By Lawal Abdullahi

On the night Abuja turned its gaze toward service beyond party loyalty, Kano found itself called by name. In the bright hall of the Presidential Villa, far from the dust and bustle of Kurmi market and the farmlands of Rano, Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf stood before the nation and received an honour that carried more than protocol. It was a rare national salute to performance, offered across political divide, and for Kano it felt like a quiet public vindication of daily struggles that had finally been seen.

When the 2025 Nigeria Excellence Award in Public Service was announced in his name, it was not difficult for ordinary people across the state to connect the dots. The trader in Sabon Gari who now moves with better road access, the teacher in Dawakin Tofa who finally has pupils seated on desks, the nurse in Kumbotso who now works with functional equipment, and the farmer in Garun Malam who received timely inputs all found pieces of their own stories inside that moment of recognition.

The honour was presented on behalf of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume. In a political climate often shaped by suspicion and rivalry, the recognition of an opposition governor stood as a reminder that service still commands attention beyond party lines. For Kano people, it confirmed what many already believed that visible work still carries weight in national judgment.

Across the state, the signs of that work are not hidden. In education, long neglected school structures have been brought back to life. Classrooms were rehabilitated, roofs restored, furniture supplied, and learning spaces made fit again for young minds. Thousands of teachers were recruited, easing pressure on overcrowded classrooms and restoring balance to a system that had struggled for years. For parents who once worried about the future of their children in underfunded schools, confidence has slowly returned.

Healthcare followed the same practical path of revival. Primary healthcare centres across the local governments received attention through upgrades, supplies, and personnel deployment. In communities where sickness once meant long travel or helpless waiting, people now walk into health facilities with greater hope of being attended to. For mothers, children, and the elderly, the presence of care is no longer an exception but an expectation.

In agriculture, the administration returned its focus to the roots of Kano economy. Support reached farmers through fertilisers, seeds, and extension services delivered with better timing. Productivity improved not by miracle but by method. From the fields of Bichi to the plains of Garko, farming has regained its sense of dignity and possibility. The land once again speaks of sustenance rather than survival.

Within the Kano metropolis, urban renewal began to reshape daily experience. Roads were opened and repaired. Drainage systems were cleared. Flood prone areas received attention. Public infrastructure that once symbolised decay now reflects restoration. The city that has long served as a major commercial heartbeat of the North is slowly reclaiming its form with order and movement.

It was this spread of impact across education, health, agriculture, infrastructure, and social welfare that earned Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf the Nigeria Excellence Award in Public Service. He received it alongside governors from Zamfara, Bauchi, Adamawa, Enugu, and Akwa Ibom States at a ceremony organised by Best Media Relations in partnership with the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation. The event was presided over by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the award, Justice Mary Odili retired. Other recipients included leaders of key national institutions such as NDLEA, EFCC, NFIU, Customs, Immigration, NEMA, and senior federal ministers.

Yet for Kano people, the meaning of the award went deeper than the list of dignitaries present. An opposition governor being publicly honoured by a federal government from another political family carried a lesson that governance can rise above rivalry. It confirmed that results still create bridges where politics often builds walls.

True to character, Governor Yusuf did not keep the honour to himself. He returned it to the people of Kano. He dedicated it to their patience, resilience, and faith in leadership. He renewed his promise to deepen people centred governance and pursue development that does not decorate the surface but touches daily living.

There is a quiet philosophy behind such moments. Power is loud but brief. Service is quiet but lasting. Offices change hands, applause fades, and ceremonies pass into memory, but the effect of a repaired school, a functioning clinic, a productive farm, and a safe road remains long after the crowd has gone. These are the footprints that leadership leaves behind.

Politically, the recognition challenges the old belief that opposition must always mean exclusion. It sends a message to young Kano citizens watching from lecture halls, market stalls, workshops, and farmlands that leadership is not measured by loud promises but by consistent delivery. It also tells public office holders that credibility cannot be borrowed, it is earned slowly through visible effort.

With this honour, Kano stands taller in national conversation not as a state defined only by contests of power but as one increasingly described through performance. For Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf, the award is both affirmation and responsibility. For the people, it is encouragement and reminder that their collective future is shaped not by chance but by deliberate leadership.

When history eventually records this moment, it may not focus on the elegance of the hall or the ceremony of the night. It will remember that in a season of division, service crossed political boundaries, and Kano through one of its own reminded the nation that the work still speaks.

Lawal Abdullahi, writes from Kano

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.