BY: ZANGINA AHMED BUNKURE, FORMER PRO, SDP KANO STATE.
Recent remarks by Shehu Gabam in his BBC interview have raised serious concerns about the distortion of facts and political revisionism.
Among the most glaring of his claims is that Engr. Yusuf S. Buhari, former SDP Vice-Presidential Candidate, and Alhaji Bala Gwagwarwa, the party’s former Gubernatorial Candidate in Kano, were expelled from the party. Even more baffling is Gabam’s assertion that Gwagwarwa never paid for his nomination form, an attempt to rewrite history that cannot go unchallenged.
It is curious that Gabam, who today claims to have expelled these two prominent SDP candidates, seems to have forgotten the circumstances under which they emerged as flag bearers of the party. In the case of Alhaji Bala Gwagwarwa, Gabam conveniently omits how he personally reached out and pleaded with Gwagwarwa to pick up the gubernatorial ticket, for free.
At the time, the SDP in Kano was struggling to present a credible governorship candidate, and Gabam, desperate to avoid the embarrassment of failing to field one in such a strategic state, sought out Gwagwarwa. He urged him to accept the ticket without the usual financial commitments required of aspirants because Gwagwarwa initially had no interest in contesting. Gabam’s motive was clear: securing a gubernatorial candidate to give the illusion of strength in Kano, and dump the responsibility of genuinely building the party in the state to the candidates.
Yet, today, that same Gabam has turned around to claim that Gwagwarwa failed to pay for his nomination form. If that were true, why did he personally offer the ticket? And if non-payment was truly the issue, why did Gabam wait until now, after Gwagwarwa’s defection to the APC, to make this claim? The contradictions in Gabam’s statements expose his pattern of twisting facts to fit whatever narrative serves him at the moment.
If Gabam is so concerned about the issue of nomination form payments, perhaps a more pressing question should be asked: What happened to the funds paid by other SDP candidates across the country?
While he now fixates on Gwagwarwa’s alleged non-payment, there has been no transparency regarding how much money was collected from aspirants and how those funds were utilized. Many within the party have raised concerns about the lack of accountability in the management of nomination fees and campaign funds. If Gabam is truly committed to honesty and transparency, he should be willing to provide a full breakdown of these finances.
Gabam’s claim that he expelled Engr. Yusuf Buhari and Alhaji Bala Gwagwarwa is equally baseless. Party expulsion, as Gabam himself explained in the same interview, follows a process that starts at the ward level and moves up through the party’s structures, with proper documentation at every stage. If such a process was truly carried out against these two prominent candidates, where is the evidence? Where are the disciplinary reports, official communiqués, or press statements announcing their expulsion?
The reality is that no such expulsion ever happened. What did happen, however, was that both men, along with their formidable political structures, voluntarily left the SDP after seeing firsthand how the party had been hijacked for personal interests.
Gabam’s tenure as SDP chairman has been marked by the departure of many respected political figures. Chief Olu Falae, Professor Tunde Adeniran, Professor Jerry Gana, Donald Duke, Chief Supo Shonibare, and Dr. Abdul Ishaq all distanced themselves from the party, unable to operate under an environment where internal democracy took a backseat to personal control.
Under Gabam, the SDP became less of a political platform and more of a personal empire, where decisions were dictated rather than debated. The party’s structures, rather than being empowered, were systematically weakened to ensure total dominance by a single individual.
In his attempt to downplay the impact of the SDP’s mass defection in Kano, Gabam claimed that those who left, including Gwagwarwa and Buhari, were not the true party structure in the state. To reinforce this claim, a hurried press conference was staged, featuring individuals presented as SDP members.
Yet, if this defection was insignificant, why has Gabam’s Kano representative been making frantic calls to the same local government chairmen he previously dismissed, pleading with them to return to the SDP? This contradiction exposes the truth: the defection shook the party, and the attempt to downplay it is nothing more than damage control.
Engr. Yusuf Buhari and Alhaji Bala Gwagwarwa remain proud of their contributions in Kano, where they expanded the SDP’s structure from a modest presence in only 6 local governments with limited ward coverage to a comprehensive network across all 44 local governments and their wards, backed by substantial financial commitments. They are also proud to have stood alongside Prince Adewole Adebayo, who tirelessly built the party’s nationwide visibility, forming a legacy that Gabam is now desperately trying to claim as his own in his typical revisionist manner. Unfortunately, Buhari and Bala recognized that under the current leadership, the party was unlikely to fulfill its true potential.
Their decision to move to the APC was not one of desperation, but one of strategic realignment. They chose to join a party with a clear structure, a defined leadership, and a commitment to political growth, qualities that were increasingly absent in the SDP under Gabam’s leadership.
At the heart of this discussion is the need for honesty in political leadership. Nigerians deserve leaders who speak the truth, who stand by their words, and who uphold the values of transparency and fairness. If Gabam is truly the democrat he claims to be, he should welcome scrutiny rather than resort to fabrications.
Engr. Buhari and Alhaji Gwagwarwa hold no personal grievances against the SDP as a political party, and sincerely wish it well in its future endeavors. However, with new entrants joining the party, the months and years ahead will be revealing. Will they seek to establish a more balanced and inclusive leadership, or will they adapt to the existing model?
Unless there is a deliberate effort to introduce reforms, the SDP will continue on its current trajectory, where decision-making remains concentrated in the hands of a single individual, and internal democracy is more theoretical than practical.
For now, the inconsistencies in his statements speak for themselves. There is much more to be said about the state of the SDP and its leadership, but that discussion will unfold in due time.