RIGHT TO REPLY: Kano Politics — Beyond the Sacking of King Indara Setting the Record Straight on Barau Jibrin, Political Discipline and the Facts Behind the Debate.
By Bala Salihu Dawakin Kudu
Northern Bureau Chief
September 20, 2026.
The opinion titled “Kano Politics: Beyond the Sacking of King Indara,” by Muazzam Ibrahim Hussain, raises several issues concerning the recent termination of the appointment of Umar Alhassan, popularly known as King Indara, by the Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Barau I. Jibrin.
The writer is entitled to his opinion, and political debate is an important part of democracy. However, where serious political allegations are made against a public official, it is equally important that the public be presented with verifiable facts, proper context and evidence rather than assumptions, political interpretations or allegations presented as established facts.
Umar Alhassan was appointed as a Special Legislative Aide in the office of the Deputy President of the Senate. His appointment was terminated by the same office following social media posts, including “Abba Must Go,” which the office described as indiscipline, disrespect and conduct inconsistent with the standards expected of its aides.
- Advertisement -
The announcement, issued by Senator Barau’s Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Shitu Madaki Kunchi, specifically stated that the termination took effect on September 18, 2026. Several independent media reports have confirmed the substance of that announcement.
The opinion appears to treat the dismissal as though Senator Barau had attempted to silence a citizen or expel King Indara from the APC.
That is not what happened.
Available reports indicate that Alhassan was removed specifically from his appointment as a Special Legislative Aide in Senator Barau’s office. There has been no announcement that he was expelled from the APC or prevented from expressing his political views as a private citizen. Indeed, reports indicate that following the termination, Alhassan continued to publicly identify himself as an APC member and expressed support for former Governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso.
Consequently, the more appropriate question is not whether a Nigerian citizen is permitted to criticise a governor. Of course, political criticism is part of democratic discourse.
The relevant question is whether a person holding a political appointment in the office of a senior parliamentary leader can publicly campaign against a political position that his principal and office have formally adopted.
The opinion cites Mustapha Badamasi Naburuska and Abdulmajid Danbilki Commander as examples of people allegedly making statements against Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu without suffering similar consequences.
But before such examples can establish “double standards,” several facts must first be demonstrated.
Were those individuals serving as Special Legislative Aides in Senator Barau’s office at the time of their statements?
Were they bound by the same terms of appointment?
Were their statements made in the same official capacity?
Were the statements directed at the same political institution or office?
And, most importantly, did Senator Barau have the same disciplinary authority over them?
Without answers to these questions, placing their cases alongside that of King Indara does not establish inconsistency. It merely establishes that different people, occupying potentially different positions, have expressed different political views.
Political commentary should not substitute assumption for evidence.
There is also an important fact that should not be overlooked.
Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf formally joined the APC in January 2026, and Senator Barau Jibrin was among the prominent Kano political figures present at the event. Reports from Channels Television quoted Senator Barau urging his supporters to support Governor Yusuf so that they could work together for the progress of Kano State.
More significantly, when Governor Yusuf submitted his APC nomination form for the 2027 Kano governorship election in May 2026, Senator Barau was among the Kano political leaders who accompanied him.
Therefore, it is inaccurate to construct the current disagreement as though Senator Barau has simply declared a political war against Governor Yusuf.
Whatever disagreements may exist among Kano politicians, the public record shows that Barau has, at different points in 2026, publicly participated in the APC’s efforts to accommodate Governor Yusuf within the party.
Against that background, an aide campaigning publicly with the slogan “Abba Must Go” could reasonably create a conflict with the political position being pursued by the office.
There is nothing unusual about a political office establishing standards for its appointed aides.
Political aides are not merely private citizens when acting in their official capacity. They occupy positions of trust and represent, directly or indirectly, the office to which they are attached.
This does not mean that aides lose their individual political rights. It means that an appointing authority may legitimately consider whether the public conduct of an appointee is compatible with the responsibilities of that appointment.
Senator Barau’s office said precisely that the issue was one of discipline, respect and decorum, rather than simply disagreement with a private political opinion.
Whether readers agree with that decision is a separate matter. But it should not be misrepresented as something the available evidence does not show.
The opinion also revisits allegations concerning Senator Barau’s supposed role in the legal battle involving Nasiru Yusuf Gawuna and the APC following the 2023 Kano governorship election.
This is perhaps the most serious part of the article because it attributes a possible political motive to Senator Barau without presenting documentary evidence establishing that motive.
The suggestion that Senator Barau deliberately failed to support the case because a Gawuna victory could have affected his own political ambition is an allegation. It should therefore remain clearly identified as an allegation unless supported by credible evidence.
Political journalism must distinguish between: what happened,
what someone alleges happened,
and what can actually be established from available evidence.
It would be unfair to convert a political suspicion into an established fact merely because it fits a particular interpretation of Kano politics.
If the purpose is genuinely to examine Senator Barau’s political record, then the discussion should not stop at the dismissal of one aide.
There is a substantial legislative record that can be independently examined.
According to records cited by Nigerian media, Senator Barau sponsored 42 bills between June 13, 2023 and June 13, 2026, with five of those bills having been passed into law. The reported bills cover areas including education, agriculture, economic development, governance and institutional development.
Among the legislation reported as having passed are measures relating to the North West Development Commission, the Federal Medical Centre in Gwarzo, Kano State, and the Federal University of Science and Technology, Kabo.
These facts do not automatically make Senator Barau right or wrong on every political question. But they demonstrate why his public record should be examined comprehensively rather than through the single incident involving King Indara.
There is also documented evidence of constituency empowerment initiatives. In April 2026, Nigerian newspapers reported the distribution of vehicles and motorcycles to beneficiaries in Kano North under an empowerment programme associated with Senator Barau.
Again, these records do not settle every political argument. They simply provide the public with additional facts against which his performance can be evaluated.
This point deserves emphasis.
The available reports concern the termination of an appointment in Senator Barau’s office. They do not report an expulsion from the APC.
That difference is fundamental.
A political appointee can remain a member of a political party while losing a particular appointment because the appointing authority considers his public conduct incompatible with the responsibilities of the office.
Therefore, describing the incident as an attempt to suppress political freedom goes beyond what the documented facts establish.
Muazzam’s article also raises questions about officials and political actors allegedly opposed to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Governor Abba Yusuf or other leaders.
Those questions can certainly be investigated.
But every person mentioned should be judged on documented conduct, the office they occupy, the authority responsible for that office and the rules governing their appointment.
It is not sufficient to say that one person criticised President Tinubu and another criticised Governor Abba and therefore both should automatically receive the same treatment.
Political offices have different structures, different appointing authorities and different responsibilities.
Consistency means applying the same rule to people who are similarly situated. It does not necessarily mean imposing identical sanctions on people who occupy different positions.
Kano is entering another important political period, and disagreements among politicians, supporters and commentators are inevitable.
But the debate should be based on verifiable facts.
Senator Barau’s decision to terminate an aide’s appointment can be debated. King Indara is entitled to explain his position. Critics are entitled to question the decision. Supporters are entitled to defend it.
What should be avoided, however, is presenting unproven political motives as established facts.
If there are allegations that Senator Barau acted improperly in the 2023 legal proceedings, those allegations should be supported by documentary evidence.
If there are allegations of selective political discipline, the individuals involved should be identified, their positions established and the relevant rules compared.
If there are claims that Kano political actors are not supporting President Tinubu, those claims should likewise be backed by documented statements or actions.
That is the standard responsible political journalism demands.
The King Indara controversy is undoubtedly part of the wider political contestation taking place in Kano ahead of 2027. But it should not be exaggerated beyond the facts.
The documented issue is that Umar Alhassan, a Special Legislative Aide in Senator Barau Jibrin’s office, made social media posts including “Abba Must Go,” after which his appointment was terminated on September 18, 2026. Senator Barau’s office described the conduct as inconsistent with the discipline, respect and decorum expected of its aides and with the office’s position within the APC.
Whether one agrees with the decision or disagrees with it is a matter for public debate.
But any serious assessment must also recognise that an appointing authority has a different relationship with its own aide than it does with politicians, commentators or members of the wider public.
The appropriate response, therefore, is not to personalise the matter or revive unsubstantiated allegations, but to ask the necessary factual questions: What was the nature of the appointment? What rules governed the appointment? What exactly was published? What authority did the appointing office possess? And were comparable cases genuinely comparable?
Those are the questions that will help Kano’s political discourse move beyond personalities and towards evidence, accountability and responsible democratic debate.
Bala Salihu Dawakin Kudu
Northern Bureau Chief
September 20, 2026, 08060017934
DemocracyNewslineNewspaper September 21, 2026
