The recent criticism of the Emir of Katsina, Abdulmuminu Kabir Usman, following his remarks on Nigeria’s worsening security and economic challenges has sparked a debate about consistency, accountability and the role of traditional rulers in public affairs.
Since the Emir reportedly spoke out during a visit by Senator Abdulaziz Yari and other prominent members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential campaign team, social media platforms, particularly Facebook and X, have been awash with reactions, some of them mocking the monarch for criticising political leaders over problems that also existed under the administration of the late President Muhammadu Buhari.
One critic, in a sweeping condemnation of northern political and traditional elites, reportedly declared, “Arewa munafukai ne, ba ma son gaskiya” — accusing Northerners of hypocrisy and suggesting that they were unwilling to confront the truth.
Others have revisited the controversy surrounding the resignation of the then Wazirin Katsina, Sani Lugga, in 2022, drawing parallels between that incident and the Emir’s recent comments. They argue that the monarch is applying different standards to himself and his former subordinate.
But are these situations truly comparable? And does the Emir’s record support the claim that he remained silent when the security situation deteriorated under Buhari?
A closer look at the circumstances surrounding the Waziri’s resignation and the Emir’s public statements over the years suggests that the debate deserves more than the sweeping accusations currently circulating online.
The Waziri’s Resignation and the Emir’s Recent Comments
The controversy involving Sani Lugga arose after he reportedly spoke about the security situation in Katsina State during an occasion in Ilorin.
Upon his return, the Katsina Emirate Council reportedly asked him to explain why he had made the remarks without obtaining official clearance. He subsequently resigned from his position as Wazirin Katsina.
Critics are now drawing a connection between that episode and the Emir’s recent intervention on security and economic issues, questioning why the monarch should publicly criticise political leaders when a senior titleholder within his own emirate had faced questions over similar remarks.
However, the two situations involve different circumstances and institutional positions.
Lugga spoke as the Wazirin Katsina, a senior titleholder within the traditional institution, while Abdulmuminu Kabir Usman spoke as the Emir, the head of that institution.
The Emir’s position within the traditional hierarchy was precisely why the Waziri was reportedly expected to observe the council’s procedures before making his comments.
That distinction does not automatically settle the moral or administrative questions surrounding the Emir’s own public interventions. Rather, it shows why comparing the two incidents without examining their contexts may produce an incomplete picture.
The question of whether traditional rulers should publicly criticise elected leaders, and under what circumstances, remains open to debate. But it should be considered separately from the claim that the Emir has been inconsistent in speaking about insecurity.
Did the Emir Remain Silent Under Buhari?
This is where some of the criticism appears to overlook an important part of the Emir’s public record.
My recollection of the Emir’s interventions during Buhari’s presidency differs considerably from the suggestion that he only became outspoken after the change of administration.
While working on reports for Premium Times, I covered some of the Emir’s criticisms of the Federal Government during the Buhari years.
In 2019, during an engagement involving a Federal Government delegation discussing an agricultural policy initiative, the Emir reportedly made it clear that addressing the security challenges facing Katsina should take precedence over discussions about agricultural programmes.
His message was straightforward: the people could not fully benefit from development initiatives while insecurity continued to threaten their lives, livelihoods and communities.
Also in 2019, when the late Abba Kyari, then Chief of Staff to President Buhari, visited the Emir, the monarch reportedly urged him to convey to the President the need to empower security agencies to confront the growing threat of banditry.
These interventions are relevant because they challenge the narrative that the Emir remained quiet while Buhari was in office.
His concerns were not limited to the present administration. They were also directed at the government led by a President who came from the North and enjoyed considerable political support in the region.
‘Bandits Deserve No Amnesty’
The Emir’s criticism of the security response became even more pronounced in 2021.
During a security stakeholders’ meeting attended by then Katsina State Governor Aminu Bello Masari and a Federal Government delegation led by the then Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, the Emir reportedly declared that bandits deserved no amnesty.
He also criticised delays in prosecuting suspected bandits, raising concerns about the government’s response to the security crisis.
Those remarks demonstrated his position on a fundamental question: how should the authorities respond to armed groups terrorising communities and disrupting everyday life?
His opposition to amnesty for bandits and his call for stronger security measures were made while Buhari was still President.
That history should form part of any serious assessment of his recent comments.
It would be inaccurate to conclude, without considering these earlier interventions, that the Emir only discovered the courage to criticise political leaders after Buhari left office.
The Double-Standards Argument
There is nothing wrong with holding traditional rulers accountable for their statements. In a democratic society, public figures should expect questions about their conduct, consistency and the principles guiding their interventions.
Traditional rulers are not above scrutiny, just as elected officials should not be shielded from criticism.
However, scrutiny must also be informed by facts.
If the allegation is that the Emir remained silent about insecurity under Buhari but is now speaking out against political leaders, his earlier public statements are directly relevant to testing that claim.
If the argument is that the Emir should be subject to the same administrative procedures that applied to the Waziri, then the discussion should focus on the specific rules governing the emirate institution, the circumstances of the two interventions and whether those rules were applied consistently.
Combining these separate questions into a single accusation of hypocrisy risks obscuring the issues that deserve public attention.
It is also important to distinguish between criticising a government over insecurity and taking a partisan position against a political party. A traditional ruler may raise concerns about the performance of public institutions without necessarily endorsing or opposing a political platform.
Whether a particular intervention is appropriate depends on its content, context and the responsibilities attached to the office of the person making it.
The Bigger Question Is Security
Beyond the arguments on Facebook and X lies a more pressing concern: the continuing impact of insecurity on ordinary Nigerians.
For families affected by banditry, communities facing threats and residents struggling with the rising cost of living, the central issue is not whether a traditional ruler has upset political supporters.
It is whether those entrusted with public responsibilities are taking effective steps to address the challenges confronting the people.
Traditional rulers occupy influential positions within their communities. Their interventions can draw attention to neglected problems, although their methods and the limits of their public role remain legitimate subjects for discussion.
Political leaders, in turn, should be prepared to answer questions about their policies, decisions and results, regardless of the party or administration involved.
The same standard of scrutiny should apply across political divides.
Before Calling the Emir a Hypocrite, Consider the Record
The debate surrounding Abdulmuminu Kabir Usman’s latest comments should not be reduced to social media insults or comparisons that ignore the circumstances of the incidents involved.
The account of his interventions in 2019 and 2021 provides important context for evaluating the claim that he did not speak out against insecurity during Buhari’s presidency.
That does not mean every criticism he makes must automatically be accepted, nor does it settle every question about the proper role of a traditional ruler in political discourse.
It simply means that arguments about consistency should be tested against the available record rather than assumptions.
Those who disagree with the Emir are entitled to challenge his position. They can question his approach, demand greater clarity and debate whether traditional rulers should engage political leaders publicly.
But the claim that he only began speaking out after Buhari’s departure deserves closer examination in light of his earlier interventions.
If the Emir criticised the Federal Government over insecurity when Buhari was President, what exactly is the evidence for the claim that he remained silent?
Perhaps that is the question worth answering before another round of accusations begins.
After all, the debate should be about facts, consistency and the responsibility of public institutions to protect citizens — not merely about which political camp finds a particular statement convenient or uncomfortable.
Source:@Soliloquizer
About The Author
