By: Dr. James Bwala
The claim that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has abandoned Northern Nigeria is not merely inaccurate; it is a politically manufactured narrative that collapses under the weight of evidence. It is a convenient slogan for those seeking to convert legitimate public concerns into partisan resentment, but it is not a fair representation of the administration’s record. The most authoritative rebuttal has come from within the region itself: Governor Uba Sani of Kaduna State, who, at the All Progressives Congress Presidential Campaign Council flag-off, offered a chronological and data-driven account of the interventions of the Tinubu-Shettima administration in Kaduna and across the North-West.
Governor Sani’s presentation deserves serious attention because it shifts the debate from emotion to evidence. Rather than relying on general claims or political rhetoric, he identified concrete programs, infrastructure projects, economic measures, and social interventions undertaken by the administration. His account demonstrated that the Federal Government’s engagement with Northern Nigeria has been substantial, strategic, and historically significant. Anyone still insisting that President Tinubu has abandoned the region must therefore confront the record instead of repeating a politically attractive falsehood.
Governance should be judged by policies and outcomes, not by social media complaints. Northern Nigeria, like every other part of the country, faces serious challenges: insecurity, poverty, unemployment, food inflation, weak infrastructure, and limited access to social services. These problems did not begin with the Tinubu administration, nor can they be eliminated overnight. However, the existence of difficulties does not prove abandonment. In fact, the appropriate question is whether the government has responded to those difficulties with meaningful interventions. Governor Sani’s exposition shows clearly that it has.
One of the most important elements of the Tinubu administration’s intervention is its attention to infrastructure. The Northwest has historically suffered from inadequate road networks, poor transport connectivity, and limited industrial infrastructure. These deficiencies have restricted trade, increased transportation costs, weakened agricultural value chains, and isolated communities. Under President Tinubu, however, major road and transport projects have received renewed attention. Federal road rehabilitation, the development of strategic transport corridors, and efforts to improve links between commercial centers have been incorporated into a broader economic agenda.
Kaduna occupies a central position in the Northwest, serving as a gateway between the northern states and the Federal Capital Territory. Investment in the state therefore has consequences that extend beyond its borders. Improved roads and transport networks facilitate the movement of farm produce, connect manufacturers to markets, and reduce the cost of doing business. They also deepen national integration by linking communities that have too often remained economically disconnected. These are not symbolic gestures. They are foundational investments in the productive capacity of the region.
The administration’s transportation agenda also reflects a recognition that the North requires more than isolated projects. It needs an integrated system capable of supporting agriculture, industry, trade, and human mobility. Rail development, road construction, and logistics improvements are especially important in a region where long distances separate production zones from major markets. By strengthening these connections, the government is laying the groundwork for a more competitive Northern economy.
Agriculture is another area in which the administration’s policies directly address the realities of the region. Northern Nigeria possesses enormous agricultural potential, but that potential has been undermined by insecurity, inadequate storage, poor access to credit, weak processing capacity, and limited irrigation. President Tinubu’s agricultural initiatives seek to address some of these challenges through support for farmers, efforts to improve food production, and measures designed to strengthen agricultural value chains.
The importance of this approach cannot be overstated. It is not enough to tell farmers to produce more if they lack access to inputs, financing, equipment, storage facilities, and markets. Nor can food security be achieved by treating agriculture as a subsistence activity detached from industry. The proper strategy is to build a system in which farmers produce, processors add value, and markets distribute goods efficiently. Governor Sani’s account of federal interventions in Kaduna and the North-West indicates that this integrated vision is increasingly informing government policy.
Kaduna’s position as an agricultural and commercial hub makes it a natural beneficiary of such initiatives. Investments that improve farming, irrigation, processing, and transportation can create jobs, raise household incomes, and reduce dependence on imported food. They can also provide young people with alternatives to criminality and extremist recruitment. In this sense, agricultural development is not only an economic policy; it is also a security strategy.
The claim of abandonment is further weakened by the administration’s social investment programs. The removal of the petrol subsidy and other economic reforms created immediate hardship for many Nigerians, particularly low-income households. It would be dishonest to deny that these policies imposed significant pressure. Yet it would be equally dishonest to ignore the compensatory measures introduced by the government to cushion their effects. The administration has implemented initiatives involving conditional cash transfers, support for small businesses, student loans, food distribution, and assistance to vulnerable households.
Northern Nigeria, with its large population of poor and vulnerable citizens, has been a major beneficiary of these programs. These interventions may not solve every problem, but they demonstrate governmental responsiveness rather than indifference. A government that distributes relief materials, expands social protection, and supports small-scale enterprises cannot reasonably be described as having abandoned the people it serves.
The administration’s response to economic hardship must also be understood in the context of the difficult reforms it inherited. Nigeria’s fiscal position, debt burden, and energy subsidy system had become increasingly unsustainable. Maintaining the old structure might have postponed discomfort, but it would have deepened the country’s long-term crisis. President Tinubu chose reform over delay. The challenge now is to ensure that the gains from reform are translated into better living standards through accountable implementation, job creation, and effective social protection.
This distinction is important. Criticizing the pace or effectiveness of government programs is legitimate. Demanding transparency, stronger targeting, and better delivery are necessary. But criticism should not be falsely dismissed as inaction. Governor Sani’s evidence shows that the administration is active across multiple sectors and that its interventions are especially relevant to the needs of the North.
Security, perhaps more than any other issue, shapes public perception of government performance in Northern Nigeria. Terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, and communal violence have inflicted immense suffering on families, farmers, schools, and businesses. The government’s security record therefore deserves rigorous scrutiny. At the same time, it is essential to recognize the efforts being made to strengthen the armed forces, improve intelligence coordination, and support security operations.
Northern governors and communities have repeatedly acknowledged the complexity of the security crisis. It is not caused by a single factor, nor can it be resolved through military action alone. Poverty, ungoverned spaces, illicit arms trafficking, weak justice systems, and youth unemployment all contribute to insecurity. The federal government’s responsibilities include equipping security agencies and coordinating national responses, while state and local authorities must also improve community-level intelligence, policing, and social development.
The Tinubu administration’s interventions in the North must therefore be evaluated within this broader framework. Security investments, infrastructure development, agricultural support, and social protection reinforce one another. A road that enables security access, a school that keeps children away from extremist influence, a farm-support program that restores livelihoods, and a social intervention that prevents destitution all contribute to stability. Development and security are not separate agendas; they are mutually dependent.
Governor Sani’s chronological presentation is particularly significant because it challenges the selective memory often deployed in political arguments. Critics sometimes isolate one unpopular policy or one period of hardship and present it as the totality of the administration’s record. Such an approach is intellectually weak. Responsible evaluation requires attention to the sequence of reforms, projects, and interventions over time. It requires examining what was inherited, what has been attempted, what has been completed, and what remains unfinished.
By setting out the government’s actions in chronological order, Governor Sani demonstrated that the engagement with Kaduna and the North-West did not consist of occasional political visits or empty promises. It involved sustained attention across infrastructure, agriculture, social welfare, transportation, and economic development. The cumulative effect of these measures is more important than any single announcement.
The governor’s testimony also carries political weight because he is not an outsider speaking about the North from a distance. He leads Kaduna State and understands the region’s needs, expectations, and frustrations. His assessment is based on direct experience with federal projects and programs. While his political affiliation naturally makes him supportive of the administration, dismissing his account solely on that basis would be an evasion. The relevant issue is whether the facts he cited can be verified. They can and should be.
Northern Nigerians are entitled to ask difficult questions of any government. They deserve better security, more jobs, lower food prices, functional schools, quality healthcare, and reliable infrastructure. Support for President Tinubu should not require silence about shortcomings. Indeed, constructive support should include honest demands for better performance. But those demands will lose credibility when they are built on demonstrably false claims.
The narrative of abandonment is particularly dangerous because it distorts public understanding and deepens regional resentment. It suggests that the federal government has deliberately ignored Northern Nigeria, despite the region’s central role in national politics, agriculture, security, and commerce. Such a narrative does not help citizens secure better governance. Instead, it encourages suspicion, erodes trust, and turns development into a competition of grievances.
What the North needs is not political victimhood but effective representation, informed advocacy, and measurable development. Governors, legislators, traditional leaders, civil society organizations, and citizens must continue to demand accountability. They must also distinguish between genuine gaps and fabricated accusations. Where projects are delayed, the government should be pressed to complete them. Where funds are mismanaged, those responsible should be held accountable. Where programs are poorly targeted, they should be redesigned. But the existence of unfinished work does not erase completed work, just as hardship does not prove abandonment.
Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja
About the Author
