Bashir Ahmed Defends Kwankwaso Amid Christian Killings Controversy — Justice, Sharia Politics, and Nigeria’s Deepening Religious Divide
The Nigerian political space was once again thrown into heated debate after Bashir Ahmad, former Personal Assistant on New Media to ex-President Muhammadu Buhari, publicly declared solidarity with Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso. What began as a call for fairness quickly spiraled into a broader national conversation about religious violence, Sharia implementation, historical grievances, and the politicization of insecurity.
Ahmad, a known member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), made it clear that he is not politically aligned with Kwankwaso, who leads the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP). However, he argued that political differences should not override truth and justice. According to him, it is wrong and unjust to link Kwankwaso to killings of Christians in Nigeria, particularly when, in his view, there has been no recent terrorist incident specifically targeting Christians in Kano State.
His statement read in part:
> “We may disagree politically, but on matters of truth and justice, we must be consistent. So, on this issue, we stand with Sen. Kwankwaso.”
While Ahmad’s position was framed as a defense of fairness, it ignited fierce backlash online. Critics immediately revisited Kano’s history under Kwankwaso’s leadership, particularly in relation to Sharia law, religious tensions, and violence in the early 2000s.
Kano, Sharia Law, and the 9/11 Era: Revisiting History
To understand the controversy, one must revisit the political climate of northern Nigeria in the early 2000s.
Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso first served as Governor of Kano State from 1999 to 2003. During that period, northern Nigeria witnessed the expansion of Sharia law across several states. Zamfara State, under Governor Sani Yerima, is widely recorded as the first to formally reintroduce full Sharia criminal law in 1999. However, Kano — Nigeria’s most populous northern state and commercial nerve center — quickly became one of the most symbolically important states in the Sharia movement.
The early 2000s were marked by intense religious agitation. Implementation of Sharia in northern states generated both local enthusiasm and national concern, especially among Christian minorities who feared marginalization.
The global political climate added fuel to domestic tensions. On September 11, 2001, the world witnessed coordinated terrorist attacks in the United States, when hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. International media coverage showed reactions from across the globe, including reports of celebrations in certain parts of the Muslim world.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Nigeria experienced its own violent religious clashes. In October 2001, riots broke out in Kano following protests related to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Reports from international media at the time indicated that hundreds were feared killed during sectarian clashes between Muslim and Christian communities. However, official casualty figures released locally were significantly lower, leading to accusations of underreporting.
Critics of Kwankwaso argue that the climate of religious mobilization during his administration contributed to tensions that endangered Christian minorities. Supporters counter that Kano’s religious conflicts predate his tenure and were part of broader national instability.
Sharia Implementation and Christian Minority Concerns
The introduction and expansion of Sharia law in northern Nigeria remains one of the most sensitive issues in the country’s democratic history.
Proponents argue that Sharia applies primarily to Muslims and reflects constitutional provisions allowing states to establish Sharia courts for personal and civil matters. However, critics insist that its broader social enforcement mechanisms — including Hisbah religious police — create an atmosphere that affects non-Muslims as well.
Kano State is often cited as having one of the most structured Hisbah systems in Nigeria. The Hisbah corps enforces moral codes, regulates public behavior, and has been involved in actions such as confiscating alcohol and monitoring social conduct.
Opponents argue that such systems blur the line between religious and civil governance, especially in a pluralistic state. Supporters maintain that Hisbah operates within legal boundaries and primarily applies to Muslims.
The tension between constitutional secularism and Sharia-based governance remains unresolved in Nigerian political discourse.
The Visa Ban Question and International Scrutiny
The controversy resurfaced amid renewed international attention on Nigeria’s religious freedom record.
The United States has previously designated Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” under its International Religious Freedom framework, citing violence and persecution concerns. Although diplomatic adjustments have shifted Nigeria’s status over time, religious violence remains a topic of international monitoring.
Kwakanso expressed concern over pronouncements by U.S. political figures, including references by former U.S. President Donald Trump. He emphasized Nigeria’s sovereignty and warned against external actions that could further polarize the country.
According to Kwakanso, insecurity in Nigeria does not discriminate by religion, ethnicity, or political affiliation. Banditry, terrorism, and communal clashes affect both Muslims and Christians.
He urged the United States to assist Nigeria with advanced security technology rather than impose measures that could create diplomatic strain. He also recommended that Nigeria appoint special envoys and permanent ambassadors to strengthen international engagement.
Online Backlash: “Justice or Political Loyalty?”
Despite Ahmad’s appeal to fairness, critics accused him of selective outrage.
Some argued that Nigerians have a tendency to defend politicians regardless of allegations, provided they hold influence or wealth. Others insisted that standing with an “accused” figure without demanding investigation undermines accountability.
The debate also reopened wounds over controversial cases involving blasphemy laws and mob violence, including the killing of Deborah Yakubu in Sokoto State in 2022. That incident triggered global outrage and intensified scrutiny of extremism in northern Nigeria.
Critics questioned whether public figures who supported strict blasphemy penalties can convincingly claim neutrality on issues of extremism. They argued that the ideological foundation of Sharia criminal codes — even if constitutionally permitted — can create environments where vigilante violence flourishes.
Supporters of Kwankwaso, however, counter that he has never been convicted of inciting religious violence and that governance responsibility must be distinguished from mob actions carried out by individuals.
Is Kano Truly Free of Terrorism?
Another point of contention was Ahmad’s assertion that Kano has not witnessed recent targeted terrorist attacks against Christians.
Security analysts note that while Kano has experienced terror incidents in the past — including the 2012 Boko Haram attacks on police stations and churches — the state has not been as heavily affected in recent years compared to northeastern states like Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa.
Some commentators argue that Kano’s commercial culture plays a stabilizing role. As one critic put it, Kano is fundamentally a business-driven society where economic interests discourage prolonged instability.
However, others caution against oversimplifying the dynamics. Security conditions fluctuate based on intelligence operations, regional insurgency patterns, and federal-state coordination.
The Bigger Question: Unity or Accountability?
At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question: Can one defend fairness without appearing to excuse history?
Bashir Ahmad framed his position as a moral obligation — separating political rivalry from factual accuracy. He called for national unity and urged Nigerians not to deepen divisions during a sensitive diplomatic moment.
Yet critics argue that unity must not come at the expense of accountability. They insist that historical grievances deserve transparent examination rather than defensive solidarity.
Nigeria’s fragile interfaith balance demands both justice and restraint. The country’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion, yet recurring cycles of sectarian violence continue to test that commitment.
Conclusion: A Nation Still Wrestling With Its Past
The backlash against Bashir Ahmad’s defense of Senator Kwankwaso underscores Nigeria’s unresolved tensions around religion, governance, and political loyalty.
The early 2000s Sharia debates, the October 2001 Kano riots, subsequent sectarian crises, and contemporary religious violence remain deeply embedded in public memory. For many Nigerians, these are not abstract historical footnotes but lived experiences.
At the same time, Nigeria faces modern security threats that cut across religious lines — from banditry in the northwest to insurgency in the northeast and farmer-herder conflicts in the Middle Belt.
Whether one views Ahmad’s stance as principled fairness or misplaced loyalty, the episode highlights a critical national need: transparent investigation, responsible rhetoric, and leadership that prioritizes unity without suppressing truth.
In a nation as diverse and complex as Nigeria, political disagreements are inevitable. But if the country is to move forward, justice must be pursued consistently — and unity must be built on accountability, not denial.
As the debate continues, one thing remains clear: Nigeria’s struggle is not merely about individual politicians, but about defining the balance between faith, governance, and constitutional democracy in Africa’s largest nation.
0 Comments