By: Dr James Bwala
Comparing the records of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and Vice President Kashim Shettima requires more than political slogans, partisan loyalty, or emotional arguments. It demands an examination of their backgrounds, preparation for public service, roles in government, influence on national policy, and impact on the North-east region. Having worked as a journalist in both Maiduguri, Borno State, and Yola, Adamawa State, I have had the opportunity to interview both men, observe them closely, study their public records, and listen to ordinary Northerners discuss their leadership. These experiences have shaped my view that Kashim Shettima’s less than four years as vice president demonstrate stronger preparation, broader governmental experience, and a more visible commitment to regional development than Atiku Abubakar’s eight years in the same office.
This comparison acknowledges Atiku Abubakar’s political importance and Atiku Abubakar’s political importance or personal accomplishments. He remains a major figure in Nigerian politics and a former vice president who played a significant role in the country’s transition to civilian rule in 1999. However, political prominence should not be confused with effective leadership. A leader should be judged by the institutions he strengthens, the opportunities he creates, the infrastructure he supports, and the long-term direction he provides for the people he serves.
Atiku Abubakar remarkably rose from the Nigeria Customs Service to the position of deputy comptroller-general. His advancement within approximately nine years has often attracted public discussion and controversy, particularly because other officers with strong qualifications reportedly spent decades in the service without attaining similar heights. While questions surrounding his career progression deserve proper historical and institutional examination, the larger issue is what he did with the influence he gained after leaving the Customs Service and becoming vice president.
Atiku served as vice president from 1999 to 2007 under President Olusegun Obasanjo. The office of vice president in Nigeria is constitutionally limited, but Atiku was widely regarded as one of the most powerful vice presidents in the country’s history. He had substantial political influence, maintained a strong network across the country, and was deeply involved in the administration’s economic and political affairs. However, influence without a clear developmental legacy raises serious questions.
During those eight years, several industries and public enterprises that had historically supported the Northern economy continued to decline or collapsed. The textile industry, agricultural processing, manufacturing, and other productive sectors struggled to survive. Many communities that had depended on these industries experienced unemployment, declining commerce, and growing poverty. The question is not whether one individual – we should not blame one individual for every national failure. Rather, the question is whether a powerful vice president from the North-east used his influence to articulate and implement a clear development strategy for the region.
In my view, the answer is no.
The condition of major roads in the North-east during and after that period further illustrates the problem of inadequate long-term planning. The Gombe–Yola road, for example, became a symbol of neglect for many travellers. Those who used the road before subsequent administrations began rehabilitation projects experienced hardship that went beyond inconvenience. The road affected trade, education, healthcare, transportation, and family connections across the region. During journeys through the North-east, I have listened to travellers express anger and frustration over the condition of the road. Their complaints were not abstract political arguments; they were based on daily experiences.
A vice president may not directly control every road project, but a politically influential vice president can draw attention to neglected areas, influence national priorities, and build consensus around regional development. Atiku’s eight years in office provided sufficient time to establish a durable framework for the economic transformation of the North-east. Yet the region did not receive the kind of industrial revival, infrastructure expansion, or coordinated economic planning that its population required.
The contents of President Olusegun Obasanjo’s memoirs and his public comments about Atiku have also contributed to the controversies surrounding the former vice president. Those disagreements revealed the tensions within the administration and raised concerns about accountability, trust, and the use of political power. Although political memoirs are often shaped by personal perspectives, they remain important documents for assessing the relationship between leaders and understanding how government functioned during that period.
It is possible to acknowledge Atiku Abubakar as a devoted father and husband while questioning his record as a national leader. Private virtues and public performance are not always the same. A person may be admirable in family life but ineffective in public office. In evaluating a vice president, however, the central concern must be the impact of his public service on the nation.
Kashim Shettima presents a different profile. Before entering the public spotlight, he obtained a master’s degree and developed a reputation as a serious reader and student of public affairs. His academic preparation and intellectual interests were evident in his speeches and public engagements. More importantly, his experience was built gradually through several levels of responsibility.
Before becoming governor of Borno State, Shettima served as commissioner in several ministries, including education, finance, agriculture, local government, and health. This range of assignments exposed him to different aspects of public administration. He gained experience in budgeting, social services, agriculture, local governance, and healthcare. Such exposure is important because effective national leadership requires an understanding of how different sectors interact.
Shettima did not enter executive leadership as a political novice. He served as governor of Borno State for eight years during one of the most difficult periods in the state’s history. The Boko Haram insurgency had devastated communities, displaced families, disrupted education, damaged infrastructure, and weakened the local economy. Governing Borno under those conditions required crisis management, political coordination, and sustained engagement with federal institutions and international partners.
No administration is without flaws, and Shettima’s tenure should not be treated as beyond criticism. Nevertheless, he inherited an exceptionally difficult security and humanitarian situation and remained engaged with the state’s recovery. His experience as governor gave him a practical understanding of the challenges facing ordinary citizens, particularly in the North-east. That experience also prepared him for national responsibilities in a way that cannot be measured merely by titles.
His subsequent service in the Senate further strengthened his legislative and national experience. In the Senate, he participated in debates on national issues and worked within the institutions responsible for lawmaking and oversight. By the time he became vice president, he had served as a banker, commissioner, governor, and senator. His career followed a clear progression through professional, executive, and legislative responsibilities.
As vice president, Shettima has operated in a difficult national environment marked by inflation, insecurity, unemployment, poverty, and pressure on household incomes. These challenges are not easy to resolve within a short period. However, in less than four years, his public activities have reflected a strong emphasis on regional integration, economic coordination, and engagement with development institutions.
The North-east Development Commission has been particularly important in this regard. The commission has supported projects and interventions across Bauchi, Borno, Yobe, Gombe, Taraba, and Adamawa. Roads, schools, health facilities, agricultural projects, and other infrastructure have received attention. It would be inaccurate to attribute every project directly to the vice president, but his political support and advocacy have helped keep the North-east’s development needs visible within the national agenda.
The Abuja–Jos–Maiduguri road project is another example of the scale of infrastructure being pursued. A road linking the Federal Capital Territory to major communities across the North and extending towards Maiduguri has significant implications for trade, mobility, security, and national integration. It represents a broader vision than isolated interventions. When major roads are completed, farmers can reach markets more easily, businesses can move goods at lower cost, students can access schools, and patients can reach hospitals more safely.
The difference between the two vice presidents is therefore not simply the number of years they spent in office. It is also the manner in which they used power and the developmental vision they brought to public service. Atiku’s eight years offered enough time and influence to create a transformative regional programme, yet the industrial and infrastructural decline experienced by the North remained largely unaddressed. Shettima, in less than four years, has promoted a more visible regional-development agenda through institutional support and national projects.
Critics may argue that comparing Atiku’s eight years with Shettima’s less than four years is unfair because the political, economic, and security circumstances of the two periods differ. That argument has merit. Nigeria in 1999 was emerging from military rule, while the present administration faces a different set of challenges. The powers of a vice president also depend heavily on the relationship with the president and the internal structure of the administration.
Nevertheless, context should not become an excuse for avoiding accountability. Every leader works within limitations, but leadership is demonstrated by the ability to identify priorities, mobilise resources, and create institutions that outlive an individual tenure. Time alone cannot guarantee success. A leader may serve for eight years and leave little lasting impact, while another may achieve meaningful progress in a shorter period.
The people of the North-east deserve evidence rather than political propaganda. Supporters of Atiku Abubakar should present concrete achievements from his eight years as vice president, particularly in the areas of industry, roads, employment, education, agriculture, and regional economic planning. Likewise, supporters of Kashim Shettima must continue to provide verifiable evidence of projects, funding, completion rates, and measurable benefits arising from current interventions. Political headlines are not substitutes for records.
My conclusion is that Kashim Shettima is the more prepared and institutionally experienced of the two leaders. His academic background, professional training, service as commissioner in several ministries, eight years as governor, and experience in the Senate gave him a stronger foundation for national leadership. His record as vice president, although still incomplete, has larger effects on the nation and especially the people of the North-east than the eight-year period in which the North-east has no experience of the fingers of government.
James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja
End
About The Author
