By Aminu Abdullahi Ibrahim
I thought the Kano State Government would be the first to rise in defense of Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso over the reported move in the US Congress seeking to seize his assets and restrict his entry into the country.
All the arguments being advanced to justify such a review appear to revolve around his decision, during his tenure as governor, to strengthen the implementation of Islamic Sharia law in Kano State — a policy that many residents openly supported and still identify with as part of the state’s moral and legal framework.
If a policy was enacted through lawful constitutional processes within Nigeria, and reflected the will of the people at the time, then it deserves to be defended on legal and diplomatic grounds rather than treated as a personal offence. Governance decisions should be evaluated within the context of Nigeria’s federal structure, where states exercise certain rights consistent with their cultural and religious realities.
Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf and his administration frequently promote the slogan “Kano First.” However, leadership is ultimately measured not by slogans but by action. When a prominent political figure from Kano faces what many perceive as external pressure over decisions taken in office, silence can easily be interpreted as indifference. Protecting the reputation and political dignity of the state should transcend personal differences or political rivalry.
This is not about fear of a foreign power, nor is it about elevating one individual above the law. It is about principle. If the issue concerns a policy enacted while serving the people of Kano, then the response should reflect institutional responsibility. Even those who may disagree politically with Senator Kwankwaso should recognize that defending the legitimacy of Kano’s governance history is separate from partisan contest.
In moments like this, unity strengthens a state’s standing, while division weakens it. A clear statement affirming that the establishment of Sharia during Kwankwaso’s administration was undertaken within legal bounds and with the intention of serving the people would reassure citizens that their collective decisions are respected.
Political competition is normal in a democracy. However, when external scrutiny touches on the sovereignty of a state’s lawful choices, leaders are expected to rise above rivalry and stand on shared ground for the sake of their people.