RE: OPEN LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY, PRESIDENT BOLA AHMED TINUBU, GCFR
President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
KANO AT A CROSSROADS: A CALL FOR IMPARTIALITY, OBJECTIVITY AND AN END TO SELECTIVE OUTRAGE OVER THE KANO EMIRATE DISPUTE
Your Excellency,
I write in response to the open letter issued by the Kano Patriotic CSOs Coalition Forum (KPCF), which calls for presidential intervention in the ongoing Kano Emirate dispute.
However, serious questions arise regarding the identity, credibility and verifiability of those behind the letter. Although the document appears to have been issued under the banner of civil society advocacy in Kano State, concerns arise over whether the individuals and organisations associated with it are properly identifiable, particularly in the absence of verifiable contact details, such as official addresses or telephone numbers through which their identities and affiliations can be independently confirmed. These concerns make it necessary to ask whether the letter genuinely represents a credible and accountable coalition of civil society organisations or whether it was issued by individuals whose identities and affiliations have yet to be independently established.
While the coalition claims to be committed to peace, good governance, human rights, democracy and peaceful coexistence, a careful examination of its letter raises serious questions about its impartiality, consistency and willingness to address the issues surrounding the Kano Emirate dispute fairly.
A genuine appeal for peace must be founded on facts, fairness and equal treatment of all parties. It must not be driven by personal interests, political affiliations or a desire to please certain individuals who may have interests in the matter.
Unfortunately, the impression created by the KPCF letter is that of a document written from a position of bias, personal preference and a determination to satisfy its perceived paymasters rather than provide an objective assessment of the situation in Kano.
If the coalition genuinely seeks peace, why does its concern appear to be directed predominantly at one side of the dispute? Why has it failed to demonstrate the same level of concern when similar questions about compliance with government directives and security restrictions have arisen in connection with the other side?
Peace cannot be achieved through selective condemnation, politically motivated accusations or the deliberate omission of facts that may not favour a preferred narrative.
KANO IS AT A CROSSROADS: BUT WHO IS TRULY PROMOTING PEACE?
The KPCF letter portrays Kano as being on the brink of a major crisis and presents the situation as requiring urgent presidential intervention.
While the maintenance of peace and security in Kano is undoubtedly important, the public must be given an honest and balanced account of the circumstances surrounding the current tensions.
The existence of political disagreements or a dispute involving traditional institutions does not automatically mean that the state is on the verge of social upheaval. Responsible organisations should distinguish between verified incidents, political disagreements, allegations and speculative predictions of violence.
The coalition should therefore explain the factual basis for its alarming assessment rather than rely on language that could unnecessarily heighten public anxiety.
More importantly, those who claim to be concerned about peace must demonstrate that concern consistently. They cannot ignore alleged acts of disobedience or provocative public statements when they involve individuals they appear to favour, only to become vocal when the same issues concern their perceived opponents.
Peace must not be used as a political slogan to defend one side and condemn another. It must be a principle applied equally to everyone.
OUR CONCERN OVER ALLEGED INFLAMMATORY STATEMENTS: WHAT EXACTLY DID AMINU BABBA DAN’AGUNDI DO WRONG?
The KPCF letter expresses concern over statements attributed to Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan’agundi, the Sarkin Dawaki Babba, suggesting that his comments were unfortunate and potentially inflammatory.
However, the coalition has not convincingly established what specific wrongdoing it believes he committed.
From the information available to us, Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan’agundi informed the Emir of Kano, His Highness Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero, about the government’s directive and urged compliance with it.
If that is the substance of his intervention, what exactly is the offence?
Is informing a traditional ruler about a government directive and encouraging him to comply with it an act of incitement? Is advising a public figure to respect a lawful government order now considered a threat to peace?
The coalition must explain what it considers inflammatory about such conduct instead of making broad allegations without adequately establishing the context.
There is nothing inherently inflammatory about urging compliance with a government directive. On the contrary, encouraging obedience to lawful instructions is consistent with the principles of law, order and peaceful coexistence.
Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan’agundi should not be condemned merely because his position or statements may be inconsistent with the political preferences of certain individuals.
If the coalition believes that he made a specific statement that violated the law or threatened public peace, it should identify the statement, provide the relevant context and allow the appropriate authorities to assess it fairly.
Furthermore, if the coalition is genuinely concerned about inflammatory public communication, it should be equally prepared to examine statements made by other influential figures, including those occupying public offices.
Why has the coalition not demonstrated the same willingness to scrutinise the public communication of its own leadership?
Its leader, Kano State Commissioner for Information and Internal Affairs, Ibrahim Abdullahi Waiya, is a prominent public official whose statements and use of public platforms deserve the same standards of scrutiny that the coalition seeks to apply to others.
If the coalition believes that public officials must avoid statements capable of heightening tension, it should be prepared to examine the conduct of every public official against that standard, regardless of political affiliation.
Why does the coalition’s letter fail to address its own leader’s public communication while focusing extensively on Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan’agundi?
Is the principle of responsible communication applicable to everyone, or only to those whom the coalition chooses to criticise?
A credible coalition should not apply one standard to its perceived opponents and another to individuals within its own circle.
WHERE WAS THE COALITION WHEN GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVES WERE ALLEGEDLY DISOBEYED?
Your Excellency, one of the most significant weaknesses of the KPCF letter is its apparent failure to address previous controversies involving compliance with government directives and security restrictions.
The coalition repeatedly invokes the rule of law, public safety and the responsibility of traditional institutions to comply with lawful instructions.
These are important principles. However, they must be applied consistently.
We therefore ask the coalition a straightforward question:
Why has it not issued comparable public statements whenever allegations of non-compliance with government or security directives have arisen in connection with Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II?
On previous occasions, questions have been raised about alleged violations of restrictions imposed by the government or security agencies. These incidents deserve the same objective scrutiny that the coalition now demands in relation to Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero.
For instance, concerns have previously been raised about a Sallah horse-riding procession around the Unguwar Zage area during which a fatal incident was reportedly said to have occurred.
Questions have also been raised about the alleged involvement of individuals described as supporters or associates of Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II in subsequent interactions with police authorities.
If these reports are accurate, they deserve an impartial examination by the relevant authorities. However, they should not be used to establish anyone’s guilt without verified evidence.
The important question for the coalition is this: Where was its voice when these matters were being discussed?
Did it issue an open letter to the President demanding restraint, accountability and compliance with government directives?
Did it call on all traditional rulers and their supporters to respect restrictions imposed by the appropriate authorities?
Did it insist that any reported violence or loss of life should be investigated without regard to the identity or affiliation of those involved?
If the answer is no, the coalition must explain why its current intervention appears so selective.
A commitment to peace and the rule of law cannot be activated only when allegations concern one particular traditional ruler.
Every alleged breach of a lawful directive deserves attention. Every reported act of violence deserves investigation. Every individual has a responsibility to respect the law.
That principle must apply equally to everyone.
THE THREE-DAY RESTRICTION: WHY WAS THERE NO COMPARABLE OUTCRY?
The coalition’s silence on previous controversies becomes even more difficult to understand when viewed against reports concerning a restriction imposed by the Kano State Government.
Questions have been raised about an incident in which Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II allegedly rode a horse despite a government-imposed restriction said to have been in force for three days.
If the restriction was validly imposed and remained in force at the relevant time, the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident deserve an objective examination.
Why did the coalition not issue a similar letter to President Tinubu demanding that the same principles of restraint and compliance be applied?
Why was there no comparable public appeal insisting that every traditional ruler, irrespective of status, should obey lawful directives?
Why does the coalition appear more concerned about alleged inflammatory statements attributed to Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan’agundi than about questions surrounding compliance with restrictions by other influential figures?
These questions are not intended to prejudge the facts or declare anyone guilty. They are intended to expose the inconsistency in the coalition’s approach.
If the rule of law is genuinely its concern, then the coalition should welcome equal scrutiny of every relevant incident.
A rule of law that is invoked against one person but ignored when another person is involved ceases to be a credible principle and becomes an instrument of selective condemnation.
WHO IS MORE COMMITTED TO PEACE: THE RULER WHO COMPLIES WITH DIRECTIVES OR THE ONE ACCUSED OF DISREGARDING THEM?
Your Excellency, the central question should not be which traditional ruler enjoys greater political sympathy or public support.
The relevant question is which conduct best promotes peace, compliance with lawful directives and respect for constituted authority.
From the position advanced in this response, His Highness Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero has consistently demonstrated a willingness to comply with government directives when they have been communicated to him.
If the coalition disputes this position, it should identify specific, verifiable instances in which he failed to comply with a lawful directive.
Similarly, allegations of non-compliance involving Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II should be examined on their individual merits, with the facts established through the appropriate process.
It would be wrong to declare either ruler guilty of wrongdoing merely because of political disagreements or allegations circulated in public.
Nevertheless, the coalition cannot credibly portray one side as a threat to peace while avoiding comparable questions about the conduct of the other.
If Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero is commended for respecting government directives, that conduct should be acknowledged fairly. If allegations of non-compliance arise against any other traditional ruler, they should be assessed under the same standards.
The public deserves consistency, not a contest in which one side is automatically portrayed as peaceful and the other as provocative.
THE REPORTED DURBAR INCIDENT: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLENCE?
The KPCF letter also refers to a reported incident surrounding a recent Durbar organised by Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero, alleging that violence occurred and that campaign posters and billboards bearing the identities of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf were destroyed by persons allegedly associated with the Emir.
These are serious allegations and should not be treated lightly.
However, serious allegations require clear evidence, specific details and responsible reporting.
The coalition should identify the precise location of the alleged violence, the nature of the incident, the persons affected and the evidence supporting its claims.
It is particularly important to establish whether the reported destruction of campaign materials occurred as alleged, who was responsible and whether any investigation was conducted.
It is not enough to make a sweeping allegation against individuals associated with a traditional ruler without presenting verifiable evidence linking them to the alleged conduct.
Furthermore, reports indicate that Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero subsequently apologised to Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf over the incident.
If such an apology was made, it should be acknowledged as part of a balanced account. At the same time, the existence of an apology should not automatically be treated as proof that every allegation surrounding the incident has been established.
The appropriate authorities should investigate any verified destruction of property or acts of violence and determine responsibility based on evidence.
But there is another important question that the coalition has failed to address adequately.
If violence occurred during the Emir’s return to his Nassarawa residence, why did the coalition not provide specific details about where the alleged violence took place, who was involved and what evidence supports its account?
To our knowledge, the reports we have seen did not clearly establish the alleged violence in the manner suggested by the coalition’s letter.
If the coalition possesses credible evidence that violence occurred, it should make the relevant details available to the appropriate authorities rather than rely on general accusations.
The public deserves facts, not allegations presented in a manner that could damage reputations or deepen existing divisions.
THE KANO EMIRATE DISPUTE AND THE RULE OF LAW: WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD?
The KPCF letter calls on political appointees and government officials at both federal and state levels to refrain from inflammatory statements and partisan positions on matters before the courts.
It also insists that the judiciary should be allowed to perform its constitutional responsibilities without political pressure, intimidation or public mobilisation.
We agree that judicial independence must be protected and that court proceedings should be respected.
However, the coalition’s argument raises an important question about consistency.
On the one hand, it urges political appointees to avoid involvement in the Emirate dispute. On the other hand, it makes political and public demands that could themselves contribute to the politicisation of the matter.
The coalition must clarify the distinction it is attempting to draw.
Does it believe that political appointees should avoid interfering with judicial proceedings, or does it believe that they should remain silent about every issue connected to the Emirate, including matters of public safety and compliance with lawful directives?
These are not necessarily the same thing.
Public officials have a responsibility to act within the law, respect the independence of the judiciary and avoid conduct that could undermine ongoing judicial proceedings.
At the same time, any allegation of misconduct should be assessed according to the relevant law and established facts.
The coalition cannot demand restraint from one side while using its own platform to make accusations against individuals associated with that side.
Nor should it seek to restrict public discussion of matters of legitimate public concern simply because they touch on the Emirate dispute.
The appropriate position is clear: the courts must be allowed to determine the legal questions before them, and all parties must respect the judicial process.
That principle should be upheld without political manipulation or selective application.
OUR RESPONSE TO THE CALL FOR PRESIDENTIAL INTERVENTION
Your Excellency, the KPCF has asked you to intervene in the Kano situation and take a series of measures concerning security, political communication, the judiciary, campaign materials and dialogue among stakeholders.
While some of these proposals may be reasonable in principle, the coalition’s selective framing undermines the credibility of its appeal.
Presidential intervention should be guided by verified information, constitutional responsibilities and the need to protect all citizens equally.
It should not be driven by one organisation’s partisan interpretation of events.
We therefore respectfully submit the following alternative recommendations:
1. Ensure impartiality in assessing all allegations. Any allegation of violence, incitement, destruction of property or disobedience to lawful directives should be investigated objectively, regardless of the political or traditional affiliation of the individuals concerned.
2. Direct security agencies to apply the law equally. Security restrictions and lawful government directives should apply to all relevant persons without favouritism, selective enforcement or political interference.
3. Encourage responsible public communication by all public officials. The same standards of restraint and accountability should apply to commissioners, political appointees, traditional rulers, religious leaders and civil society representatives.
4. Protect judicial independence. All parties should refrain from attempting to influence judicial proceedings and should respect the outcome of the legal process.
5. Investigate reported violence and destruction of property on the basis of evidence. No individual should be condemned merely because of an association with a traditional ruler or political group.
6. Reject selective condemnation. Civil society organisations should be encouraged to address credible allegations consistently, rather than remain silent on incidents involving individuals they favour.
7. Promote dialogue without preconditions designed to disadvantage one side. Any peace initiative should involve the relevant stakeholders and provide equal opportunities for all parties to present their concerns.
8. Discourage political exploitation of the Emirate dispute. Political actors should focus on governance, development and the welfare of Kano residents while allowing legal questions to be resolved through the appropriate institutions.
9. Demand accountability from every influential person. Traditional rulers, government officials, political leaders and civil society representatives should all be held to the same standards of lawful conduct and responsible communication.
These recommendations would provide a more balanced foundation for addressing the situation in Kano than an appeal that appears to concentrate its criticism on one side.
KANO MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO BECOME A VICTIM OF SELECTIVE OUTRAGE
Your Excellency, Kano is an important commercial, cultural and political centre whose peace and stability matter to the entire country.
Its people deserve leadership that promotes unity, fairness and respect for the law.
However, peace cannot be sustained through one-sided narratives, selective accusations or attempts to portray individuals as threats without adequately establishing the facts.
The KPCF must explain why its letter gives considerable attention to allegations involving Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan’agundi and Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero while failing to demonstrate the same level of scrutiny towards other influential figures whose conduct has also attracted public questions.
If the coalition genuinely believes in peace, it should be willing to examine uncomfortable questions, even when doing so may be inconvenient for its own leadership or political associates.
It should also recognise that the rule of law is not the exclusive property of any political group, traditional institution or government administration.
Every citizen and public official is entitled to fair treatment. Every allegation must be assessed on its merits. Every lawful directive must be respected. Every court must be allowed to perform its constitutional duties.
These are the standards by which the coalition should judge all parties.
A FINAL WORD TO THE KANO PATRIOTIC CSOs COALITION FORUM
Before issuing another open letter to the President, the KPCF should undertake an honest examination of its own consistency.
Why has it not issued comparable statements addressing previous allegations of non-compliance with government or security directives involving Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II?
Why has it not demonstrated the same level of public concern about the conduct and communication of its own leader, the Kano State Commissioner for Information and Internal Affairs, Ibrahim Abdullahi Waiya?
If the coalition believes that inflammatory public communication is dangerous, why has it not applied that principle equally to all public officials whose statements it considers capable of heightening tension?
Why should Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan’agundi be criticised for allegedly inflammatory communication without the coalition first establishing precisely what he said, the context in which he said it and how the statement allegedly threatened public peace?
These are legitimate questions that deserve clear answers.
A civil society coalition must not be above scrutiny simply because it claims to speak in the name of peace, democracy or human rights.
Its credibility depends on its willingness to apply the same principles to its allies and its opponents.
The perception that its letter was motivated by personal interests, political sympathies or a desire to please its perceived paymasters is a serious concern. The coalition can address that perception only by demonstrating impartiality through its words and actions.
Our advice to the coalition is simple: rather than concentrating its criticism on Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero and Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan’agundi, it should encourage Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II to emulate the example of Maimartaba Sarkin Kano, Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero, in respecting lawful government directives whenever they are issued, regardless of whether compliance is personally convenient or politically advantageous.
The same advice should be extended to the coalition’s own leadership. Its chairman and members should lead by example in promoting responsible communication, respect for the law and a commitment to peace.
The coalition should also be prepared to scrutinise the public statements and conduct of its own leader, Commissioner Ibrahim Abdullahi Waiya, using the same standards it seeks to impose on others. If it believes that any of his statements are inflammatory, it should address them openly and objectively rather than avoid the subject.
Finally, Your Excellency, your continued restraint in the Kano Emirate dispute deserves recognition as a matter of principle. Despite the prolonged controversy and the competing demands placed on your office, you have allowed the relevant legal and constitutional processes to take their course rather than making yourself a partisan participant in the dispute.
That approach should be encouraged, not undermined by selective appeals that risk drawing the Presidency into a politically charged contest.
We therefore urge all stakeholders to respect the law, allow the courts to perform their duties and refrain from statements or actions that could worsen tensions.
Kano belongs to all its people. Its peace must not be sacrificed to political rivalry, personal ambition or the interests of those who seek to exploit its traditional institutions.
The pursuit of peace demands fairness. The rule of law demands consistency. And credible leadership demands the courage to speak the truth, even when the truth is inconvenient.
May peace, justice and mutual respect prevail in Kano State and throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Yours faithfully
Barista Abubakar Musa Muhammad
mmabubakar78@gmail.com
A CONCERNED ADVOCATE FOR PEACE, FAIRNESS AND THE RULE OF LAW
10th October,2026