WHEN POLITICAL RHETORIC BECOMES A LIABILITY: THE DANGER OF SHEHU MUHAMMAD KOKO’S UNGUARDED POLITICAL UTTERANCES

By Ibrahim A. Jombali

Indeeed poitics is serious business and should not be left in the hands of bad people. This is because there is morality in politics in morality. Sadly, there is a curious misconception in Nigerian politics that the ability to condemn government is evidence of the capacity to govern. It is not. Political criticism may demonstrate dissent, but it does not necessarily demonstrate competence, intellectual depth or an understanding of the institutions through which public affairs are conducted. In most cases, those who have failed in leadership are the ones making the loudest dirty noise.For anyone seeking election into the House of Representatives, the distinction should be elementary. Yet some of the political utterances attributed to Shehu Muhammad Koko, a candidate for the National Assembly, suggest an unsettling confusion between political agitation and political leadership.

Democracy thrives on disagreement. Indeed, a government that cannot withstand criticism has little claim to democratic maturity. Citizens must be free to interrogate public policies, challenge official decisions and demand accountability without intimidation. But freedom of expression, particularly when exercised by those seeking public office, carries a corresponding obligation: criticism must be informed by facts, proportionate to the issues and directed towards improving governance rather than merely discrediting political opponents.

This is where political rhetoric becomes consequential. There is a difference between exposing government failure and manufacturing the impression that government itself is a failure. The former is democratic accountability; the latter is political propaganda. One requires evidence, analysis and an appreciation of institutional realities. The other often requires little more than indignation, exaggeration and a willingness to sacrifice context at the altar of political convenience.

Koko would do well to appreciate that a seat in the House of Representatives is not an invitation to become a permanent commentator on the shortcomings of others. It is a constitutional responsibility involving legislation, oversight, appropriation, representation and the difficult business of reconciling competing national interests. The National Assembly needs lawmakers capable of interrogating policy, understanding budgets, scrutinising executive decisions and advancing legislation that improves the lives of their constituents. It does not need additional political megaphones whose principal qualification is an appetite for confrontation.

There is, moreover, a fundamental institutional distinction that responsible political discourse must respect. The Federal Government, state governments and local government administrations operate within different constitutional jurisdictions, with separate mandates, responsibilities and limitations. To condemn them collectively, without identifying the specific policy failures, administrative decisions or constitutional breaches in question, is to substitute political generalisation for serious public analysis.

Governance is rarely as simple as political rhetoric suggests. Public institutions operate within fiscal constraints, inherited liabilities, competing priorities and administrative limitations. None of these circumstances excuses failure, but all are relevant to evaluating it. A politician who ignores these realities may generate applause at a rally or attract attention on social media, but such performances are poor substitutes for the intellectual discipline required in public office.

The question, therefore, is not whether Koko has the right to criticise APC-led administrations. He does. The question is whether his criticism is sufficiently grounded in evidence and constructive alternatives to qualify as responsible political engagement. What specific policies does he oppose? Which administrative decisions does he consider defective? What constitutional or institutional failures has he identified? And, more importantly, what would he do differently?

These are not unreasonable demands. They are the minimum expectations of a candidate asking citizens to entrust him with legislative authority.

There is also a more troubling dimension to reckless political communication. Public confidence is a valuable but fragile democratic resource. It is built when citizens believe that institutions, despite their imperfections, remain capable of delivering public value and responding to legitimate demands. It is weakened when political actors routinely present every government decision as evidence of institutional incompetence, every policy disagreement as proof of bad faith and every administrative shortcoming as grounds for wholesale rejection.

Such rhetoric betrays the most elementary moralstandardsexpected of a politician, and its consequences extend beyond the fortunes of individual politicians. It encourages public cynicism, deepens partisan hostility and makes the already difficult task of democratic governance more complicated. Political actors cannot reasonably demand institutional legitimacy when they treat the systematic erosion of public confidence as an acceptable campaign strategy.

This is particularly relevant in Nigeria, where democratic consolidation requires more than periodic elections. It requires political actors who understand that institutions must outlive administrations, that public policy should be assessed on its merits and that national development cannot be sustained by permanent political warfare.

None of this suggests that incumbent governments deserve indulgence. The APC-led administrations at the federal, state and local levels must be subjected to scrutiny. Their achievements should be acknowledged where demonstrable, their failures exposed where established and their decisions challenged where they depart from the public interest. Accountability must not become selective merely because the government in question shares one's political affiliation.

But intellectual honesty demands consistency. A politician cannot credibly claim to be defending the public interest while applying different standards of judgment depending on who occupies political office. Nor can criticism acquire legitimacy simply because it is directed at a government one opposes. The strength of an argument lies in its evidence, not in the identity of its target.

There is, therefore, a contradiction worth examining in Koko's political posture, if the reported pattern of his utterances is an indication of his approach to public engagement. To aspire to become a legislator while deploying language that risks diminishing confidence in democratic institutions raises questions about the kind of representation he intends to offer. The legislature is not an arena for unending political combat. It is a place where disagreement must ultimately produce laws, oversight, compromise and public value.

The distinction between an opposition politician and a responsible legislator is instructive here. Opposition is not simply the rejection of whatever the government proposes. It is the capacity to identify what is wrong, explain why it is wrong and offer a credible alternative. A politician who can only condemn may be an effective provocateur, but that does not automatically make him a capable lawmaker.

Nigeria has seen enough of political theatrics disguised as public service. The electorate deserves candidates who understand that representation involves more than the performance of anger. It requires policy literacy, institutional knowledge, intellectual courage and the ability to distinguish between what is politically expedient and what is in the public interest.

Koko must recognise that political credibility is not measured by the volume of one's denunciations or the severity of one's adjectives. It is measured by the quality of one's reasoning, the consistency of one's principles and the practicality of one's proposals. The ability to speak loudly is not the same as the ability to think clearly. And the capacity to mobilise public dissatisfaction is not necessarily evidence of the capacity to resolve the problems that produce it.

Ultimately, the electorate should be concerned not merely with what a candidate says about those in power, but with what his words reveal about his own understanding of power. Does he appreciate the constitutional responsibilities of the office he seeks? Can he distinguish institutional shortcomings from partisan disagreements? Is he prepared to interrogate policy with evidence rather than emotion? And can he offer solutions beyond the familiar vocabulary of condemnation?

These are the questions that should define the assessment of anyone seeking a seat in the National Assembly.

Democracy needs fearless critics, but it also needs responsible ones. It needs politicians who can challenge authority without trivialising institutions, expose failures without distorting facts and disagree without making political hostility their principal contribution to public life.

Political ambition should be an invitation to demonstrate capacity, not an excuse for rhetorical excess. Public office is not a reward for the loudest critic, nor is the House of Representatives a theatre for permanent political grievance. It is an institution entrusted with the serious business of representing citizens and shaping the direction of the country.

For Shehu Muhammad Koko, the challenge is therefore straightforward: criticism alone is not a manifesto, indignation is not a policy framework, and political noise is not evidence of legislative competence.

The electorate is entitled to ask a more fundamental question: beyond his capacity to condemn those in government, what evidence is there of his capacity to govern, legislate and deliver?

Wamban Koko has thrown morality and decorum to the winds. He presented hinself as a failed politician suffering from verbal dysentery but he must be reminded that Governor Kauran Gwandu’s reputation of humility, honesty, integrity and trustworthiness predates his assumption of political leadership and the responsibility of governance. These are longstanding personal attributes that have earned him the confidence, respect and goodwill of the people of Kebbi State. His record, character and leadership credentials are far beyond what Wambai can diminish through political attacks or disparaging remarks.

No amount of propaganda, character assassination or calculated attempts to discredit his administration will shake the confidence of the people or derail their political conviction. Come 2027, the people of Kebbi State will speak decisively through the ballot box, turning out in their huge numbers to reaffirm their mandate and ensure the return of Kauran Gwandu for a second term as Governor of Kebbi State. It is so obvious that for the people of Kebbi State, Kaura has done sp well and God Has blessed his administration and no little man cab take away such blessings.

Ibrahim Abubakar Jombali

Special Adviser on Public Enlightenment and Orientation to the Executive Governor of Kebbi State.