fundamental truth which indicates that no governor, whether peer or protégé, ally or in-law, can indefinitely submit to overbearing political control.
The search for a governor willing to function as a political puppet for eight uninterrupted years is not only unrealistic; it is fundamentally incompatible with democratic governance.
Ultimately, Kano is larger than any movement, slogan or individual. Ideology cannot supersede constitutional authority, nor can it be invoked to excuse financial recklessness or unchecked dominance.
When governors assert independence in defence of transparency, accountability and institutional integrity, that is not betrayal, it is governance.
Ultimately, Kano is larger than any movement, slogan or individual. Ideology cannot supersede constitutional authority, nor can it be invoked to excuse financial recklessness or unchecked dominance.
When governors assert independence in defence of transparency, accountability, and institutional integrity, that is not betrayal; it is governance.
At this moment, those in government must learn to engage issues with professionalism and discernment, focusing on matters that unite rather than divide.
Comparisons between administrations based on a largely non-existent ideological framework are increasingly irrelevant, particularly at a time when Governor Yusuf appears poised to align with the ruling APC and must draw lessons from other governors on how best to move forward.
There is, in truth, no political party in Nigeria driven by a coherent ideology, let alone a movement built around the individuality of a single figure. What Kano needs now are progressive ideas capable of fostering political unity and accelerating development.
There have been retrogressive decisions such as aspects of the demolition of public and private property that even Governor Yusuf himself may not be entirely comfortable with.
At the same time, there are ongoing developmental policies and programmes under his administration that deserve encouragement.
Read also: Rabies Scare Grips Kano as Dog Bites 18 Residents
Kano’s needs will always outgrow the ambitions of any single individual. That reality, uncomfortable as it may be for some, remains the enduring constant in the state’s political evolution.
Garba is a former Commissioner for Information and Internal Affairs, Kano State and Chief of Staff to the former APC National Chairman.