The recent realignment within the African Democratic Congress (ADC) is a direct response to its founding promise of transparency, accountability, and people-centered politics, free from money politics, godfatherism, and elite domination. The party seeks to harness a powerful opposition coalition while safeguarding its founding ideals from elite capture. Success will depend on how rigorously the ADC enforces its transparency and accountability mechanisms as the 2027 race intensifies.
As the 2027 elections approach, that promise is being put to the test. The ADC’s realignment is a high-stakes balancing act. The party must decide whether to open its doors to opportunistic politicians whose primary currency is personal ambition. Such “wolves” may bring short-term numbers, but they threaten the party’s credibility, cohesion, and long-term legacy. The ADC’s true strength lies in shared values, not in the whims of any single individual.
If the ADC admits politicians driven more by personal ambition than by shared ideals, it risks undermining its very foundation. As electioneering draws nearer, the party stands at a crossroads: either remain faithful to its principles or sacrifice them for short-term political advantage. Its credibility, cohesion, and long-term relevance depend on choosing the former.
As Nigeria moves toward the 2027 general elections, the country needs leaders of integrity—visionary, unifying, and committed to national development above sectional or personal interests. Such leaders must be accountable, open to competent new talent, and committed to institution-building, job creation, poverty reduction, and national cohesion, rather than divisive, self-serving politics.
At this critical moment, Nigerians cannot afford leadership captured by individuals who exploit poverty and emotion through populist rhetoric while pursuing narrow ambitions. Citizens must distinguish between politicians who seek power and wealth for themselves and those who serve with integrity, transparency, and a genuine commitment to community development.
A political party is bigger than any individual. It is built on shared values and collective purpose, not personal ownership. When individuals attempt to dominate a party, democracy weakens and godfatherism thrives.
Even before the election season, there is a real possibility that the ruling establishment could attempt to weaken opposition forces through proxy infiltration, sowing discord within emerging coalitions.
This concern is heightened as the PDP faces what may be its weakest moment since inception.
Atiku Abubakar has emerged as a central figure in a new opposition coalition that has adopted the ADC as its platform for 2027. The coalition includes figures such as former Senate President David Mark (interim national chairman), former Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola (interim secretary), Nasir El-Rufai, Rotimi Amaechi, and others. They have held consultations on party structure and strategy, advocating transparent primaries and urging members—including Peter Obi—to fully transition into the ADC. Atiku’s exit from the PDP and registration with the ADC signal a coordinated effort to challenge the APC government.
This context raises a critical question: can the ADC afford to admit politicians whose entry is conditioned on personal guarantees?
One recurring feature of some Kano-based politicians is the tendency to conflate local dominance with national relevance. Through emotionally charged rhetoric, such figures mobilize loyal supporters while mistaking regional popularity for nationwide appeal. More troubling is the practice of setting conditions even before joining a party.
Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, has openly stated that he would only defect to another party if offered the presidential or vice-presidential ticket for 2027. He argued that his decades-long political career entitles him to such consideration, insisting that his supporters would accept nothing less. Yet this posture contrasts sharply with the conduct of other coalition members who have subordinated personal ambition to collective negotiation. To demand special concessions while others make sacrifices raises serious questions about motive, sensitivity, and commitment to a shared cause.
This article is not rooted in personal animosity or partisan loyalty. Rather, it examines a political style defined by populism, personality-driven movements, and frequent party migration motivated by immediate ambition rather than ideology. Kwankwaso commands a loyal base in Kano, where he is celebrated as a champion of the masses.
Beyond that stronghold, however, his career is marked by serial defections—from PDP to APC to NNPP—each aligned with personal calculations rather than consistent principles. Supporters describe this as pragmatism; critics call it political nomadism.
Recent developments in Kano have punctured the myth of Kwankwaso’s invincibility. Political ruptures within the state have exposed a reality long obscured by propaganda: his influence depends heavily on access to state power.
Without control of institutional machinery, his dominance diminishes. Electoral outcomes reinforce this limitation. In the last presidential election, Atiku Abubakar secured over seven million votes, Peter Obi over six million, while Kwankwaso garnered just 1.14 million—nearly all from Kano.
Governor Abba Yusuf’s anticipated defection to the APC further signals a shift in Kano’s political landscape. While the Kwankwasiyya movement remains relevant, its grip on state power is weakening. This moment calls for recalibration, not confrontation. Politics is not a do-or-die affair, and clinging to power at all costs risks eroding both dignity and legacy.
Reports of behind-the-scenes meetings involving Kwankwaso and former President Olusegun Obasanjo, along with speculation that he could be used to destabilize opposition parties, only deepen concerns about his role in any coalition. As his influence wanes, he increasingly portrays himself as a victim of betrayal, rallying supporters with narratives that elevate personal loyalty above political evolution.
In a political maneuver aimed at self-preservation, reports claimed that the former NNPP presidential candidate sought the intervention of Chief Bisi Akande to arrange a direct meeting with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to negotiate his defection. Akande reportedly declined, stressing that he could not bypass established party structures, and instead referred Kwankwaso to the party’s official high-level negotiation committee.
The NNPP has also stated that, according to its constitution, the Kano State governor is the party leader, being its only sitting governor. Kwankwaso, they noted, was merely the party’s 2023 presidential candidate—an arrangement that ended after the election when the Memorandum of Association between the party and the Kwankwasiyya Movement expired.
Despite his anxiety about his political future, Kwankwaso has been unable to explain to the youths—whose blind loyalty he still relies on—why many long-standing allies dating back to 1999 have walked away. Absent from his narrative is any reckoning with his habit of discarding those who helped build his career: Senator Hamisu Musa, Musa Gwadabe, Abubakar Rimi, among others. Political independence is not betrayal; it is a legitimate pursuit.
When Abdullahi Ganduje parted ways with Kwankwaso, he endured ridicule and abuse. In my view, Kwankwaso and his supporters should at least appreciate Abba Gida-Gida’s restraint in not publicly recounting the unpleasant experiences surrounding his emergence as governor under the NNPP. While the Kwankwaso–Abba conflict is fundamentally political—a struggle for solutions and self-determination—there remains a clear distinction between betrayal, the pursuit of solutions, and the quest for independence from total submission. Madugo’s recent speeches, laden with symbolism and coded language aimed at Governor Abba Yusuf, reflect nothing more than a troubling lack of restraint.
For Atiku, other heavyweight politicians, and the ADC, the lesson is clear: no serious political party should mortgage its future on conditional loyalty or personal ambition. The party’s strength lies in its principles, not in accommodating politicians who seek to bend its vision to their own ends.
At this stage, Kwankwaso’s political control appears to have reached its limits. History shows that successful politicians understand timing, terrain, and temperament. They fight when the cause is just, support is solid, and victory is achievable. They retreat when the odds are stacked, when emotion outweighs reason, or when temporary withdrawal can prevent permanent defeat. It may be time for him to step aside gracefully, preserve his dignity, and protect his legacy. When an ant becomes arrogant, it grows wings.
Power is not bestowed by any individual; it is granted by Allah alone, who gives and withdraws authority as He wills. Both Islam and Christianity affirm this truth: power is a divine trust, not personal property. Any posture that suggests authority flows from personal will contradicts both faith and reality.
Mahmud writes from Hadejia Road, Kano