From Praising Buhari to Blaming Tinubu: The Question Hanging Over the Emir of Katsina

The contrasting positions attributed to the Emir of Katsina during the administrations of President Muhammadu Buhari and President Bola Tinubu deserve serious public scrutiny.

In 2022, the Emir reportedly prayed for President Buhari, praised his leadership, and attributed the insecurity plaguing northern Nigeria to the handiwork of the president’s political opponents.

Now, in 2026, rather than blame Tinubu’s political opponents, the Emir is holding the president Tinubu accountable for failing to secure Katsina State.

An important question must be asked

Why was insecurity attributed to political sabotage under one president but treated as government failure under another?

This is not merely a question about the Emir. It is a question about consistency, responsibility, and the dangerous consequences of applying different standards to different administrations.

The concern becomes more serious when political loyalty appears to influence how insecurity is explained.

When a government enjoys the support of influential traditional, religious, and political figures, there is a danger that its failures may be excused as sabotage by opponents.

Yet, when another administration takes office, the same security challenges may suddenly become evidence of presidential incompetence.

This is precisely the double standard the Emir of Katsina exhibited when the APC Campaign Council, led by Senator Yari, visited his palace a few days ago.

However, historical accuracy matters.

The Emir of Katsina did tell Buhari in 2018 that the president’s detractors were responsible for much of the insecurity.

The people of Katsina deserve better than explanations that shift with political circumstances.

Farmers who cannot access their farms, families who live in fear of abduction, and communities traumatised by repeated attacks cannot afford selective outrage.

Their suffering is real, irrespective of whether the president is Buhari or Tinubu.

Traditional authority carries moral weight precisely because it should rise above partisan interests.

When a monarch speaks, people should hear the voice of conscience, not the echo of political convenience. And when a monarch fails to speak, citizens are equally entitled to ask why.

Ultimately, the question is simple: Should insecurity be condemned only when the president is not one’s kinsman, or should the lives of ordinary Nigerians matter equally under every administration?

No president should be excused because of shared ethnicity, religion, or political affiliation, and no president should be judged by a different standard simply because political loyalties have changed.

The people of the North need leaders who will speak with courage, demand results, and hold every government accountable not selectively, but consistently.