For decades, the Arewa Consultative Forum has occupied a distinctive place in Nigeria’s public life. More than a cultural association, the ACF has functioned as a platform where elders, professionals, and stakeholders from across Northern Nigeria come together to deliberate on issues affecting the region and the nation. In a federation as diverse as Nigeria, such forums play an important role in articulating regional perspectives, aggregating concerns, and contributing to national dialogue. Much like other socio-cultural platforms across the country, the ACF’s value lies in its ability to provide a coherent channel through which the North’s interests and perspectives can be clearly communicated.
It is against this background that recent developments within the Forum deserve careful attention. Reports of internal disagreements and the suspension of the Board of Trustees Chairman have generated concern among many who look to the ACF as a stabilising voice. Disagreements are not unusual in any institution with a broad mandate and diverse membership. In fact, robust debate can strengthen decision-making when it is managed constructively. The challenge arises when internal differences spill into the public domain in a way that risks eroding confidence in the institution itself.
The timing of these developments is significant for reasons that extend beyond the ACF. Nigeria is gradually moving into the pre-election cycle ahead of 2027. Across the North, citizens are engaged in conversations about governance, security, economic conditions, and the region’s place within the broader national agenda. Political realignments are underway, and expectations are high that regional platforms will provide clarity and direction. In such a context, the strength and cohesion of institutions like the ACF become relevant not just to the North, but to the health of national discourse as a whole.
A well-functioning ACF serves several purposes. First, it provides a forum for harmonising diverse viewpoints within the North, helping to distinguish between areas of consensus and those requiring further consultation. Second, it offers a structured avenue for engaging with the federal government and other regions on matters of policy and development priorities. Third, it contributes to continuity by preserving institutional memory and ensuring that positions are based on evidence and consultation rather than reaction. When these functions are weakened, the risk is that the region’s engagement with national issues becomes fragmented and less effective.
It is also important to acknowledge the broader environment in which the ACF operates. Public trust in institutions across the country has been tested by governance challenges, economic pressures, and security concerns. In this climate, platforms that aim to speak for large constituencies must demonstrate transparency, inclusivity, and a clear commitment to the public good. Perception matters, and the way internal processes are handled can either reinforce or undermine credibility.
This newspaper believes that the current moment calls for restraint, dialogue, and institutional repair. The ACF’s leadership, elders, traditional rulers, and other stakeholders have a responsibility to prioritise the Forum’s long-term role over short-term disputes. Mechanisms for internal mediation exist within the Forum’s constitution and traditions, and this is the appropriate time to activate them. A process that allows all sides to be heard, that adheres to due process, and that results in clear outcomes will do more to restore confidence than public recrimination.
The stakes are not abstract. Nigeria’s federal structure means that regions negotiate their interests through both formal and informal channels. A cohesive platform enables a region to engage from a position of clarity, making it easier to articulate priorities in areas
of interest and priority.
Conversely, a divided platform makes it harder to build consensus internally and to be taken seriously in national negotiations. This is not about dominance or exclusion; it is about effective participation in a pluralistic federation.
Looking toward 2027, the North’s contribution to national politics will be shaped less by sentiment and more by organisation and policy focus. Voters across the region are increasingly pragmatic. They expect platforms to move beyond general statements and to engage with concrete issues: how to improve agricultural productivity, how to expand access to quality education and healthcare, how to address youth unemployment, and how to strengthen security at the community level. An active and united ACF can help frame these discussions and ensure that the North’s input is reflected in national policy design.
This does not mean that the ACF should speak with a single, monolithic voice on every issue. Diversity of opinion is a strength, and the Forum’s legitimacy depends on its ability to accommodate it. What matters is the process: that debates are held within the institution, that decisions are communicated clearly, and that the Forum’s public positions reflect a genuine attempt at consensus-building.
The path forward requires deliberate steps on priority issues that would shift the focus from personalities to substance. Reaffirming commitment to the Forum’s founding principles of unity, dialogue, and service would provide a moral anchor for the reconciliation process.
Nigeria benefits when all its regions engage the federation with clarity and purpose. The North, with its population, geography, and economic potential, has a central role to play in shaping the country’s next phase. For that role to be effective, the platforms that aggregate its voice must themselves be strong, credible, and forward-looking.
The opportunity now is to turn a moment of tension into a moment of renewal. By resolving internal matters through dialogue and by refocusing on policy and public engagement, the ACF can reaffirm its relevance ahead of 2027. The North does not need to speak with one voice on every detail, but it does need a platform that enables its diverse voices to be heard in a coherent and constructive manner. Closing ranks is not about suppressing disagreement; it is about ensuring that disagreement strengthens rather than weakens the region’s contribution to Nigeria’s future.
