By Alhassan Adamu Hussaini
Ordinarily, I would have ignored the latest piece by Rayyanu Bala titled “Politics Is Not A Parade Ground.” But for the sake of clarity and public record, it has become necessary to respond.
First, let us correct the foundation. My earlier write-up was not written in a vacuum. It was a direct response to his earlier article, “Where IGP Adamu Got It Wrong.” One cannot throw a stone and complain when the echo returns. If Mr. Bala chooses to critique, he must also be prepared to receive critique.
What disappoints me is not disagreement. Politics thrives on disagreement. What disappoints me is the deliberate attempt to blur public truth with carefully polished rhetoric.
You argue that ambition is not the issue, attitude is the issue. But whose attitude exactly? Is confidence now intimidation? Is visibility now aggression? Is structure now tension? When a man engages supporters, consults stakeholders, and prepares early, does that automatically translate to “combative energy”?
Across Nasarawa, yes, many are nursing ambition. But the suggestion that only one individual generates “friction” is itself a crafted narrative. Political relevance naturally attracts attention. Visibility is not conflict. Momentum is not intimidation. And preparation is not war.
Let us be honest: when a figure like Mohammed Abubakar Adamu enters the race, conversations will intensify. That is not because democracy is shaking. It is because leadership credentials command attention.
You say democracy is not a parade ground. True. But neither is it a retirement home where energy must be muted to avoid discomfort. Democracy allows robust participation. It allows strong personalities. It allows competition without apology.
What you frame as “tension” may simply be disruption of comfort zones. And yes, I find it disappointing to see someone of your standing attempt to dress strategic resistance as moral concern. We both understand the political environment. We both understand alignments. There is nothing wrong with political survival. Everyone works for survival. But survival should not require distortion.
If there are concerns about tone, they can be discussed maturely. But to suggest that one aspirant’s posters or consultations amount to destabilization is exaggerated.
No one is declaring war. No one is demanding that power must bend. Participation is not confrontation.
You caution about civility. I agree. Civility must be mutual. It cannot be demanded from one side while subtle delegitimization flows from the other.
Let’s also address the repeated phrase that “over 50 aspirants are silent and measured.” Silence is not automatically maturity. Sometimes silence is calculation. Sometimes it is timing. Sometimes it is simply lack of structure. Let us not romanticize quietness as virtue while demonizing organization as aggression.
My response was never about fear. It was about fairness. When commentary selectively amplifies one aspirant as disruptive while normalizing others, questions must be asked. Nasarawa deserves a contest of ideas, not coded messaging. It deserves transparency, not selective caution.
Disagreement is healthy. But let it be grounded in balance.If we are to speak about tone, let us also speak about intent. And if we are to defend democracy, let us defend equal space within it.
In the end, this is not about parade grounds or battlefields. It is about credibility. And credibility demands that commentary should illuminate truth, not manage perception.