Opinion
Leadership question and the issue of Nigeria’s national unity
Tanko Yakasai OFR
In December 2016, a lecture was organised in Kano to celebrate my 90th birthday. By then, it was a practice to celebrate the annual events of my birthday with public lectures. But since 2016, due to the cumbersome nature of organising such events, the annual celebration was suspended.
Instructively, however, at the celebration of my 90th birthday, my namesake Salihu, whom I mentioned in my autobiography, pointed out a mistake regarding the year we were born. Salihu is older than me by 40 days. He said we were born during the reign of Emir of Kano, Usman Dan Majekarofi in 1925 and not during the reign of Emir Abdullahi Bayero. He revealed that not only his parents told him so but also his school record in Shahuchi elementary school, confirmed that. This revelation encouraged me to investigate further in order to find out how the mistake regarding my date of birth came about.
To this end, the year of my first marriage served as the starting point. As I recorded in my autobiography, I first got married in 1945 which was the year the Second World War ended. I know for a fact that I had my first marriage at the age of 20. Furthermore, I also know that l married on the same day with Sabo Dan Galadiman Tanagar. He was blessed with a child in early 1946 and his personal records corroborated my account regarding the day of our marriage. These facts confirmed to me that the year of my birth was 1925 and not 1926. With this confirmation, my birthday records have been corrected accordingly.
I am very thankful to Almighty Allah for giving me a rare opportunity to once again witness another circle of celebrating my birthday anniversary. Previously, guest speakers were invited to speak at the anniversary. This year, it is very difficult to organize such gatherings mainly due to the global pandemic of Covid-19, and the laid down protocols of social distancing. Therefore, I decided to use this year’s occasion to address burning national issues. Accordingly, I picked what I consider important national issues that kept eluding the country for decades. These issues have over the years generated endless and often misleading debates; two of which are constitutional amendments and national population census.
Yoruba’s claim of inadequacy of 1999 constitution is inaccurate
It may be recalled that on the 11th of September, 2020, the Yoruba Summit Group held a meeting in Lagos and undertook an in-depth review of the State of Nigeria in relation to the interests and aspirations of the Yoruba Nation. At the end of that meeting, they issued a communique in which they stated their positions on some national issues, such as Constitutional Amendment, Census, and the National Waterways Bill (the latter being currently debated at the National Assembly), among others. It is in the light of this that I wish to use this occasion to highlight several key facts which could shed some light on the issues raised in the communique, starting with the constitutional review, which is also currently ongoing at the National Assembly.
The Yoruba Summit Group called for the jettisoning of the 1999 Constitution which they called “fatally flawed” on the excuse that the Constitution was a product of a military decree with imbalances that can stunt the aspirations of many ethnic groups, especially the Southwest zone.
To address this issue, let’s delve briefly into our recent history, especially how the General Abdulsalam Abubakar’s regime came up with the 1999 constitution. We can recall that on coming to power, he set up a Constitutional Review Committee headed by late Honorable Justice Niki Tobi of the Supreme Court, who hailed from the South-South. The Committee, after touring the country stated in its report that based on the memorandums received, the majority of people in Nigeria were not in support of a full scale constitutional conference.The Committee, therefore, decided to limit its recommendation to matters relating to updating the 1979 Constitution in the following key areas:
a. Additional number of states which were 19 in 1979 to 36 in 1999;
b. The Federal Character, including the creation of Federal Character Commission; and
c. Matters related to increase in population, among other issues
However, after concluding its work, nothing major was amended, removed or added to the 1979 Constitution by the committee. After the promulgation of the amended constitution, Thisday Newspaper commissioned its 3 senior editorial staff to undertake a comparison between the two constitutions. At the end of the exercise, Simon Kolawale who was among the 3 editors, published a report which he tagged “This Thing Called 1999 Constitution.” He observed that his team conducted a page by page analysis of the two constitutions and concluded that, except for the items updated above, the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions are the same, almost line by line.
The main take home is that the current 1999 Constitution was an updated version of the 1979 constitution, which was drafted with the full participation of elected and nominated individuals representing different segments of the country. It also benefitted from the endorsement of our known national leaders of the major ethnic groups, regions and political opinions of the country, including:
a. Dr Nnamdi Azikwe of the NCNC in the First Republic and NPP leader in 1979;
b. Chief Obafemi Awolowo of the Action Group (AG) in the First Republic and UPN during Second Republic;
c. Malam Aminu Kano of the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) during the First Republic and PRP in 1979;
d. Comrade Waziri Ibrahim of NPC and Great Nigerian People Party (GNPP) in 1979.
e. Chief Joseph Tarka of UMBC of First Republic and NPN in 1979.
f. Chief Harold Dappa Bitiye and Chief Milford Okilo of Nigeria Delta Congress (NDC) of First Republic and NPN in 1979.
It is also interesting to note that these leaders who represented different geopolitical zones of the country endorsed the Constitution and virtually all of them contested elections under the 1979 Constitutions which was a product of military decree. Among our founding political fathers only Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and Sir Ahmadu Bello the Sardauna of Sokoto who were not alive in 1979. Therefore, it is inaccurate for the Yoruba Summit Group to claim that the 1999 Constitution is “fatally flawed” on the ground that the Constitution was the product of military decree.
The second important issue of concern is the national population census. The Yoruba Summit Group and other people mainly from Southern Nigeria have disputed Nigeria’s national census figures. They obtrusively argued that the North was unduly favoured by the British in the conduct of national population census. On this too, let’s go down the memory lane, beginning with the first population census that was conducted in 1911, which predated the 1914 amalgamation. The first census conducted in Nigeria was in 1911. In that exercise, the British could not carry out the exercise across the two protectorates simultaneously due to lack of funds and logistical challenges. Therefore, they used the number of tax payers to determine the populations of the protectorates. The same method was applied in the 1921, and 1931 census exercises. In 1941 the census was not conducted due to the Second World War until 1952 and 1953. All these censuses conducted before the Independence, on the average, showed the North had 54% and the South had 46% of the total population.
For example, the total estimated population in 1911 was 18.72 million where the northern and Southern Provinces having 10 million and 8.16 million respectively. Futhermore, the 1921 census indicated a total of 10.26m for the North, which is 55.10%, while 8.37m for the South which represent 44.90% with a total figure of 18.63m. Similarly, in 1931 the total figure was 19.9 million; the North had 11.43 million and the South had 8.4 Million. In 1952 and 1953 when the first actual enumeration across the country was conducted, the total population was 31.1million. The North had 16.8million (54%) and the South 14.3million (46%) of the total population. It is important to note that the pre-independence censuses during the colonial era were initially for reasons of tax collection. The issues of revenue allocation and representation based on population was only introduced after independence. As such, the North had no basis or influence to tilt the percentage of their population in its favour. The colonial powers did not equally have any basis to favour the North in the census because in 1911 there was no entity called Nigeria.
After Independence, censuses were carried out in 1963, 1973, 1991 and then 2006. It is worth noting that the 1963 was eventually cancelled because of the dispute between the Eastern region and the Western regions, largely due to claim of irregularities made by the government of the eastern region in the discovery of some villages in the east which were not counted. This was objected to by the government of the western region. Eventually, the matter was resolved and another headcount was conducted in 1963 which was generally accepted and adopted.
Table 1: Summary of Population Census in Nigeria: 1911-2006
YEAR NORTH SOUTH
1911 55.00% 45.00%
1921 55.10% 44.90%
1931. 57.40 % 42.60%
1952 54.55% 45.45%
1962 56.77% 43.23%
1963 53.51% 46.49%
1973 64.99% 35.01%
1991 51.85% 48.15%
2006 53.59% 46.41%
Source: National Population Commission
Worthy of emphasis here is that during the pre-independence period, women in the North were not counted in the census exercises. This was because the headcount, at that time, was based on taxation, and northern women were not eligible tax payers, unlike their counterpart in the South who paid taxes and were therefore enumerated accordingly. Women taxation from the South led to the Onitsha women riot during 1953 census who felt that their numbers were unjustly increased as an excuse to pay more tax. It is therefore logical that the population of North, which consistently remain over 50% of the population prior to independence, would naturally increase when women were included in the post-independence censuses.
From the 1951 general election up to 1959, representation in government was introduced. The appointment of ministers were based on regional representation. At that period, the entire North had only 4 ministers, whereas the South had a total of 9; 4 from the west, 4 from the east and 1 from Southern Cameroons. It could therefore be argued that due to the non-inclusion of women in the census, the North was shortchanged on the appointment of ministers at the national level throughout the period of colonial administration.
Based on the above reality, it is clear that any claim by any group or individual that the North was being unduly favoured by the British on the issue of population is not supported by facts or history.
The third issue raised by the Yoruba Summit Group and others is the claim that Lagos and Kano have almost the same population but Lagos has 20 local governments while Kano has 44. Therefore they insisted that Kano was unduly favoured in the creation of local governments. In this regard, it is important to appreciate that local government creation was not based on population alone but it is also based on landmass as well. This is the reason why Kano with a landmass of 20,131 square kilometers has more local governments than Lagos which has just 3,345 square kilometers.
Arising from the above issues which continued to generate heated debates and ill-feeling, I’m very much concerned as an elder. What I found very disturbing is that such utterances are directed against the unity of our country. Such narratives resembled that of some political leaders way back in 1953 when a member of the defunct Action Group Party introduced a motion in the House of Representatives, asking Britain to grant independence to Nigeria by 1956. Another Northern member of the House proposed an amendment to the motion by changing 1956 to as soon as practicable. This was because as at 1953, the entire Northern Region, which had 75% of Nigeria’s landmass and about 55% of the country’s population, had only one graduate, Dr R.A.B Dikko. At the same time, the South had thousands of graduates from different fields of expertise including law, engineering, medicine, administration, social sciences, etc. with about 90% of the public services manpower in the North were made up of expatriates or Nigerians from the southern part of the country. Action Group leaders rejected the compromise proposed by the northern legislator in order to enable the north prepare itself for independence. This is because if Nigeria was granted independence by 1956, the North would be under the control of the civil servants from the South, a situation that will put the North under perpetual domination of the South, particularly people from the Western Region, which had the preponderance of the public servants at the time. Such a scenario would have been a perpetual source of tension which would not auger well for the future stability of the nation. That seems to be the origin of the hostility of some Action Group supporters against the North till date. It is my humble submission that the remnant of such predispositions should discouraged.
Recently, I read an online post of the number of billionaires in Nigeria with about 80% of them from the southern part of the country. Similarly, it is on record that the level of poverty index and unemployment are negligible in the South compared to the North which has over 65% of the Nigerian poor people. This has clearly demonstrated that our compatriots from the South benefited more from the Nigerian State than the north. Yet, the north never complains against this disparity even though many of the national endowments are located in the north.
Perhaps, the reason why northerners do not bother about the skewness in the national prosperity is their awareness that human resources and land are key important factors that make a nation great. So, with better education, social re-orientation, effective leadership and good governance, it is only a matter of time before they will catch up with their compatriots from the South. I recall that sixty years ago, when I visited the People’s Republic of China, the country was almost at the same level of development as Nigeria today. However, today China is next to the United States of America in terms of economic development and other areas of human endeavours.
Therefore, there is no gainsaying that Nigeria is endowed with human and material resources that can effectively be harnessed to bring faster growth and development for the benefit of all. Limited opportunity for growth and shrinking opportunities naturally fuel tension and decent. What we need are committed, competence and effective leaders to take the country to the Promised Land. To this end, only a strong political party equipped with vision, agenda for national development and effective process can provide the required leadership. It is therefore necessary to have credible and focused political parties that will be guided by their manifestos and will be willing to implement people’s oriented developmental programmes.
The Action Group was one of the parties that could have provided such a platform if it were able to convince Nigerians that it was for the welfare of every segment of the country. Unfortunately, the leaders of both Action Group and its successor, UPN mainly committed themselves to the interest of the Yoruba people, to the exclusion of the rest of the country. Prominent Northerners who joined the Action Group and UPN were given senior positions in the leadership of those parties but were shabbily treated and eventually they silently abandoned the parties. Such prominent northerners with such experiences include, Abba Maikwaru, Malam Ibrahim Imam, Hon. Muhammadu Basharu, Malam Jamo Funtua, J. S. Tarka, Chia Surma, Patrick Dokotri, Sen. Ibrahim Dimis, Jonah Assadugu, Malam Yabagi Bidda, Alh Maito of Ilorin, Sen Abaagu from Benue, Malam Maiyaqi from Southern Zaria, Malam Haruna Wakilin Doka from Sokoto, Mr Philip Maken from Ganye, Peter Gawon, senior brother of our former head of State, Gen. Yakubu Gowon and Malama Ladi ‘Yartakarda.
It is gladdening to note that today the remnant of Action Group and UPN leadership from Yoruba land are now part of our endangered species. There were many south westerners with total commitment to unity and progress of Nigeria in other political grouping such as the NCNC, NPN, and alike. Today, such southerners with national orientation are gradually evolving and must be encouraged.
While thanking Almighty God for his gift of life to us, it is incumbent on leaders and opinion holders to avoid engaging in divisive tendencies and explore avenues to ensure a peaceful, united and prosperous country. The North can and should encourage movement towards creating a better united Nigeria by reaching out to other regions and also demonstrating good governance and better capacity for managing the multiplicity and often conflicting national and regional interests. Indeed, the North must continue to search for people with the right vision, capacity and predisposition to represent the region in the national space while making concerted efforts to reduce the self-inflicted poverty and unemployment currently ravaging the region. By so doing, the South would clearly appreciate the strategic contribution of the North to national growth, stability and prosperity.
Thank you and God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Tanko Yakasai OFR, is Nigeria’s elder statesman based in Kano.
Dr Saleh Adamu Kwaru
Adding a staggering $20.52 billion and €1.05 billion to Nigeria’s debt burden is more than an economic miscalculation; it is a source of heartbreak for a nation already brought to its knees. At a time when millions of citizens are struggling to afford a single meal, grappling with historic inflation and watching their futures slip away, the government’s response appears to be to pile yet another mountain of debt on the country. This raises a painful question for every suffering Nigerian: When will our leaders finally acknowledge the pain their decisions inflict, and when will the bleeding stop?
The timing of this massive loan request is particularly troubling. Seeking to secure huge foreign loans on the eve of intense political activity and election seasons, when public anxiety is high and attention is divided, risks depriving citizens of the robust accountability the country deserves. Rather than looking inward, exercising fiscal discipline and improving public revenue management, the government appears to be rushing to mortgage the nation’s collective future. It feels less like responsible governance and more like a desperate attempt to lock in liabilities before the public can challenge them.
Nigeria’s national debt profile is already a ticking time bomb, placing enormous pressure on every sector of society. Every additional dollar borrowed increases the country’s financial obligations and diverts revenue that could otherwise support schools, equip hospitals and protect vulnerable citizens. Adding more than $20 billion to this burden risks pushing the country closer to the brink of a debt crisis, threatening to leave future generations trapped in a cycle of economic dependence. How much more hardship can ordinary Nigerians endure before the consequences of unsustainable borrowing become overwhelming?
We are repeatedly offered the same promises that these loans will transform electricity, roads, healthcare and education. But good intentions without transparency and accountability are not enough. Where is the visible evidence that previous loans have translated into better living conditions for ordinary Nigerians? Instead of seeing the promised improvements, many citizens continue to grapple with rising poverty while the country’s debt burden grows. When projects fail to generate sufficient economic returns to justify their costs, the burden ultimately falls on ordinary citizens through higher taxes, deteriorating public services and deeper economic hardship.
Before anyone commits future generations to repaying billions of dollars in new loans, the government must look Nigerians in the eye and explain how existing public resources are being managed. Why does borrowing appear to be the easiest option while systemic corruption and inefficiencies in public spending remain major concerns? Nigerians are exhausted by a system that leaves them bearing the consequences of decisions over which they have little control.
The country does not need another mountain of debt built on promises alone. It needs leaders committed to transparency, fiscal discipline, prudent resource management and the welfare of the people they have sworn to serve. Any new borrowing must be justified by clear development objectives, independently verifiable benefits and a credible repayment plan.
Nigeria cannot borrow its way out of every economic challenge. The government must demonstrate that it has exhausted reasonable alternatives, established safeguards against waste and corruption, and put the public interest above political convenience. Without these assurances, further borrowing risks deepening the hardship Nigerians already face and transferring an even heavier burden to generations yet unborn.
Dr Saleh Adamu Kwaru, is former staff of Central Bank of Nigeria.
Imam Murtadha Gusau
The killing of Katsina-based Islamic preacher Sheikh Yahaya Ibrahim Masussuka should serve as a warning against the dangers of religious extremism, sectarian hostility and the reckless attribution of blame before investigations are concluded.
Sheikh Masussuka was reportedly shot dead alongside his associate, Adamu Abubakar, by gunmen in Dutsin-Ma, Katsina State, on Monday, October 26, 2026. His death has generated tension, with allegations circulating on social media and among religious circles that members of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, particularly the Salafiyyah and Izalah movements, were responsible.
Those allegations have been complicated by an audio statement in which the terrorist group Ansaru reportedly claimed responsibility for the killings. The group was also reported to have cited Masussuka’s religious views, advocacy for interfaith dialogue and condemnation of violent extremism among its grievances against him.
These claims must be properly investigated and independently established. However, they underscore an important point: religious disagreements, however intense, must never become a licence for violence, and suspicion must never be mistaken for proof.
The danger of collective blame
Masussuka was a controversial religious figure whose Qur’an-centred teachings, including his rejection of the authority of Prophetic Hadith, brought him into theological disagreements with mainstream Islamic scholars.
In November 2025, he reportedly petitioned the Katsina State Government over alleged insults and threats from members of the Izalah movement. Such a history of disagreement may explain why some people quickly suspected his religious opponents after his killing. It does not, however, establish their responsibility for the crime.
In a society where religious identity can easily become a source of division, the temptation to blame an entire movement for the actions of individuals is dangerous. It can inflame tensions, provoke retaliation and endanger innocent people.
No religious group should be held collectively responsible for a crime without credible evidence. Equally, no individual or organisation should be shielded from investigation merely because of its religious affiliation or public standing.
The appropriate response to the killing is a thorough, impartial investigation that identifies the perpetrators, establishes their motives and brings those found culpable to justice.
The Katsina State Police Command and other relevant authorities must be allowed to carry out their responsibilities without pressure from partisan interests or religious factions. Members of the public, meanwhile, should resist the temptation to spread unverified allegations or mobilise others against people they suspect.
Justice cannot be secured through rumours, online accusations or reprisals. It requires evidence, due process and the courage to accept the outcome of a credible investigation.
Islam’s position on the sanctity of life
As a Muslim, I consider the protection of innocent life a fundamental obligation. The deliberate killing of an innocent person is a grave offence, and no interpretation of religion should be used to justify murder, intimidation or acts of terror.
Allah says in the Qur’an:
“Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption done in the land—it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one—it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.” (Qur’an 5:32)
This teaching places an enormous moral responsibility on every believer. Human life cannot be treated as disposable simply because someone holds a different opinion, belongs to another religious group or challenges a particular interpretation of scripture.
The Qur’an also instructs Muslims to invite people to the way of their Lord with wisdom and good counsel, and to engage them in the best possible manner (Qur’an 16:125).
This principle is particularly important when religious differences become contentious. Disagreement should be addressed through scholarship, dialogue and reasoned argument—not threats, intimidation or violence.
Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, like other Muslim communities, should be judged by the conduct of its adherents and the teachings they uphold, rather than by allegations that have not been established. Those who identify with the Sunnah must demonstrate through their conduct that their commitment to the faith is inseparable from justice, mercy and respect for human life.
At the same time, the rejection of terrorism must be universal. Violence does not become acceptable because its perpetrators claim to defend a religious cause, and no group can acquire immunity from scrutiny by invoking Islam.
Knowledge must defeat extremism
One of the most effective ways of confronting religious extremism is to promote sound Islamic scholarship and responsible religious leadership.
The history of Islam offers examples of scholars who confronted dangerous interpretations through knowledge and dialogue. Abdullah ibn Abbas, a Companion of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), is widely remembered in Islamic tradition for engaging the Khawarij, an early extremist group, in theological argument and challenging their interpretations of religious texts.
The lesson is that mistaken beliefs should be confronted with evidence, patience and sound scholarship. Violence against people suspected of holding erroneous views only deepens division and makes peaceful engagement more difficult.
Religious leaders therefore have a special responsibility to ensure that their sermons, teachings and public statements do not encourage hatred or legitimise harm against others. They must distinguish between correcting an idea and attacking the dignity or safety of the person who holds it.
This responsibility extends to social media, where provocative messages and unverified allegations can spread rapidly. Religious disputes that might otherwise remain confined to scholarly discussions can become public confrontations when users circulate inflammatory claims without checking their accuracy.
Muslims should refuse to participate in online campaigns that dehumanise opponents, encourage collective punishment or portray entire communities as enemies. The pursuit of truth requires intellectual honesty, while the defence of religion requires good character.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said that a Muslim is one from whose tongue and hand other people are safe. This teaching offers a practical standard by which believers should assess their conduct.
If our words expose innocent people to threats, or our actions endanger their lives, we must examine whether we are truly reflecting the values we profess.
Mercy is not weakness
The distinction between religious conviction and religious intolerance must be clearly understood. A person can hold firmly to a theological position without insulting, threatening or persecuting those who disagree.
Indeed, mercy does not require Muslims to abandon their beliefs. It requires them to uphold those beliefs without violating the rights of others.
The Prophet’s conduct provides a model of restraint and compassion. In a well-known account in Sahih al-Bukhari, a Bedouin urinated in the Prophet’s Mosque, prompting some Companions to react angrily. The Prophet instructed them to leave the man alone and have the affected area cleaned, explaining that people had been sent to make matters easier, not harder.
The lesson is not that wrongdoing should be ignored. Rather, correction should be proportionate, informed and directed towards addressing the problem instead of humiliating or destroying the person responsible.
This approach is relevant to contemporary religious disagreements. A person who expresses a controversial interpretation of Islam should be answered with knowledge and appropriate dialogue. Where conduct violates the law, the authorities should respond through lawful procedures. Neither theological disagreement nor public anger justifies private punishment.
Similarly, allegations of blasphemy, disbelief or deviation must not be treated as permission for individuals to take the law into their own hands. Accusations of this nature can have devastating consequences and must never become instruments for settling personal scores or advancing sectarian interests.
A responsibility shared by leaders and citizens
The killing of Sheikh Masussuka demands more than condemnation. It calls for a collective commitment to prevent further violence.
The police must investigate the killings professionally and pursue those responsible. Religious leaders must calm their followers and reject attempts to exploit the tragedy. Political and community leaders must discourage inflammatory rhetoric, while media organisations and social media users must verify information before publishing or sharing it.
The government should also pay attention to the conditions that allow extremist groups to recruit, intimidate communities and spread violent ideologies. Effective security measures must be accompanied by credible religious education, community engagement and opportunities for young people to seek guidance from knowledgeable and responsible scholars.
Above all, the authorities must ensure that the pursuit of justice does not become a pretext for harassment or reprisals against innocent people.
The killing of one person must not lead to the persecution of another. Nor should the grief of a victim’s family be exploited to deepen divisions within the Muslim community.
Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah adherents have a responsibility to reject violence committed in the name of Islam and to demonstrate that their commitment to the Sunnah is reflected in patience, compassion and respect for justice. Other religious communities and ideological groups have the same obligation to reject violence and hold their members accountable for wrongdoing.
The protection of innocent life is not the exclusive responsibility of one sect. It is a shared moral and civic duty.
Justice, not vengeance
The circumstances surrounding Sheikh Masussuka’s death must be established through a credible investigation. If Ansaru’s reported claim of responsibility is substantiated, the group’s involvement must be confronted through lawful security and judicial measures. If evidence implicates any other individuals, they too must answer for their actions.
Until then, Nigerians must resist the urge to turn suspicion into certainty or religious disagreement into collective condemnation.
The true test of religious commitment is not the intensity with which one denounces opponents, but the willingness to uphold truth and justice even when emotions run high. Faith should encourage self-restraint, protect human dignity and inspire people to seek peaceful solutions to their differences.
Nigeria has already paid a heavy price for violence driven by extremism and communal suspicion. The country cannot afford to allow another killing to become a trigger for fresh hostility.
Let the death of Sheikh Yahaya Ibrahim Masussuka strengthen, rather than weaken, our resolve to protect innocent lives, promote responsible religious dialogue and ensure that every allegation is tested against evidence.
Islam must not be used as a cover for terrorism, and religious disagreement must never become an excuse for murder. The path forward is clear: reject extremism, condemn false accusations, protect the innocent and allow justice to take its course.
Imam Murtadha Muhammad Gusau is the Chief Imam of Nagazi-Uvete Jumu’ah Mosque and the late Alhaji Abdur-Rahman Okene’s Mosque, Okene, Kogi State, Nigeria.
Prof Ibrahim Bello-Kano (IBK)
Malam Ibrahim Mu’azzam is arguably the most influential person and university teacher in my academic and intellectual development. Although I studied Sociology rather than Political Science, I audited his courses and attended his lectures throughout my early and later undergraduate years.
One of the qualities that distinguished him then, and which he has retained to this day, is his charismatic personality and the natural attraction he exerts on students through his wide-ranging knowledge, teaching expertise and remarkable ability to inspire intellectual curiosity. Students passionate about ideas and critical thinking were always drawn to his approach to introducing complex concepts to an often bewildered classroom.
Malam Mu’azzam, as we fondly call him, was a magnet for ideas and a model of critical intellectual engagement. In those days, he probably had one of the largest personal libraries or private studies. Scores of undergraduate and postgraduate students trooped to his home, which he moved to after leaving the university quarters.
We marvelled at his extraordinary collection of books spanning numerous disciplines, far beyond his formal academic specialisation and teaching responsibilities. His study contained, and continues to contain, books on a wide range of subjects, including the philosophy of science, theology, education, English, linguistics and, of course, classic and highly acclaimed works in the social sciences, Political Science and Geography.
I still remember an incident in 1988 when Malam and I travelled to the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, for an Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) delegates’ conference. I accompanied him to the university bookshop and watched him purchase books across a variety of academic disciplines. That experience inspired me to follow his example by building a collection of books from different fields—a habit I have sustained to this day.
Despite his formal retirement after a long career at Bayero University, Kano (BUK), Malam remains intellectually active. He continues to work with us at the Ibrahim Mu’azzam Institute of Philosophy, organised by the Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD).
His continued engagement is a remarkable testament to his enduring contributions to teaching, critical scholarship and the advancement of knowledge within and beyond the academic community. Malam Mu’azzam’s influence extends far beyond the classroom, inspiring generations of students and scholars to embrace intellectual curiosity, independent thought and lifelong learning.
Prof Ibrahim Bello-Kano (IBK), teaches at Bayero University, Kano.
Kano Sports Commission congratulates Waiya on appointment as youth, sports commissioner
Governor Yusuf swears in six commissioners, three advisers, 19 permanent secretaries
Kano Cabinet Reshuffle: Waiya Moves from Information to Youths and Sports Ministry
Network of Reproductive Health Journalists mourns Niger coordinator, Habibah Alabura
Albasu APC ieaders accuse council chairman, state assembly member of anti-party activities
Kano must make government procurement work for made-in-Kano
Indonesian scholar proposes waqf model to reform almajiri education in Nigeria
Nigeria’s Data Demand Surges 47% as Stakeholders Seek Fresh Investment in Digital Infrastructure
Kano Settles N32bn Pension, Gratuity Liabilities, Says Gov Yusuf
