Governor Sule’s View on Governance

Public commentators sometimes focus on specific issues. I focus on politics, governance or administration because that is my academic background. So when the Nasarawa State Governor, Abdullahi Sule, was speaking in a television interview recently, all I heard was what he said on this aspect. I’ve always said here that we all hear the same thing, but sometimes we hear it differently. Here I verify what I hear, placing it alongside some of the claims I have made in recent years. One of them is my view that politics is local, governance is local and administration is also fundamentally local. If the reader follows the debates on the creation of a state police force so that security is guaranteed at the base, he understands. But advocating for state police is not my goal here.

During the interview, Sule was asked how his party would persuade Nigerians to vote for him in the upcoming elections, given some economic measures criticized by opposition parties. This is something I have been commenting on online since 2023. I argue that there are localized issues that influence how people vote, not just what happens in Abuja. As I did, Sule said what would determine how people vote in the next election would happen at the state, locality, ward and unit levels. Here I pause to comment on Sule and my perception of him. He is in his second term and I have long noticed that he is a state governor who remains primarily focused on the affairs of his state. He said this during his interview. I note that he tried to make a difference in the social and economic landscape of his state. He also said this in his interview.

I also noticed that he generally speaks in a measured manner on issues that concern his state or other national issues. He showed this in the interview, emphasizing that he would not want to comment on what he did not have complete information about. As the question of who should be the ruling party’s presidential candidate raged in 2022, Sule was in the know. During his recent interview, he spoke of the various meetings held by his party’s actors, notably those during which they agreed that the presidency should be zoned to the south of the country. There was a particular aspect of Sule that I observed when all this was happening. He acted strictly within the team and was supportive of what was decided as a team. I did not hear him at the time express opinions that disagreed with what he and his fellow governors had decided.

During this highly contentious season over who should be their party’s presidential candidate, Sule was part of the fabric that projected a united front. The fabric proved useful to the ruling party, as it did not implode as the main opposition party did. For me, this was important because if a political party had a united house that would stand firm against any opposition, it needed team spirit like Sule. Compared to Sule, there was a sitting governor of the ruling party at the time who had his own idea unlike that of his fellow governors. This governor, from the north-central like Sule, had no real chance of becoming the ruling party’s presidential candidate, but was determined to move forward by promoting his personal ambition, which could have been done to the detriment of the party.

Having decided that the presidential slate would go south (and it was the rational thing to do), said governor continued to push, thus disuniting the party. During a meeting in which his fellow governors told him to step down, the said governor angrily walked out of the room threatening: “I am going to speak to the press.” As he walked away, Sule called to him kindly, saying, “A yin hakuri.” The said governor spoke to the press. The rest is history. Among other visuals from this controversial 2022 season, I remember the clip so well because it shows me more of the kind of person Sule is. He is not just a team player, he is a peacemaker and a tactful politician.

During the recent interview in which Sule was asked about his party’s chances in possible future elections, his response was also tactful. He gives the kind of answer that must continue to be offered for the sake of many who believe that only the actions of the federal government determine how citizens make their choices when voting. This erroneous understanding is common among those who view politics and governance through the erroneous claims made by some politicians to gain the sympathy of voters. Thus, in the last two off-season gubernatorial elections, some wondered how a particular party could have won despite the FG’s decision to remove fuel subsidies.

In reality, nothing should be surprising if we understand that the way voters vote does not depend on a single issue. It is based on several localized issues. As a journalist, I have seen practical situations in the course of my work that bear witness to this statement. What I saw made me predict that the outgoing president would get the necessary votes from the north despite the serious security problems that have plagued that part under his administration. From July 2018 to 2019, I was in the North East covering the election campaign. I noticed in one state the effects of the intervention programs of the federal administration at the time. These interventions reached people at the grassroots, people talked about them and the results were visible.

For example, I noticed stores filled with items used in agricultural production. I noticed other small traders who were able to increase their stocks; they were doing better than I had known a few years earlier and many of them were able to buy cars and build new houses. Women were given a small amount of money which they needed to start producing and selling items on a small scale. Small private hospitals have benefited from FG’s intervention programs. Traditional, religious and opinion leaders, always vigilant and informed, ensured that the funds released by the FG for empowerment purposes reached the needy. Then there was the state governor doing everything he could to convince people he was working. Every street in most neighborhoods in his state’s capital has become a highway with streetlights. Young people were employed or given responsibility. In the LGAs, isolated towns and villages which previously did not have good roads have had their roads tarmaced.

As I observed these things in 2018 and early 2019, I realized that they would be assets for the election campaign. I concluded that on election day, people who benefited from the empowerment initiatives of the FG and state governors would happily come together to vote, not the critics who only saw insecurity in the north under this administration. The conclusions I reached happened. The then-president received a large number of votes in the north, as he had since he began running for president. In the South, they wanted him to have a second term so that it would then be the South’s turn. Before the 2023 elections, I said that the intervention initiatives of the outgoing administration would prove useful to the ruling party in these elections. It happened. Sometimes local issues that influence how people vote include opinion on zoning at the state and LG level or the performance of the sitting governor.

Sule referred to this in his interview, explaining that the performance of the FG was not the only factor that determined how people voted, but the performance at the state, LGA, ward and district levels. units. He also commended President Bola Tinubu for asking state governors during the last meeting with them to bring development to the people because the governors are closer to the people. When politicians talk like this, Nigerians are the winners, because that is how governance should be. To me, it is remarkable that a sitting governor like Sule, who knows the practicalities of governance, speaks the same language as me regarding what makes Nigerians vote the way they do.