The recent criticism of former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai by Minister of Defence Christopher Musa has sparked debate over the limits of political commentary by public officials, particularly when the subject of the criticism is facing legal proceedings.
El-Rufai is currently being held by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) over allegations relating to his time in office. However, regardless of public opinion about his record as governor, the former governor remains entitled to the presumption of innocence until a competent court determines otherwise.
Musa, speaking during a television interview last week, accused El-Rufai of contributing significantly to Kaduna State’s divisions and alleged that the former governor was involved in actions that worsened violence in Southern Kaduna.
“El-Rufai did a lot of terrible things in Kaduna State. He divided the state into two,” Musa said, according to the remarks cited in the discussion.
He also alleged that El-Rufai had deliberately contributed to killings in Southern Kaduna and claimed that the former governor had previously acknowledged paying bandits and carrying out other controversial activities.
The allegations, however, have raised questions about whether such assertions should come from a serving Defence Minister while legal proceedings involving the former governor are ongoing.
Kaduna’s divisions predate El-Rufai
While El-Rufai’s administration and public statements can legitimately be examined in discussions about Kaduna’s history of communal conflict, attributing the state’s longstanding divisions solely to his political career overlooks the much deeper roots of the problem.
Relations between communities in the northern and southern parts of present-day Kaduna State have been shaped by decades, and in some cases centuries, of political, religious and ethnic tensions.
The region’s history includes periods of territorial expansion, resistance, religious competition, migration and conflict involving different communities. The arrival and spread of Christianity in parts of southern Kaduna added another dimension to existing social and political differences.
These divisions were evident long before El-Rufai entered public life.
During his years as an undergraduate at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, the writer recalls witnessing significant social differences between students from predominantly Muslim Hausa-Fulani communities in northern Kaduna and students from several predominantly Christian communities in the southern part of the state.
The experience illustrates the difficulty of assigning responsibility for Kaduna’s longstanding fault lines to one individual who entered political life decades after many of those tensions had already emerged.
Violence became entrenched over time
The violent expression of Kaduna’s communal tensions became particularly pronounced during the military era, including the Zangon Kataf crisis during the administration of General Ibrahim Babangida.
Thousands were reportedly killed in the violence, while homes and property were destroyed.
Subsequent years saw further clashes, with longstanding ethnic and religious tensions becoming intertwined with partisan politics, competition for political influence and broader security challenges.
Against that background, critics argue that describing El-Rufai as the person who “divided” Kaduna risks reducing a complex historical problem to the actions of a single political figure.
That does not, however, prevent scrutiny of decisions or statements made during his tenure as governor. Rather, it underscores the need to distinguish between legitimate criticism of an administration and sweeping claims about the origins of longstanding communal divisions.
The problem with Musa’s intervention
As someone with longstanding connections to Kaduna State, Musa is entitled to express views about developments in the state. The issue is the capacity in which he made the remarks.
As Defence Minister, Musa occupies one of the most sensitive positions in the Nigerian government. His public statements therefore carry considerably more weight than those of a private citizen or retired military officer.
El-Rufai is facing allegations in connection with his time in government. Consequently, accusations made publicly by a senior member of the same administration prosecuting or investigating him could be perceived as prejudging the matter before the courts have reached a conclusion.
There is also the question of evidence.
If the allegations made against the former governor are factual, they are serious enough to warrant substantiation. Public accusations involving killings, banditry and other grave offences should ideally be supported by evidence and subjected to the appropriate investigative and judicial processes.
That is particularly important when the allegations come from a senior government official.
Musa’s own record invites scrutiny
The Defence Minister’s critics have also argued that his position exposes him to scrutiny over military operations conducted during his tenure in senior command positions.
Among the incidents that have attracted public attention is the military’s accidental bombing of civilians in Tudun Biri, Kaduna State, as well as other controversial military operations in conflict-affected parts of northern Nigeria.
The broader point is that public officials who occupy powerful positions must expect their own records to be examined when they make serious accusations against others.
This does not establish equivalence between the allegations against Musa and those he has made against El-Rufai. It does, however, reinforce the principle that officials entrusted with national security responsibilities should exercise particular care when commenting on politically sensitive matters.
Questions over the coup controversy
Musa’s recent comments have also revived questions about his handling of an earlier controversy surrounding an alleged coup attempt.
When reports of a possible coup emerged, Musa initially dismissed the development, describing what had occurred as incidents of indiscipline involving military officers, including grievances relating to delayed promotions.
He subsequently acknowledged that there had been an attempted coup and provided details of an alleged plan by the plotters to kill him.
The shift in his public position became a subject of discussion among Nigerians who followed the controversy.
For his critics, the episode provides another reason to demand caution and consistency when Musa makes serious public allegations.
Public office requires restraint
There is a legitimate debate to be had about El-Rufai’s record in Kaduna State. His policies, statements and political decisions remain open to public examination, just as those of every former public office holder.
But accountability is most effective when it operates through credible evidence and established institutions rather than public accusations.
Musa’s allegations against El-Rufai may ultimately prove accurate, partially accurate or unfounded. That determination should depend on evidence and due process, rather than the authority of the office from which the allegations are made.
The central concern, therefore, is not whether El-Rufai should be criticised. He should be subject to scrutiny like any other public official. The concern is whether a serving Defence Minister should publicly make grave allegations against a person facing legal proceedings without presenting the evidence necessary to substantiate them.
For an office responsible for national security and military affairs, restraint, professionalism and careful language are especially important.
If the government is confident in its case against El-Rufai, the strongest response is evidence presented before the appropriate institutions—not increasingly severe accusations made through television interviews.
In the end, the responsibility of a senior public official is not merely to express an opinion, but to ensure that the authority of his office does not inadvertently undermine public confidence in due process or deepen the very divisions he accuses others of creating.
