By: Dr James Bwala
When Vice President Kashim Shettima referred to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar as “the Jaramogi Odinga of Nigeria,” it was predictable that the Atiku camp would respond. Political supporters rarely allow such comparisons to pass without searching for a way to strike back. In this case, the response focused on the 2012 arrest of Boko Haram commander Kabiru Sokoto at the Borno State Government Lodge in Abuja and demanded that Shettima explain the circumstances surrounding the incident.
That demand is not, in itself, unreasonable. The arrest of a high-profile terrorism suspect at a government facility was a serious security breach, and Nigerians have every right to ask questions about what happened. However, the manner in which the matter is being used politically reveals a recurring problem in public discourse: the tendency to convert an unexplained security incident into an allegation of personal complicity without presenting evidence.
Those attacking Shettima often act on narratives promoted by individuals who know little about the history and complexities of the Boko Haram insurgency in North-east Nigeria. The most reliable accounts of that conflict do not come exclusively from politicians who appeared before television cameras after reading newspaper reports or receiving briefings from others. They come from the communities that suffered the violence and from journalists who lived, worked and reported from the front line for years.
As a journalist who worked in Maiduguri and covered the North-east for the Nigerian Tribune and other media platforms during the height of the Boko Haram insurgency, I consider myself well placed to discuss the realities of that period. I witnessed the fear, confusion and institutional weaknesses that defined the conflict. I also observed how easily facts were distorted for political purposes. For that reason, I was particularly interested in the recent reaction by Paul Ibe, Atiku Abubakar’s spokesman, demanding that Vice President Shettima answer questions about Kabiru Sokoto’s arrest.
I am not speaking for Shettima in his official capacity as vice president. He has an official spokesperson whose responsibility it is to respond to political and public questions on his behalf. I am speaking as an analyst and journalist who has followed the events of that period closely. Since many people are now presenting themselves as defenders of Atiku or Shettima, it is important to refresh the public record and insist that political arguments remain anchored in facts.
Kabiru Sokoto’s arrest at the Borno State Government’s lodge in Abuja in January 2012 was undoubtedly a major security incident. Sokoto was wanted in connection with the bombing of St Theresa’s Catholic Church in Madalla, Niger State, on Christmas Day in 2011. The attack killed and injured worshippers and shocked the nation. His presence at a government facility naturally raised serious concerns about how he gained access, who facilitated his movement and whether security officials failed in their duties.
These questions deserve clear answers. Yet, the existence of a security breach is not automatically proof that the governor of Borno State, Kashim Shettima, was involved in terrorism or knowingly assisted a terrorist suspect. That distinction is fundamental. A person may enter a government facility because of negligence, deception, unauthorised assistance or a failure of security procedures. None of these possibilities, without more, establishes the personal involvement of the political head of the state.
The explanation provided by the Borno State Government at the time was that accommodation had been approved for Ibrahim Umar Abba, who arrived with two other men. One of those men was Kabiru Sokoto. The government maintained that the governor and senior state officials did not know the visitors and characterised the incident as a security breach. Whether that explanation is satisfactory is a matter for evidence and investigation. But it should not be dismissed merely because it does not serve a partisan narrative.
The central question that Paul Ibe and others must answer is not whether Sokoto was arrested at a government lodge. That fact is already known. The important question is what evidence demonstrates that Shettima personally knew Kabiru Sokoto, authorised his entry, or knowingly provided assistance to him. If such evidence exists, it should be made public and examined. If it does not exist, then the arrest should not be presented as proof of complicity.
Political debate cannot be governed by the principle that association equals guilt. If that standard is applied consistently, many public officials could be accused of wrongdoing because a criminal, terrorist or corrupt individual once entered a public building, attended a political gathering or had contact with someone connected to them. In a country where public institutions are often weakened by poor security and inadequate coordination, such a standard would produce endless allegations without establishing responsibility.
There were also reports that Kabiru Sokoto may have intended to target Shettima’s children. That dimension of the case deserves proper examination. It does not, by itself, resolve every question surrounding his presence at the lodge, but it demonstrates why the incident cannot be interpreted from only one angle. If a terrorist suspect was seeking access to a political leader’s family, the possibility that he exploited the identity or connections of another person must be considered. Investigators would need to establish whether the suspect was invited, hidden, deceived officials or used someone else’s credentials.
Has Paul Ibe considered that possibility? Has he examined the investigation records, witness statements or court materials connected to the case? Has he identified evidence showing that Shettima knew Sokoto personally or was aware of the plan to shelter him? These are not attempts to prevent accountability. They are necessary questions if the discussion is to rise above political accusation.
The broader problem is that the Boko Haram conflict is frequently recalled selectively. Politicians and commentators sometimes reduce complex events to convenient stories that serve present political interests. But the insurgency was not a simple contest between two political parties. It involved terrorism, criminal networks, intelligence failures, local grievances, compromised institutions, community fear and the collapse of trust between citizens and security agencies. The people of Borno and other Northeastern states paid the highest price for those failures.
Journalists who covered the region during that period understood the difference between what was said in official statements and what was happening on the ground. We reported attacks, displacement, arrests, military operations and political reactions. We saw how rumours moved faster than verified information and how officials sometimes spoke before investigations were complete. We also saw how individuals who had never visited the affected communities confidently presented simplistic explanations on television.
That experience should encourage caution. The public deserves transparency, but transparency is not the same as political sensationalism. A demand for explanation is legitimate when it seeks documents, timelines, testimony and verifiable findings. It becomes irresponsible when it implies guilt before the relevant evidence has been established.
Paul Ibe is entitled to demand answers from Vice President Shettima. Nigerians are equally entitled to ask Atiku Abubakar’s camp whether it is pursuing accountability or merely searching for a political weapon. If the purpose is accountability, then the focus should be on the investigation: Who approved the accommodation? Who authorised the visitors’ entry? What security procedures were followed? Which officials were interviewed? What did the police and intelligence agencies conclude? Was anyone prosecuted, and on what evidence?
These questions should be addressed through official records rather than partisan declarations. If the investigation established that officials acted negligently, appropriate sanctions should have followed. If it established deliberate assistance, those responsible should have faced prosecution. If it found no evidence linking Shettima personally to the suspect, then the public should not be encouraged to treat the incident as proof of guilt.
The same standard must apply to all public officials, regardless of political affiliation. Supporters of Atiku should not demand a lower burden of proof for allegations against Shettima than they would accept for allegations against their own principal. Likewise, supporters of Shettima should not dismiss legitimate questions merely because they come from an opposition figure. Democracy requires scrutiny, but scrutiny loses its value when it is motivated exclusively by revenge.
The argument also exposes the danger of importing unrelated political grievances into security matters. Shettima’s reference to Atiku as Nigeria’s “Jaramogi Odinga” may have been interpreted by Atiku’s supporters as provocative or dismissive. They may believe the comparison was historically inaccurate or politically insulting. They are free to challenge it. But responding to a political analogy by reviving an old security incident does not automatically strengthen their case. It may instead create the impression that they are changing the subject because they are unhappy with the original remark.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about Atiku Abubakar’s political career, electoral struggles and public role. There is also a legitimate debate about Shettima’s record as governor and national political figure. Those debates should be conducted with evidence, historical accuracy and intellectual honesty. Turning every disagreement into an accusation of terrorism-related complicity damages public discourse and trivialises the suffering of victims of Boko Haram.
The “Jaramogi Odinga” comparison may continue to generate controversy, particularly because historical analogies carry political and cultural meanings. But whatever one thinks of the comparison, it should not be allowed to produce reckless allegations. Political communication should be judged on its accuracy and intention, while security accusations should be judged on evidence.
The Kabiru Sokoto incident remains a matter worthy of public examination. Government facilities must be protected, security breaches must be investigated, and citizens have a right to know whether officials failed in their responsibilities. But fairness requires a clear distinction between institutional failure and personal criminal intent. Until evidence establishes that Kashim Shettima knowingly assisted Kabiru Sokoto, his presence at the lodge remains evidence of a serious breach—not proof that the governor was involved in terrorism.
If Paul Ibe has evidence to the contrary, he should present it. If the relevant records contain findings that implicate Shettima, those findings should be scrutinised openly. But if no such evidence exists, the allegation should not be treated as established fact simply because it is politically useful. As a journalist, Paul Ibe should know better.
James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja
End
About The Author
