Former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai dropped a bombshell that has sent ripples through Nigeria’s political landscape. El-Rufai, who once stood as a stalwart of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) before defecting to the Social Democratic Party (SDP), revealed a startling fact about the 2023 presidential election: political leaders were aware of the controversy surrounding President Bola Tinubu’s academic records in Chicago, United States, yet they still supported him. Their rationale? A belief that Tinubu’s achievements in Lagos could translate into similar success at the national level.
El-Rufai’s admission is significant, not just because it exposes the inner workings of Nigeria’s political elite but also because it underscores the complexities of loyalty, ambition, and pragmatism in the country’s governance. In a political environment often defined by rhetoric and alliances, El-Rufai chose to speak openly about the realities behind Tinubu’s controversial candidacy.
“What pains me is that the government we supported and had confidence in would do well because we saw what Tinubu did in Lagos despite his challenges,” El-Rufai said. “We all knew about his issues in Chicago, but we thought if he could replicate his work in Lagos for Nigeria, let’s support him. However, he failed.”
The controversy surrounding Tinubu’s academic credentials first surfaced in 2023 when the Chicago State University (CSU) denied issuing the diploma Tinubu had submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). While the university later provided a transcript purporting to belong to Tinubu, the allegations cast doubt on the authenticity of his educational background. Despite these concerns, Tinubu proceeded to win the APC nomination and eventually the presidency.
El-Rufai’s revelation raises uncomfortable questions about the standards and expectations placed on political candidates in Nigeria. Did the political class overlook Tinubu’s academic discrepancies because of his track record in Lagos, or was it due to a lack of rigorous scrutiny? El-Rufai suggests the former, arguing that Tinubu’s achievements in Lagos were seen as a blueprint for national success. “We all knew about his issues in Chicago,” he admitted, “but we believed he had the capacity to lead Nigeria effectively.”
El-Rufai insists his decision was based on principle rather than personal vendettas. “I never betrayed Atiku Abubakar because we didn’t meet in politics; we met at work,” he explained. “If I see that he didn’t do well, whoever he is, I will tell him. I told Buhari, and I even took Buhari to court on the new naira issue.”
El-Rufai’s loyalty—or lack thereof—is a recurring theme in his political career. He pointedly contrasted his stance with that of others who remained silent despite perceived shortcomings. “When Obasanjo and Atiku were having issues, those of us working with Obasanjo looked at the issues between them and said Obasanjo was more right,” he noted. “It was not about north and south; Obasanjo was right. Atiku and I are now together, and if I betrayed him, why are we together now?”
El-Rufai’s comments come at a critical juncture for Nigerian politics. As dissatisfaction with the current administration grows, there are murmurs of a political realignment ahead of the 2027 elections. El-Rufai, ever the provocateur, has thrown his weight behind the SDP, calling for a united front among opposition leaders. “What I want and pray for is for all opposition leaders—Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi, Rotimi Amaechi, and Rauf Aregbesola—to join the SDP,” he stated.
This call for unity is significant, as it reflects a growing consensus among opposition figures that only a coordinated effort can challenge the dominance of the APC. However, El-Rufai’s endorsement of the SDP raises eyebrows, given the party’s relatively low profile compared to established rivals like the Labour Party and the Allied Peoples Movement (APM). Critics may question whether the SDP can provide the necessary platform for a unified opposition.
El-Rufai’s interview also highlights the delicate balance between personal ambition and collective interests in Nigerian politics. While he criticized Tinubu’s performance, he did so without disowning his earlier support. This nuanced approach underscores the complexity of political alliances, where loyalty is often contingent on perceived outcomes rather than ideological alignment.
The controversy surrounding Tinubu’s academic credentials remains unresolved, with the Chicago State University’s conflicting statements leaving room for skepticism. While Tinubu’s supporters argue that his accomplishments outweigh any doubts about his qualifications, critics contend that such controversies undermine the credibility of leadership. El-Rufai’s admission adds another layer to this debate, suggesting that the political establishment was aware of the issues but chose to overlook them.
In a country where trust in institutions is already fragile, El-Rufai’s revelations highlight the disconnect between public perception and private motivations. By admitting that political leaders knowingly backed Tinubu despite the controversy, he has reignited debates about accountability and transparency in governance. His remarks also underscore the importance of setting higher standards for candidates, ensuring that their credentials and capabilities align with the responsibilities of office.
El-Rufai’s interview is a reminder that politics is rarely black-and-white. It involves compromise, strategy, and often, a willingness to overlook imperfections in pursuit of broader goals. Whether this approach ultimately benefits Nigeria remains to be seen, but El-Rufai’s candor has undoubtedly injected fresh urgency into discussions about the future of the nation’s leadership.
As the political landscape continues to evolve, one thing is certain: Nasir El-Rufai will remain a provocative voice, unafraid to challenge conventional wisdom and provoke reflection. His interview serves as both a cautionary tale and a call to action, urging Nigerians to demand more from their leaders while holding them accountable for their actions.
