Understanding the machinery of Jagaban and the perils of political naivety, by Engr. Bello Gwarzo Abdullahi, FNSE
The approach of every election season presents both challenges and opportunities that ultimately shape whether the expectations of the people are realised or jeopardised. In Nigeria, politics is rarely straightforward. Our complex socio-economic realities, ethno-religious diversity, historical experiences, and peculiar political culture combine to produce a uniquely intricate democratic environment. It is this complexity that makes political developments in the country both fascinating and deeply consequential.
In his incisive two-part essay, “Northern Lessons from the Fall of Nuhu Ribadu,” Suleiman A. Suleiman offers a sobering analysis of the shifting power equations within Nigeria’s federal establishment. His interpretation of the appointment of retired Major General Adeyinka A. Famadewa as Special Adviser on Homeland Security—as part of a strategic weakening of the Office of the National Security Adviser—is difficult to dismiss. On that point, he captures an uncomfortable political reality with remarkable clarity.
Yet beyond the regional dimensions and northern elite miscalculations highlighted in his essay lies a broader and far more consequential issue: the governing philosophy and political machinery of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu himself. To properly understand the unfolding events in Abuja, one must first understand what may best be described as the Jagaban Doctrine—a hard-edged model of political survival rooted in strategic ambiguity, institutional overlap, transactional alliances, and disciplined power consolidation.
President Tinubu’s style is rarely openly confrontational. Rather than dramatic dismissals or noisy political warfare, his approach is often subtle, calculated, and bureaucratically executed. When a powerful appointee becomes excessively influential, politically inconvenient, or overly ambitious, the preferred strategy is not always outright removal. Instead, parallel structures are quietly created around such individuals, gradually draining their relevance, authority, and institutional influence.
READ ALSO: The Alausa Takeover: Examining Tinubu’s politics of exclusion, by Engr. Bello Gwarzo Abdullahi, FNSE
This pattern has surfaced repeatedly across sectors—from economic management to media coordination—and is now becoming increasingly visible within the nation’s security architecture. The introduction of a separate “Homeland Security” structure under a trusted military intelligence figure effectively alters the balance of influence within the broader security ecosystem. Without formally removing the NSA, the presidency can redistribute strategic authority while preserving the optics of continuity and inclusiveness.
This is governance through structural displacement.
For decades, Tinubu’s political success has rested on his ability to assemble broad coalitions across regions, interests, and factions. Embedded within those alliances, however, is an important reality: loyalty is valued primarily for utility, not permanence. Political relationships are often treated as strategic investments tied to specific objectives. Once those objectives are achieved, recalibration begins.
The evidence is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Several northern political actors and power brokers who played pivotal roles in the emergence of the current administration now appear distant from the real centres of influence. Others have faced political isolation, internal weakening, or gradual marginalisation. From the growing strains surrounding key northern figures to the quiet restructuring of influence around the Vice President and other senior actors, the underlying pattern suggests a presidency focused less on preserving old alliances and more on consolidating authority within a tightly controlled network.
Nuhu Ribadu’s apparent miscalculation may have been the assumption that early loyalty and strategic usefulness guaranteed long-term insulation. In the current political environment, no political actor appears permanently indispensable.
READ ALSO: Unlocking Genius: How the right role changes everything, by Engr. Bello Gwarzo Abdullahi, FNSE
Suleiman is equally correct in observing that many northern political figures became consumed by internal rivalries rather than paying attention to the deeper institutional restructuring taking place around them. Energy was expended on factional battles and contests for proximity to power while the architecture of power itself was quietly being redesigned.
There are several hard lessons here for political actors across the federation.
First, the illusion of the “exclusive bridge” must be abandoned. No presidency willingly permits a single subordinate to monopolise regional access or political relevance for too long. Multiple power centres are often deliberately encouraged precisely to prevent any one actor from becoming indispensable. The moment politicians begin undermining their peers to project singular loyalty, they may simply be accelerating their own eventual irrelevance.
Second, collective political leverage matters far more than isolated access. One reason the Southwest political establishment often negotiates from a position of strength is its comparatively coordinated approach to political interests. By contrast, many northern actors entered the current dispensation fragmented, individualised, and excessively dependent on personal relationships with the presidency. In a highly transactional environment, isolated actors are easier to neutralise than organised blocs pursuing shared strategic interests.
Third, political actors must learn the difference between proximity and actual power. Abuja often confuses visibility with influence. Attending meetings, enjoying presidential access, or dominating media narratives does not necessarily translate into institutional authority. Real power lies in control over structures, mandates, budgets, intelligence channels, and statutory influence. Once those instruments begin migrating elsewhere, symbolic access quickly loses value.
Ultimately, Suleiman A. Suleiman’s intervention should be seen not merely as commentary on one political figure’s declining influence, but as a warning to the broader political class. What is unfolding under President Tinubu is a deliberate and methodical consolidation of power—one shaped less by emotional loyalty and more by strategic realism.
The lesson extends beyond the North. Political actors from every region must understand the evolving architecture of this presidency or risk becoming casualties of their own political assumptions. Internal rivalries, ego-driven battles, and the pursuit of symbolic relevance may prove fatal in a system increasingly defined by institutional manoeuvring rather than sentimental alliances.
In the end, power rarely announces its intentions loudly. More often, it quietly reorganises the room while everyone else remains distracted by the noise.
Written by Engr. Bello Gwarzo Abdullahi, FNSE.
Email: bgabdullahi@gmail.com
Follow the Neptune Prime channel on WhatsApp:
Do you have breaking news, interview request, opinion, suggestion, or want your event covered? Email us at neptuneprime2233@gmail.com
