ADC Presidential Candidate
By Bello Shehu Tamaje
In politics, as in every serious undertaking, proper planning is essential to success. Major events require advance preparation, careful scheduling and adequate arrangements for accommodation, transportation and other logistics. When organisers neglect these basic responsibilities and subsequently encounter difficulties, the most reasonable response is to accept responsibility and find solutions, rather than shift the blame to others. Unfortunately, the controversy surrounding the African Democratic Congress (ADC)’s proposed presidential campaign launch in Sokoto suggests a different approach, one in which poor planning is being presented as political persecution.
The ADC has accused the Sokoto State Government of allegedly directing hotels in the state to deny accommodation to its delegates ahead of the campaign launch scheduled for Saturday. One of Its presidential campaign spokespersons, Dahiru Maishanu, went further, describing the purported action as irresponsible, politically motivated and an abuse of executive power. He also alleged that guests who had already paid for their accommodation were being evicted to make room for the sultan’s event.
These are weighty accusations. However, before rushing to condemn the Sokoto State Government, it is necessary to examine the circumstances surrounding the two events and ask a fundamental question, who should bear the responsibility for scheduling a major political rally without adequately considering an important event that had already been planned?
According to the government’s response, hotel reservations were made to accommodate dignitaries expected from across Nigeria and beyond for the 20th anniversary of His Eminence, the Sultan of Sokoto, Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar III, on the throne. The anniversary, which includes the conferment of traditional titles on deserving individuals, is a major occasion for the Sultanate and the people of Sokoto. Preparations for such an important event naturally require advance planning, including arrangements for the accommodation of invited guests.
The crucial point, therefore, is that the Sultan’s anniversary was not an event suddenly conceived to frustrate the ADC or undermine its political activities. It was planned in advance, and the state government’s hotel reservations were part of its preparations to ensure the successful hosting of the occasion. The ADC, as a political organisation preparing for a national campaign launch, ought to have taken these existing commitments into account before fixing its date.
It is difficult to understand why a party aspiring to win a presidential election would fail to exercise the level of foresight expected of an organisation undertaking a major national political event. The arrival of delegates from different parts of the country, the presence of party leaders and the expected movement of supporters all require extensive logistical planning. Hotel accommodation is one of the most basic and predictable requirements. It should have been among the first considerations, not a problem to be discovered at the eleventh hour.
The ADC cannot reasonably expect the entire hospitality sector in Sokoto to remain available for its exclusive use, particularly when another major event is already attracting visitors and dignitaries. Hotels operate businesses, and reservations are ordinarily secured in advance. When rooms are booked by other guests, the responsibility rests with subsequent visitors to explore available alternatives. That is the reality of organising events in any city, and Sokoto should not be treated as an exception.
What makes the ADC’s position more questionable is that the party appears to have overlooked the significance of the Sultan’s anniversary while arranging its own programme. Had its organisers exercised due diligence, they would have investigated the availability of accommodation, considered the state’s event calendar and selected a date that would minimise logistical difficulties. Alternatively, they could have made the necessary arrangements early enough to secure suitable accommodation for their delegates. Either approach would have demonstrated the organisational discipline expected of a party preparing for a presidential election.
The timing also invites questions about the process through which the ADC settled on Sokoto and the date of its campaign launch. The party’s decision to proceed during a period already occupied by an important traditional engagement raises the impression that its preparations were hurried and insufficiently coordinated. Rather than acknowledge this possibility, its spokesperson has chosen to blame the state government, turning a problem that could have been anticipated into a political confrontation.
More disturbing is Maishanu’s language. A former commissioner in Sokoto State should understand the importance of responsible public communication and the need to distinguish legitimate political criticism from inflammatory accusations. Calling the state government irresponsible and using other disparaging expressions without first establishing the facts does not demonstrate political sophistication and maturity. It reveals a regrettable tendency to allow partisan considerations to take precedence over reason, restraint and constructive engagement.
As a son of Sokoto, Maishanu should also appreciate the significance of the Sultanate in the social, cultural and traditional life of the state. The Sultan’s 20th anniversary is not merely a government programme that can be dismissed as an ordinary political engagement. It is a historic milestone in the reign of a revered traditional ruler whose institution commands respect across the country. Political ambitions should not blind anyone to the need to respect such an occasion and the arrangements made to ensure its success.
His resort to confrontational language also raises questions about whether personal political grievances have clouded his judgement. A spokesperson’s responsibility is to communicate a party’s position convincingly, not to manufacture antagonism or attribute malicious intentions to others without substantiation. If the ADC encountered difficulties securing hotel rooms, its spokesperson could have sought clarification, engaged hotel operators and explored practical alternatives. Such an approach would have been more productive than accusing the government of executive rascality.
For the avoidance of doubt, most hotels in Sokoto are privately owned and operate independently, making it misleading to assume that the state government directly controls their accommodation decisions. This explanation reinforces the need for the ADC to provide evidence of the alleged directive rather than rely on assumptions. If the party has proof that hotel operators were instructed to reject its delegates or evict paying customers, it should present that evidence. Otherwise, the accusation risks appearing to be an attempt to conceal an organisational failure behind political rhetoric.
The ADC must explain why it failed to make adequate arrangements for its event despite the advance planning associated with the Sultan’s anniversary. Bringing unrelated governance disputes into the argument does not change the central issue of responsibility for scheduling and logistics.
The party has every right to organise its rally, and its members deserve fair treatment. However, that right does not absolve its organisers of the responsibility to plan properly, just as the government’s duty to support the Sultan’s anniversary does not make it responsible for every accommodation challenge faced by visitors to Sokoto.
Ultimately, the ADC must recognise that political organisation begins with foresight and accountability. A party seeking the mandate of Nigerians should demonstrate that it can anticipate challenges, respect existing commitments and manage its affairs without unnecessarily blaming others. The Sultan’s anniversary was planned in advance, and the ADC should have taken that reality into consideration before choosing its campaign date. Its failure to do so cannot automatically be transformed into evidence of government interference.
The lesson from this is simple, poor planning should not be disguised as political victimisation. If the ADC’s difficulties arose because it failed to make timely arrangements or adequately consider the demands of an already scheduled traditional event, the honourable course is to accept responsibility and resolve the problem. Blaming the Sokoto State Government without convincing evidence will not repair the party’s organisational shortcomings. It will only deepen the impression that, for the ADC, political accusations have become a convenient substitute for accountability.
*Tamaje, a political analyst, write a from Sokoto*
