Abejide’s Kano Empowerment: Why Political Support, Public Service and Constituency Representation Should Not Be Confused

By J.O. Abel-Ontop

The planned empowerment programme by Elder Leke Abejide for members of the Yoruba community in Kano, including Okun people from Kogi State resident in the city, has generated reactions in some quarters. While some have questioned the rationale behind extending the initiative beyond his federal constituency, others appear to overlook the personal, business, cultural and political connections that make Kano an important part of Abejide’s life.

A closer look at the circumstances surrounding the programme suggests that the conversation deserves more balance than the criticism it has attracted.

First, Abejide is a federal lawmaker whose primary constitutional responsibility is to represent Yagba Federal Constituency, comprising Yagba East, Yagba West and Mopamuro Local Government Areas of Kogi State. That responsibility, however, does not prevent him from maintaining personal, business, social and political relationships with Nigerians outside his constituency.

Like every other Nigerian, he has the right to support a political candidate of his choice, mobilise like-minded people and use his personal resources for causes he believes in, provided such activities comply with the law.

The important distinction is between the use of public resources meant for constituency development and the use of personal resources for private, charitable or political initiatives. Where an empowerment programme is funded personally, it should be assessed on that basis rather than automatically treated as a diversion of constituency funds. If public funds are involved, transparency and accountability remain essential.

For Abejide, Kano is not an unfamiliar territory he has suddenly discovered because of an approaching election. He has longstanding business interests in the state and has built commercial relationships there over several decades. Kano has also served as a major base for his business activities.

His supporters say his business interests have provided employment opportunities for many people, including more than 200 people from Yagba, although the employment figure would require independent verification to establish its current scope.

These connections help explain why an empowerment initiative in Kano should not automatically be interpreted as an abandonment of his home constituency.

Abejide’s political identity is closely linked to Yagba, but his personal and commercial relationships extend beyond it. The two realities are not mutually exclusive.

A person can remain committed to the development of his constituency while supporting people in other communities where he has established relationships and responsibilities.

Another important consideration is Abejide’s reported conferment of the title of Asiwaju of the Yoruba community in Kano in 2022.

The title, associated with leadership and responsibility within the community, provides a cultural context for his relationship with Yoruba residents in the state. It also helps explain why an empowerment initiative directed at that community may be regarded by his supporters as an extension of an existing relationship rather than an entirely new undertaking.

The Yoruba community in Kano comprises people from different Yoruba-speaking states, including members of the Okun community of Kogi State who live and work in the area.

Under the leadership of His Highness, Oba Yoruba Kano, Sarkin Yorubawa Kano, Alhaji Engr. Muritala Alimi Otisese, also known as Adetimirin I, the community has an established traditional leadership structure.

Against this background, it is reasonable to ask why Okun people living in Kano should be excluded from an initiative intended to benefit members of the Yoruba community simply because their ancestral home is in Kogi State.

Their presence in Kano does not diminish their connection to Yagba, nor does their connection to Yagba prevent them from participating in legitimate community initiatives where they reside.

The phrase charity begins at home is often invoked in debates about public figures extending assistance beyond their immediate communities. The expression has merit when used to remind leaders not to neglect the people whose trust and support they enjoy. It becomes less persuasive, however, when interpreted to mean that assistance must never extend beyond one’s immediate constituency.

In Abejide’s case, the argument should not be whether he is permitted to support people in Kano. The more relevant questions are whether he has continued to discharge his responsibilities to Yagba, whether the proposed programme is properly funded and administered, and whether its beneficiaries will receive the support promised.

His supporters point to previous empowerment programmes, educational assistance, community interventions and other initiatives in Yagba as evidence that the constituency has not been abandoned. Those claims can be assessed against available records, project details and beneficiaries’ accounts.

If the records establish that he has invested substantial resources in Yagba, it would be unreasonable to dismiss an additional initiative in Kano merely because it falls outside his constituency.

At the same time, previous interventions should not exempt any public figure from scrutiny. Every programme, whether in Yagba or Kano, deserves fair assessment based on its funding, objectives, implementation and actual benefits.

Abejide has openly expressed his support for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his desire to see the President secure a second term in office. The Kano empowerment initiative has also been presented by his supporters as part of efforts to mobilise support for Tinubu among Yoruba residents and other intended beneficiaries in the state.

There is nothing inherently unusual about a politician supporting a preferred candidate or seeking to persuade others to support that candidate. Political participation includes advocacy, coalition-building and mobilisation, subject to the law and applicable electoral regulations.

The political dimension of the initiative should therefore be acknowledged rather than disguised or exaggerated.

Abejide’s supporters are entitled to promote his political objectives, just as critics are entitled to question his decisions. What should be avoided is the assumption that every empowerment programme outside a lawmaker’s constituency must necessarily represent misplaced priority.

The distinction lies in the source of the funds, the nature of the intervention and whether the lawmaker continues to meet the obligations of his office.

Political support does not automatically invalidate an empowerment programme. Equally, an empowerment programme should not be used to avoid legitimate questions about public spending, electoral conduct or accountability.

Abejide’s primary legislative mandate remains Yagba Federal Constituency. Its roads, schools, healthcare needs, employment challenges, infrastructure and general development must remain central to his work as a representative.

Nevertheless, his status as a federal lawmaker does not mean that he must withdraw from every social, cultural, commercial or political activity outside Yagba. He remains a Nigerian citizen with the right to engage with people across the country.

The expectation should be that he fulfils his official responsibilities to his constituents while conducting other activities within the law.

This is why the discussion surrounding the Kano programme should be guided by facts rather than assumptions about geography alone.

If the initiative is intended to support Yoruba residents in Kano, including eligible Okun people from Kogi State, its objectives and implementation should be clearly communicated. If Abejide intends to use his personal resources to support the programme and mobilise political backing for Tinubu, that intention should also be stated openly.

Clarity would help distinguish the initiative’s humanitarian or economic objectives from its political purpose and allow the public to assess each on its own merits.

Public figures should expect scrutiny, particularly when empowerment programmes are announced close to an election. Questions about beneficiaries, funding, timing and political motivation are legitimate parts of democratic debate.

However, criticism loses credibility when similar initiatives are praised in one instance and condemned in another without a consistent standard.

The proper approach is to apply the same principles to every politician: establish the source of funding, examine the programme’s objectives, assess the benefits to intended recipients and determine whether public responsibilities are being fulfilled.

If those standards are applied consistently, Abejide’s Kano initiative can be examined without dismissing the legitimate interests of the Yoruba community or the Okun people resident there.

The people of Yagba also have every reason to insist that the lawmaker continues to prioritise their development. Supporting an initiative in Kano should not be presented as a substitute for effective representation at home, but neither should it automatically be treated as evidence of neglect.

Ultimately, the debate should be about accountability, fairness and the actual impact of the programme, not an artificial choice between Yagba and Kano.

Elder Leke Abejide’s political support for President Tinubu is his declared position. His relationship with the Yoruba community in Kano has a cultural and business context, while his responsibility to Yagba remains a central part of his public office.

The question, therefore, is not whether Abejide can support people beyond Yagba. He can. The real question is whether the Kano initiative is transparent, lawful and beneficial to its intended recipients, while he continues to deliver on the mandate entrusted to him by the people of Yagba.

That is the standard by which the programme should be judged.