Kano Politics Is Not “Permanent Opposition” — It Is Strategic Power Negotiation.
Why Governor Yusuf’s APC Alignment May Not Be the Mistake Critics Claim.
Kano State has long occupied a unique place in Nigeria’s political imagination. As the most electorally significant state in the North-West and one of the country’s most politically engaged societies, Kano’s voting choices often carry implications far beyond its borders.
This is why reports suggesting that Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf may be moving toward alignment with the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) have generated strong reactions — including claims that such a decision would be a “big mistake” because Kano, historically, is said to be “predominantly opposition.”
Yet a closer reading of Kano’s political history suggests something more complex, and far more pragmatic: Kano is not ideologically committed to opposition. Kano is strategically committed to relevance, bargaining power, and local political ownership.
The idea that Kano must always resist the party at the centre may be rhetorically appealing. But it is not supported by the full record of Nigerian electoral history.
Beyond the Opposition Label.
Critics often point to Kano’s support for NEPU in the First Republic, and the PRP in the Second Republic, as evidence that the state has always leaned opposition. There is no doubt that Kano did, at key moments, vote differently from the dominant northern establishment of those eras.
But NEPU and PRP were not simply “opposition parties” in today’s sense. They were deeply indigenous movements rooted in Kano’s urban populism, anti-feudal sentiment, and local class politics.
In other words, Kano’s choices were less a rejection of the centre, and more an assertion of identity — a desire to back platforms that expressed Kano’s internal political temperament and social aspirations.
Kano was not voting against national power as a doctrine. Kano was voting for itself.
A State That Has Backed the Centre When It Suits.
Perhaps the most damaging flaw in the “permanent opposition” argument is that Kano has, in modern democratic history, overwhelmingly supported the ruling party at the centre when conditions aligned.
In 2015 and even more decisively in 2019, Kano became one of the APC’s strongest electoral pillars.
In the 2019 presidential election, Muhammadu Buhari won Kano with more than 1.46 million votes, representing over 77 per cent of the total.
That was not opposition politics. That was Kano voting massively for the sitting president and the ruling national party.
This single fact complicates any claim that Kano “never purposefully leaned toward the centre.”
It has. And it did so emphatically.
Kano Votes Structure and Ownership, Not Opposition Romance.
The 2023 elections are often cited as Kano’s “return” to opposition, following the victory of the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) in the state.
But even this requires more careful interpretation.
Kano did not simply vote for a fringe opposition platform. Kano voted for the Kwankwasiyya movement — a political identity with deep grassroots structure and emotional resonance.
The NNPP’s strength was less about party ideology and more about political ownership: a feeling that Kano had found a vehicle that belonged to its internal political machinery, rather than one imposed from outside.
As one political observer in Kano noted privately at the time, “The party was secondary. The movement was primary.”
This is not unusual in Kano. Political labels often matter less than the networks beneath them.
Adaptation, Not Permanence.
Over the decades, Kano has shifted through multiple political alignments: NEPU, PRP, PDP, ANPP, APC, NNPP.
Such fluidity is not evidence of ideological opposition.
It is evidence of adaptability — the hallmark of a politically sophisticated electorate.
A truly opposition-locked state does not deliver landslide victories to a ruling president in one cycle, and then switch to a regional movement in another. Kano does both, depending on circumstance.
The Myth of Electoral Impossibility.
Perhaps the most sweeping claim made by critics is that the APC cannot simultaneously win Kano and win nationally — that Kano must always vote against whoever holds power in Abuja.
This is not grounded in political reality.
Elections are shaped by measurable variables:
candidate appeal
elite cohesion
grassroots mobilisation
performance in office
economic pressures
security dynamics
federal-state relationships.
There is no mystical law that Kano must oppose the centre.
As the late British statesman Harold Macmillan once observed, “Politics is a matter of realities, not illusions.”
Kano’s politics, above all, is a politics of realities.
Federal Alignment and Development Incentives.
Nigeria’s contemporary political economy has increasingly made federal alignment a practical consideration for many states.
Access to major infrastructure partnerships, security coordination, industrial revival programmes and strategic appointments often flows more efficiently through cooperative centre-state relations.
Neighbouring North-Western states such as Kaduna and Katsina have benefited from sustained federal attention partly because of political synchronisation with the centre.
For Kano — Nigeria’s commercial hub of the North — the incentives of full federal integration are substantial.
Supporters of Governor Yusuf’s potential APC move argue that Kano cannot indefinitely afford political distance from the centre if it seeks mega-projects, industrial expansion, enhanced security architecture, and sustained fiscal cooperation.
In this sense, alignment is not surrender — it is strategy.
Governor Yusuf’s Calculation: Risk, But Not Necessarily Error.
Would joining the APC automatically guarantee victory in 2027? No.
Would it automatically guarantee defeat? No.
It would be a high-stakes recalibration — one that could succeed if matched by tangible governance outcomes and careful party integration.
If Governor Yusuf moves with significant legislative backing, institutional cohesion, and visible federal dividends, Kano’s electorate is pragmatic enough to follow.
But if the shift is viewed as elite manoeuvring without clear developmental benefit, Kano’s politically conscious electorate could respond harshly.
Kano rewards strength. Kano punishes emptiness.
A Politics of Negotiation, Not Opposition.
The enduring truth about Kano is not that it is “predominantly opposition.”
The truth is that Kano is predominantly power-conscious.
It votes for relevance. It votes for ownership. It votes for political structures that can deliver both pride and progress.
Governor Yusuf’s possible alignment with the ruling party may therefore not be a historical mistake, but an attempt to position Kano at the heart of national development bargaining ahead of 2027.
In Kano, the centre is not automatically rejected.
The centre is negotiated.
And the outcome will depend not on mythology, but on performance.
The National Patriots Movement notes that Kano’s full integration with the federal centre is not a surrender of identity, but a strategic pathway to accelerated development. As Nigeria’s commercial nerve of the North, Kano stands to gain from deeper synergy with Abuja in infrastructure, security coordination, and industrial growth. Sustainable progress often follows cooperative governance, not permanent political distance.
Dr. G. Fraser MFR.
The National Patriots.
