Shekarau, A4A and the Politics of Northern Representation

Monday Column By Bagudu Mohammed

bagudumohammed15197@gmail.com | 07034943575

Knives have been out for former Kano State Governor and Senator Ibrahim Shekarau since the unveiling of Arewa for Asiwaju (A4A), a northern political mobilisation platform established ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 presidential election.

Announced in September 2026 and subsequently inaugurated in Abuja, A4A is designed to operate across the 19 northern states and the Federal Capital Territory. Chaired by Shekarau, a former Minister of Education, the platform brings together prominent political figures, including former governors and other influential actors. Shekarau describes it as a vehicle for promoting President Bola Tinubu’s re-election and challenging what he considers misleading narratives about the administration’s performance, particularly in the North.

The reaction was swift. In Daily Trust, Hassan Husaini’s article, “The North Shekarau Claims to Speak For Does Not Exist,” questioned whether a gathering of political heavyweights could legitimately represent ordinary Northerners facing insecurity, economic hardship and humanitarian distress. A THISDAY commentary, “Make Crayfish Bend,” published on October 19, linked A4A’s emergence to anxieties about Tinubu’s popularity, regional imbalances in federal appointments and difficult socioeconomic conditions.

Similarly, Bello Gwarzo Abdullahi’s October 14 WhatsApp commentary, “Shekarau’s Action: Conscience Gone Awry or a Matter of Survival,” questioned the former governor’s political judgment, invoking the values of conscience, empathy and amanah as sacred. The criticism carries particular weight because Shekarau has cultivated an image of modesty, principle and traditional responsibility.

However, the debate has not been entirely hostile. Voice of Nigeria reported on October 13 that APC National Chairman Professor Nentawe Yilwatda pledged cooperation with A4A, praising its combination of experienced politicians and younger people. He also highlighted its potential to communicate federal projects, including road infrastructure, the Ajaokuta-Kaduna-Kano gas pipeline and student loan opportunities. In Democracy Newsline, Bala Salihu Dawakin Kudu argued that disagreement with Shekarau does not automatically establish political opportunism.

What this debate ultimately reveals is less about Shekarau personally than about the meaning of representation.

Political theorist Hanna Pitkin distinguishes between descriptive representation as standing for a group and substantive representation which means acting for its interests. Shekarau’s critics accuse him of claiming the former without demonstrating the latter. Yet they risk a similar error when they portray the North as a homogeneous population united against Tinubu.

Neither a gathering of political elites nor a collection of angry voices automatically represents an entire region. Both positions risk taking a part for the whole. A credible claim to speak for Northern Nigeria requires consultation, public engagement and mechanisms for establishing popular consent, not merely a press conference or a compelling opinion article.

Equally questionable is the assumption that insecurity, poverty and inflation necessarily translate into uniform political opposition. Political behaviour is shaped by party structures, identity, patronage, perceived alternatives and mobilisation capacity, alongside economic conditions. Hardship is real, but voters do not always respond to it in identical ways.

The argument that roads and pipelines are irrelevant when people are hungry is also too simplistic. Infrastructure can improve market access, reduce transportation costs and support economic activity. The more pertinent question is whether these investments are delivering measurable benefits quickly enough to improve household welfare.

There is also an important distinction between elite politics and popular legitimacy. Nigeria’s political networks are not merely decorative; they help organise campaigns and mobilise voters. Former governors and established party figures may possess influence that cannot simply be dismissed because they belong to the political class.

The APC’s extensive political presence across the North, including its control of 18 of the region’s 19 states, illustrates the importance of party structures. Nevertheless, political dominance does not automatically establish popular satisfaction, just as public frustration does not mean that every Northerner rejects the governing party.

Critics are right to demand accountability from Shekarau and his associates. What specific policies will A4A support? What measurable improvements does it expect in security, electricity, food affordability and employment? What timelines will it adopt, and how will it hold the administration accountable?

These are legitimate questions. However, critics must apply the same standards to themselves. The commentary questioning Shekarau’s conscience, for instance, raises valuable questions about welfare and government performance but must also demonstrate why its preferred political alternative would deliver better outcomes. Moral indignation cannot substitute for evidence and workable solutions.

Supporting Tinubu does not necessarily mean ignoring hardship. Shekarau may believe that the administration’s reforms will eventually produce economic benefits. That judgment can be challenged, but disagreement alone does not prove betrayal. Political choices involve competing expectations about immediate relief and long-term outcomes.

There is, moreover, a need for consistency in the moral scrutiny of political families and alliances. Political differences can exist within households and among relatives without destroying family relationships. Regional solidarity should not demand a uniform political position when individual judgment and democratic pluralism are equally legitimate.

Tinubu has also contributed to the controversy by concentrating several influential federal appointments in the South-West, particularly Lagos. The resulting perception of regional dominance can weaken confidence in the federal character principle, even when individual appointments may be defensible on merit. Such concerns deserve scrutiny rather than dismissal.

Yet the answer cannot be to demand that a Northern president reproduce the same regional concentration of power. Criticising perceived favouritism while demanding equivalent treatment for one’s own region is contradictory. Nigeria needs equitable governance, not competing ethnic claims to preferential treatment.

Nor should Northern progress be tied exclusively to having a Northerner in the presidency. Muhammadu Buhari’s eight years in office did not eliminate poverty or insecurity in the region, despite his Northern identity. Conversely, the South-East has continued to demonstrate economic and entrepreneurial resilience despite not producing an executive president since independence. Political representation matters, but it is not a substitute for effective institutions, accountable leadership and sound policies.

The strongest criticism of A4A, therefore, is not that it exists, but that it must direct its influence towards accountability. Northern elders should not merely tell Zamfara what Tinubu has built in Abuja; they should also tell Tinubu what Zamfara needs and what his government must do differently.

A4A’s emergence suggests that Tinubu still has considerable work to do to secure confidence across the North. Dismissing the platform as a political fiction, however, ignores the established networks that shape electoral competition.

Lastly, Shekarau’s support must be tied to measurable gains in security, electricity, food prices and livelihoods, while Tinubu’s critics must prove they can do better. As Dr. Ibraheem Dooba argues, Arewa must prioritize demands over political allegiance, regardless of who seeks its votes. Completing the AKK pipeline, rehabilitating Baro Port in Niger state, restoring farming, ensuring reliable electricity and educating out-of-school children must become priorities. Northern representation must deliver results, not merely celebrate identity or loyalty.