By Bala Ibrahim.

The caption above is not mine, it’s borrowed from an ancient Latin proverb that says, “De mortuis nil nisi bonum.” The literal meaning of the proverb is that-it’s inappropriate, disrespectful or even rude, to speak ill of the dead because, they can’t defend themselves. In Islam, there is a hadith that goes thus: “Do not curse the dead, for they have reached the result of what they have done. There is also a Christian principle with similar ambition, like Proverbs 24:17-18 (don’t rejoice in enemy’s fall) and Ephesians 4:32 (be kind, forgiving). All of them are reflecting on the importance of saying nothing but good about the dead. The two religions are encouraging us to focus on God’s grace and the good qualities of the dead, by letting go of bitterness and leaving judgment to God, because, it’s unfair to speak ill of those who can’t defend themselves.

Yesterday, Monday, a book was unveiled at the Presidential Villa Abuja, titled “From Soldier to Statesman”. It is a biography of the late former president, Muhammadu Buhari, authored by Charles Omole. Reacting to the book, President Tinubu said late President Muhammadu Buhari was a leader defined by integrity, discipline and a lifelong commitment to public service, whose legacy should guide future leaders rather than be reduced to slogans. He said the book offers Nigerians the opportunity to learn from Mr Buhari and affirmed that the greatest honour to be bestowed on the late President is to sustain his legacy, to which his administration would do. These are comments that come in tandem with the ambition of saying nothing but good about the dead.

On his side also, Mr. Yusuf Magaji Bichi, the former Director General of the Department of State Services, DSS, who served under Buhari as well as briefly under President Tinubu, he eulogized Buhari very well, describing those accusing him of rigging elections as ignorants. He stated that the late former President Muhammadu Buhari lacked any tendency to rig elections. He was too correct to engage in such wrong doings. Those are comments that came in tandem with the ambition of saying nothing but good about the dead.

Even in the journalism profession, we are tutored to distant ourselves from doing stories that carry the badge of bias. The imperative of balancing stories in journalism is the cornerstone of ethical practice. The aim is for journalists to be seen as fair, impartial, and accurate in the presentation of events. That way, an informed public debate would be fostered always. Without hearing the other side, if published, the story is classified, or even crucified, as unbalanced and unfair. That is the imperative of balancing in order to champion the truth and accuracy. If you submit a story that carries one side only, without the other side, you have failed in upholding the truth and accuracy, thereby denting the cradle of credibility and public trust. The credibility of the story becomes more questioned, when the other side belongs to the dead. That is a professional position in tandem with the ambition of saying nothing bad about the living, talk less of the dead.

But, in something “surprising” (and I put the word surprising in inverted comma because, it hits me as an unethical act), the widow of late President Muhammadu Buhari, Hajiya Aisha Buhari, commented in contrast to the missions of both Islam and Christianity, as well as the positions of many professions and ethical values. In her comments about the dead, on whom the book was written, Aisha is quoted all over the media, as saying somewhere in the book, that her late husband, former President Muhammadu Buhari, became distrustful of her at the tail end of their stay in the villa. According to her, Buhari bought into gossips and fearmongering, to the extent that he began locking up his room when going out, because he was told she was planning to kill him. “My husband believed them for a week or so. Buhari began locking his room, altered his daily habits, and most critically, meals were delayed or missed, the supplements were stopped. For a year, he did not have lunch. They mismanaged his meals.”

Whoever the “they” may be, these are not the kind of comments to expect from a widow, whose late husband is in the grave. They are comments that run contrary to the ambition of saying nothing but good about the dead, and in conflict with the principle of balancing, in the narration of a story. She gave her own side, which she wants the world to believe, knowing fully that we can not get the other side. That’s unethical. Everyone said something good about late Buhari, which requires no balancing. But the submission of Aisha is a balderdash, that is not balanced.

By Musa Iliyasu Kwankwaso

In the history of leadership, force may be loud, but wisdom delivers results. This is why security experts agree that while military action can suppress violence temporarily, dialogue is what permanently closes the door to conflict. It is a lesson the world has learned through blood, loss, and painful experience.

When Dr. Bello Matawalle, as Governor of Zamfara State, chose dialogue and reconciliation, it was not a sign of weakness. It was a different kind of courage one that placed the lives of ordinary citizens above political applause. A wise leader measures success not by bullets fired, but by lives saved.

Across conflict zones, history has consistently shown that force alone does not end insecurity. Guns may damage bodies, but they do not eliminate the roots of violence. This understanding forms the basis of what experts call the non-kinetic approach conflict resolution through dialogue, reconciliation, justice, and social reform.

When Matawalle assumed office, Zamfara was deeply troubled. Roads were closed, markets shut down, farmers and herders operated in fear, and citizens lived under constant threat. Faced with this reality, only two options existed: rely solely on military force or combine security operations with dialogue. Matawalle chose the path widely accepted across the world security reinforced by dialogue not out of sympathy for criminals, but to protect innocent lives.

This approach was not unique to Zamfara. In Katsina State, Governor Aminu Bello Masari led peace engagements with armed groups. In Maiduguri granted amnesty to repentant offenders of Boko Haram, In Sokoto, dialogue was also pursued to reduce bloodshed. These precedents raise a simple question: if dialogue is acceptable elsewhere, why is Matawalle singled out?

At the federal level, the same logic applies. Through Operation Safe Corridor, the Federal Government received Boko Haram members who surrendered, offered rehabilitation and reintegration, and continued military action against those who refused to lay down arms. This balance
rehabilitation for those who repent and force against those who persist is the core of the non-kinetic approach.

Security experts globally affirm that military force contributes only 20 to 30 percent of sustainable solutions to insurgency. The remaining 70 to 80 percent lies in dialogue, justice, economic reform, and addressing poverty and unemployment. Even the United Nations states clearly: “You cannot kill your way out of an insurgency.”

During Matawalle’s tenure, several roads reopened, cattle markets revived, and daily life began to normalize. If insecurity later resurfaced, the question is not whether dialogue was wrong, but whether broader coordination failed.

Today, critics attempt to recast past security strategies as crimes. Yet history is not blind, and truth does not disappear. Matawalle’s actions were rooted in expert advice, national precedent, and global best practice.

The position of Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, who publicly affirmed that Matawalle’s approach was appropriate and that military force accounts for only about 25 percent of counterinsurgency success, further reinforces this reality. Such views cannot be purchased or manufactured; they reflect established security thinking.

In the end, dialogue is not a betrayal of justice it is often its foundation. And no amount of political noise can overturn decisions grounded in evidence, experience, and the priority of human life.

By Adebayor Adetunji, PhD

In the broad and competitive terrain of Nigerian politics, loyalty is often spoken of, yet rarely sustained with consistency, courage and visible action. But within the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, one Northern appointee has demonstrated this quality not as a slogan, but as a lifestyle, as a political principle and as a national duty — Hon. (Dr.) Bello Muhammad Matawalle, Minister of State for Defence.

Since his appointment, Matawalle has stood out as one of the most loyal, outspoken and dependable pillars of support for the Tinubu administration in the North. He has never hesitated, not for a moment, to stand firmly behind the President. At every turn of controversy, in moments of public misunderstanding, and at times when political alliances waver, Matawalle has continued to speak boldly in defence of the government he serves. For him, loyalty is not an occasional gesture — it is a commitment evidenced through voice, alignment, and sacrifice.

Observers within and outside the ruling party recall numerous occasions where the former Zamfara State Governor took the front line in defending the government’s policies, actions and direction, even when others chose neutrality or silence. His interventions, always direct and clear, reflect not just loyalty to a leader, but faith in the future the President is building, a future anchored on economic reform, security revival, institutional strengthening and renewed national unity.

But Matawalle’s value to the administration does not stop at loyalty. In performance, visibility and active delivery of duty, he stands among the most engaged ministers currently serving in the federal cabinet. His portfolio, centred on defence and security, one of the most sensitive sectors in the country, demands expertise, availability and unbroken presence. Matawalle has not only embraced this responsibility, he has carried it with remarkable energy.

From high-level security meetings within Nigeria to strategic engagements across foreign capitals, Matawalle has represented the nation with clarity and confidence. His participation in defence summits, international cooperation talks, and regional security collaborations has positioned Nigeria as a voice of influence in global security discourse once again. At home, his involvement in military policy evaluation, counter-terrorism discussions and national defence restructuring reflects a minister who understands the urgency of Nigeria’s security needs, and shows up to work daily to address them.

Away from partisan battles, Matawalle has proven to be a bridge — between North and South, civilian leadership and military institutions, Nigeria and the wider world. His presence in government offers a mix of loyalty, performance and deep grounding in national interest, the type of partnership every President needs in turbulent times.

This is why calls, campaigns and whisperings aimed at undermining or isolating him must be resisted. Nigeria cannot afford to discourage its best-performing public servants, nor tighten the atmosphere for those who stand firmly for unity and national progress. The nation must learn to applaud where there is performance, support where there is loyalty, and encourage where there is commitment.

Hon. Bello Matawalle deserves commendation, not suspicion. Support — not sabotage. Encouragement, not exclusion from political strategy or power alignment due to narrow interests.

History does not forget those who stood when it mattered. Matawalle stands today for President Tinubu, for security, for loyalty, for national service. And in that place, he has earned a space not only in the present political equation, but in the future judgment of posterity.

Nigeria needs more leaders like him. And Nigeria must say so openly.

Adebayor Adetunji, PhD
A communication strategist and public commentator
Write from Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria