Opinion
Adieu The Lion: A Tribute to late Ghali Na’abba
Auwalu Anwar PhD
On Wednesday, 27th December 2023, the former Speaker, House of Representatives (2000−2003), Rt. Honourable Ghali Umar Na’Abba, died at the National Hospital, Abuja around 3.00 a.m. I had been associated with him since our childhood days, beginning from 1968, when I was admitted into Goron Dutse Primary School, at the age of twelve, and he was at Mayanka Senior Primary School section within the same premises. He was ten years old. Since we knew each other, we maintained a cordial and mutually respectful relationship up to the time he died.
In 1990, when I was getting married, Ghali was one of those who made financial contribution to support me. Interestingly, we differed in the choice of political parties during the Second Republic (1978−1983). Ghali’s father, Alhaji Umar Na’Abba, and some of his brothers were strong supporters of the NEPU in the First Republic (1960−1966). However, Ghali was influenced by his maternal uncle, Alhaji Bashir Othman Tofa, to join the NPN instead of the PRP and, much later, the NRC instead of the SDP during General IBB’s transition programme. PRP and SDP were the preferred political platforms in Kano, in those days.
It was, somewhat, surprising that in 1999 Ghali did not follow his uncle, Bashir, to the APP, which later became the ANPP, but decided to contest for the House of Representatives, from Kano Municipal Federal Constituency, on the platform of the PDP. In fact, up to the time of his emergence as Speaker, Ghali’s mother, Hajiya Rabi, was an active and proud member of the APP in solidarity with her brother.
When campaign for the position of Speaker started among members-elect, in 1999, Ghali was leading Ibrahim Salisu Buhari’s Team while I was in charge of Farouk Lawan’s Team. There was a time he requested that I should join hands with them and campaign for Buhari, who, he rightly predicted, had brighter chances of winning the contest.
In response, I informed him that if he were the one contesting, I might make an effort to reconcile the two teams, because I had relationship with him and with Farouk Lawan. Buhari was, at that time, not well known to me. Regardless of my rejection of his request, he promised that if his candidate won, he would make sure I was appointed Special Adviser (Political) to the Speaker. He further indicated that they were after success not politics.
When he subsequently emerged as Speaker, I went to Abuja to congratulate him and also offer some pieces of advice on certain things I considered fundamental for his success as a leader in a political context, but also as an individual, and a friend. When I visited his residence, there was heavy traffic and he was about to go out at the time. He asked of where I was staying and he later came to see me that night. We had a lengthy and fruitful discussion.
As an individual, I reminded him that he was a businessman before he went into politics. As such, he should neither regard politics as an occupation nor close his business, completely. Of course, it would be unethical for him to handle both, simultaneously, but he could delegate his business activities to an individual, a team, or a relevant institution that he considered safe enough to hold the trust without any violation.
He listened to me attentively, and later asked whether I could remember his promise to get me appointed as their adviser on political affairs? Having responded positively, he informed me to await his invitation, now that he had the authority to appoint, directly.
About a month after my visit, three of our mutual friends, namely: Dauda Raula, Ubaliye Lancaster, and Baba Adoke came to my house in Kano to tell me that Speaker Na’Abba wanted to see me, urgently. They also hinted that he wanted to appoint me as an adviser. They were very enthusiastic and wanted me to follow them to Abuja the following day. I explained why I could not go to Abuja, immediately, and requested them to tell the Honourable Speaker that I would meet him after a week. I went at the time I promised.
The work of a political adviser was neither easy nor understood by most people, but especially the partisan elements masquerading as grassroots politicians. This will be explained in detail in my memoirs. The Ghali-Obasanjo uneasy relationship was more complex than most people perceived its ingredients, when it lasted. The two personalities represented distinct objective categories of a single reality: Project Nigeria.
By 1979, OBJ was a retired General of the Nigerian Army, a Civil War Hero, and a former Head of State. He was an exemplary African leader who relinquished power to fulfil a promise made by his predecessor. He was celebrated across the world. Thus, earning him a position in the prestigious Eminent Persons Group of the Commonwealth. OBJ was indeed considered by many as a symbol of military success in politics and governance in Africa.
Unlike OBJ, Na’Abba graduated in Political Science from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) of the prestigious Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, in 1979. He was a product of the radical ideological tradition established by world-class scholars such as Patrick Wilmot, Yusufu Bala Usman, and Ibrahim Tahir in ABU. Na’Abba was, by his training and orientation, a direct opposite of OBJ on the definition and substance of a successful political system and what constituted the concept of ‘legitimacy’ in governance.
The fundamental differences in perspectives between Na’Abba and OBJ on what should be the content of politics, including the notion of directive principles of state policy were what, largely, accounted for their endless conflict when fate brought them to work together, in complementary positions, for the progress of Nigeria. None of them might have been deliberately mischievous to sabotage the other. Each was convinced in the superiority of his position in the conflict. OBJ saw loyalty as complete submission to superior authority and Na’Abba questioned the propriety of such a militaristic interpretation.
The Na’Abba-OBJ conflict had been disastrous for both Kano and northern Nigeria in the sense that both the Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, and the Governor of Kano State, Rabi’u Musa Kwankwaso were not, in any way, collaborating with the Speaker to ensure a better deal for these two jurisdictions in the administration. This made me to seek for permission from the Speaker to meet and discuss the issue of possible areas for understanding with both Atiku and Kwankwaso.
He permitted me and two of my friends working with the other leaders facilitated the meeting. I was granted permission to see the Vice President through his Special Assistant on Local Government Affairs, Dr. Umar Ardo, and the Special Adviser (Political) to Kwankwaso, Dr. Hafiz Abubakar, secured an appointment for me to meet with the Governor of Kano State. After my meeting with the two leaders and my subsequent discussions with Na’Abba, it appeared to me that communication gap and mutual ego considerations were at the centre of their misunderstanding. This was not to discount the fact that both Atiku and Kwankwaso were playing it safe with President Obasabjo, their leader.
Although many people, both supporters and detractors, did not understand Na’Abba’s motivation in his conflict with the Executive at that time, the reality was, the Speaker, single-handedly, was the only real check on the Executive. He became the only potent opposition that made dictatorial tendencies to collapse and evaporate. At a point, all members of the Board of Trustees (BoT) of the PDP, with a few exceptions, were coming to support and thank him for speaking truth to power. He was named “Lion” by his colleagues in recognition of this fact.
A few months to the end of his tenure as Speaker, a group of northern elders sent a message, they wanted him to contest for the presidency of Nigeria in 2003. He summoned his Special Adviser (Special Duties), Mr. Sebastian Agbinda, and my humble self for a meeting at which he informed us of the development and sought for our opinion. He gave us two days to reflect on the matter and report our findings to him. He seemed truly excited about the offer.
Our understanding was that, the offer was a hoax and a booby-trap. The so-called elders, in our opinion, wanted to simply mess up our Principal and clear the way for their friend, OBJ, to have his way in what he wanted to do with Nigeria. However, we did not know how to convince Na’Abba to reject the offer.
In the end, we informed him that the risk was worth taking especially coming from our ‘elders.’ However, we calculated what was needed for logistics before the project could succeed. We advised him to request the leaders to raise half of the amount for him to put the process in motion. He should also confirm to them that if they raised the amount, he would resign from his position as Speaker and join another party to contest for the presidency. This was how we killed the plot to embarrass Na’Abba!
Na’Abba’s failure to return to the House of Representatives in 2003 was as a result of high-level conspiracy involving internal and external forces, representing domestic, local and national interests. The actual roles played by individuals and groups to sabotage Ghali during the general elections are better left unmentioned. Otherwise, there could be an in-fighting galore even within the extended family of the Na’Abba clan. I am saying this on good authority as his Special Adviser on Political Matters. I am aware of what actually happened, which many others didn’t know.
Na’Abba’s last two decades had been characterized by unfulfilled dreams and health-related challenges. He was among those who left the PDP with Atiku Abubakar and joined the AC in 2007. He attempted to contest for the gubernatorial seat in Kano, but was not supported by other leaders in the party.
He later returned to the PDP. In 2011, his house was among those destroyed by Buhari-inspired arsonists in some major cities in northern Nigeria, when their candidate lost the presidential election.
Surprisingly, Na’Abba joined Buhari’s APC in 2014 and when the party won the election in 2015, he was among the multitude that were thrown away by the unrepentant dictator, Muhammadu Buhari. He returned to the PDP before the 2023 general election but could not work harmoniously with the party and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar.
Since he left office in 2003, Na’Abba had been struggling to survive with multiple shortages. He literally had no house of his own since his Villa in Kano was demolished by Buhari’s thugs. He survived on the goodwill of some of his friends, former colleagues, and his successors in the National Assembly. He was threatened with Court Order and eviction in two of the houses he rented in Abuja, due to continuous deficit in the payment of rent.
He lived to witness the total capitulation of the parliament and its disgraceful submission to an irresponsible, inept, corrupt and treacherous Buhari-led gang of thieves, robbers, and treasury looters. To make matters worse, the presidency of the National Assembly was in the hands of someone, who was in the vibrant House of Representatives presided by Ghali Umar Na’Abba. He always lamented the calamity that had befallen the Nigerian parliament whenever I visited him in his last days.
Religion was, surely, the only area in which Na’Abba got some solace before his death. He became devotedly committed to the activities of the Tijjaniyya Brotherhood. He sometimes organized the celebration of the birthday of the Prophet (Maulidi) and, at one time, invited people believed to be descendants of the Prophet (Sharifai) to have a feast. He developed great admiration and respect for the intellectual prowess of the Shi’a School of Thought.
He associated with and obliged to the requests of many clerics: the genuine, the undefined, and the charlatans. May Allah forgive his sins and grant him paradise. Amin.
Anwar, was a Special Adviser Political Affairs to former Speaker Na’abba.
Opinion
State Police in Nigeria: Understanding the true position of the proposed constitutional framework
DIG Mohammed Usaini Gumel (Rtd.)
The renewed national debate on state policing has sparked intense discussions. Supporters see it as a solution to Nigeria’s worsening security challenges. Critics, however, fear political abuse and threats to national unity. Given these differing views, it is important to understand the true constitutional position of the current proposals before the National Assembly.
An examination of the *Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Sixth Alteration) Bill, 2026 (SB. 1055)*, along with the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC) analysis of the earlier House Bill (HB. 617), shows that the proposed framework is neither a full transfer of policing powers to the states nor a continuation of the current centralized system. Instead, it introduces a cooperative federal policing model.
This model balances state autonomy with national standards and constitutional safeguards.
The first key point is that the Federal Police will not be abolished. The proposal creates a Federal Police Service while allowing State Police Services to operate alongside it. The Federal Police will continue to handle federal responsibilities, including counter-terrorism, cybercrime investigations, border security, organized crime, inter-state offences, and the protection of federal institutions and assets.
It is also important to note that state policing is not compulsory. States that lack the financial or institutional capacity to establish their own police services can continue to rely entirely on the Federal Police Service. In simple terms, the amendment gives states a choice, not an obligation, to establish their own police organizations.
The proposed framework sets strict conditions before a State Police Service can begin operations. A state must pass its own enabling law, establish the required institutions, and obtain certification confirming that it meets nationally defined minimum standards.
These standards will cover recruitment, training, vetting, discipline, firearms management, the use of force, accountability systems, and criminal information management.
One of the most debated issues is the possibility of federal interference in state policing. The Senate Bill addresses this concern by limiting federal intervention to exceptional situations. Such intervention may occur where there is an actual or imminent breakdown of public order. It may also occur if a governor requests assistance, if a State Police Service becomes unable to function, if there is evidence of widespread violations of fundamental rights, or if threats extend beyond state borders and affect national security.
Any federal intervention must be temporary, necessary, and proportionate. It must also be subject to judicial review. The President must authorize it in writing, and notice must be given to the Governor, the State House of Assembly, the National Police Council, and the National Assembly. In addition, such intervention cannot dissolve a State Police Service or suspend democratic institutions, except as permitted under existing constitutional provisions.
The framers of the Bill have also addressed concerns about possible misuse of State Police Services by governors. The proposed safeguards expressly prohibit governors from directing State Commissioners of Police to target political opponents, political parties, associations, or groups outside the provisions of the law.
Commissioners who believe a directive is unlawful or inconsistent with national standards may seek a review through the appropriate Police Service Commission or the courts.
To strengthen institutional independence, the proposed amendments provide security of tenure for both the Inspector-General of Police and State Commissioners of Police. Their removal would require valid reasons, a fair hearing, recommendations from the National Police Council, and approval by a two-thirds majority of the relevant legislature.
These measures reflect widely accepted international standards for democratic policing.
Another important feature of the framework is the clear limitation on federal control over State Police Services. While the National Assembly will establish national minimum standards, it will not exercise routine control over appointments, promotions, transfers, suspensions, dismissals, or operational decisions within State Police Services. The only exception is during constitutionally approved interventions.
This approach preserves state autonomy while ensuring consistent professional and ethical standards nationwide.
The PLAC analysis correctly notes that the proposed model does not create a fully independent state policing system. Instead, it incorporates elements of federal oversight to address concerns relating to funding, accountability, human rights protection, and potential political misuse. The objective is to decentralize policing without weakening national unity or undermining the constitutional order.
Viewed objectively, the proposed amendment seeks to balance local responsiveness with national integrity. It aims to bring policing closer to communities while maintaining safeguards against abuse. It also protects the shared security interests of the Federation.
In essence, Nigeria is not moving toward two competing police systems. Rather, it is moving toward a cooperative federal policing arrangement. This model recognizes the need for local control of security issues while preserving constitutional mechanisms that safeguard democracy, human rights, and national unity.
The success of this initiative will depend not only on constitutional provisions but also on the strength of institutions, adherence to professionalism, and the political will to uphold the rule of law. Like any major reform in a democratic society, state policing should be judged not only by fears but also by the safeguards it contains and the practical benefits it can bring to the security and welfare of Nigerians.
DIG Mohammed Usaini Gumel (Rtd.).
Opinion
Youths, Sports, and Discipline: Building a Drug-Free Future
By Jamilu Uba Adamu
Since 1987, June 26 has been designated by the United Nations as the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking—a day set aside to raise awareness about the dangers of drug abuse and its devastating effects on individuals and society. This year’s theme, “The World Drug Problem: Persisting Issues, New Challenges, Innovative Responses,” reminds us that while the fight against drugs continues, our strategies must evolve.
Simply put, the drug problem is still with us. New drugs continue to emerge, and we must respond with innovative solutions, including the use of sports to keep our youths engaged and productive.
Nigeria’s greatest resource is not oil; it is its youth. The energy, creativity, and determination of young people will determine whether we build a stronger nation or lose a generation. One of the most effective tools for channeling that energy positively is sports—but only when it is built on discipline.
Sports is more than playing football on weekends or sprinting on the track. It teaches valuable life lessons. When a young person wakes up at 5:00 a.m. for training, they learn punctuality. When a team loses and returns to train harder, they learn resilience. When eleven players on a pitch follow the instructions of one coach, they learn respect for authority, teamwork, and discipline.
Here in Kano, the effects of drug abuse are both painful and visible. Drug abuse is fueling fadan daba, phone snatching, and other violent crimes across our streets and communities. The truth is simple: idle hands are the devil’s workshop, while busy feet on the pitch have little time for crime or drugs.
Talent without discipline is wasted talent. Many of our youths possess enormous potential, but without discipline, that potential often turns into frustration. Discipline means:
- Self-control — saying “no” to peer pressure, drugs, and violence.
- Consistency — training even when no one is watching.
- Respect — for rules, opponents, coaches, and oneself.
A boxer who cannot control his temper outside the ring will never become a champion inside it. A footballer who skips training will never wear the national jersey. Discipline is the bridge between potential and achievement.
In our communities, we see too many young lives derailed by drugs. The equation is clear: idleness + bad company + lack of purpose = drug abuse. Sports helps break that cycle.
Let us encourage our youths to choose the pitch over the street corner and the “jungle.” Let them choose training over idleness. Let discipline be their guide in life, just as it is in sports.
To parents, schools, and government: invest in sports facilities and mentorship programmes across our 44 Local Government Areas. Every playing field we build in Kano is a prison we may never need. Every disciplined athlete we nurture is a future leader we secure.
If we get this right, Kano, with its vibrant and youthful population, will not only win trophies at national sporting events but will also reclaim its promising young people from the grip of drug abuse and crime.
Mr. Jamilu Uba Adamu is the Officer-in-Charge of Sports, NDLEA Kano Strategic Command.
He can be reached via jameelubaadamu@yahoo.com.
Opinion
Power belongs to Allah; Re-election is not a do-or-die affair – Gov. Yusuf
Urges electorate to remain peaceful, prayerful, and law-abiding
By Lamara Garba
The Governor of Kano State, Alhaji Abba Kabir Yusuf, has declared that his political future, including the question of re-election in 2027, rests entirely in the hands of Almighty Allah, stressing that political power is neither a matter of life and death nor something that any individual can permanently give or take away.
Governor Yusuf made the remarks while addressing Kano pilgrims and Hajj officials in Makkah during a Sallah visit on Wednesday.
Speaking before hundreds of pilgrims, the Governor quoted verses from the Holy Qur’an, reminding the faithful that ultimate authority belongs to Allah alone, who grants power to whom He wills and withdraws it whenever He pleases.
According to him, while politicians and their supporters often become consumed by political calculations and permutations, true believers understand that leadership is a divine trust bestowed by Allah at His appointed time.
“Power belongs to Allah alone. He gives leadership to whom He wills and takes it away from whom He wills. No human being can stop what Allah has destined, and no one can impose what Allah has not ordained,” Governor Yusuf said.
The Governor noted that he remains completely submissive to the will of Allah regarding future political developments, including his possible re-election, insisting that his focus remains on serving the people of Kano State diligently rather than becoming distracted by political anxiety.
He stressed that elective office should never be viewed as a do-or-die affair, adding that public service is meaningful only when carried out with sincerity, the fear of God, and a commitment to the welfare of the people.
“Leadership is not a matter of life and death. What matters most is serving humanity, discharging one’s responsibilities faithfully, and leaving the rest to Allah. Whatever Allah decrees will surely come to pass,” he stated.
Governor Yusuf, however, urged Kano citizens to remain politically conscious and actively participate in the democratic process by ensuring that they possess valid voter cards ahead of future elections.
He called on those whose voter cards require renewal to do so promptly and encouraged eligible citizens who have not yet registered to take advantage of the registration exercise before it closes.
The Governor said voter registration remains a civic responsibility that enables citizens to exercise their constitutional right to choose leaders and contribute to the growth and development of society.
He also appealed to the pilgrims to continue praying for peace, unity, stability, and prosperity in Kano State and Nigeria as a whole.
Observers believe Governor Yusuf’s remarks reflect growing confidence within his administration following what many regard as remarkable achievements recorded over the past three years in education, healthcare, infrastructure development, agriculture, human capital development, and women and youth empowerment.
The Governor maintained that while political debates and speculations may continue, the final decision on who occupies positions of authority rests with Almighty Allah, whose decree cannot be altered by any human effort.
