Fresh from his Supreme Court victory, former Jigawa State Governor, Sule Lamido has turned what might have been a moment of personal vindication into a sweeping indictment of Nigeria’s political leadership—reserving some of his harshest criticism for the Federal Government.
Rather than dwell on the legal battle within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the former Jigawa governor used the moment to question the direction of governance in the country, arguing that Nigeria is being managed through optics and short-term relief instead of serious, structural reform.
Lamido’s triumph at the Supreme Court—where the controversial PDP convention that produced Kabiru Tanimu Turaki was nullified—quickly faded into the background as he launched into a broader critique of the state of the nation.
To him, the real issue is not who controls party machinery, but what those in power are doing with it.
He warned that governance under the current administration has been reduced to “palliatives”—temporary measures that mask deeper problems rather than solve them. In his view, insecurity, poverty, and national division continue to fester while leaders focus on political maneuvering.
In one of his most striking analogies, Lamido compared Nigeria’s leadership approach to treating a critically ill patient with painkillers instead of addressing the disease itself.
The remark was widely seen as a direct jab at the government led by Bola Tinubu, whose administration has rolled out a series of intervention programmes aimed at cushioning economic hardship.
Lamido, however, insists such measures are insufficient—and potentially dangerous—if they distract from long-term reforms.
His criticism did not stop at the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). Lamido cast a wider net, accusing Nigeria’s entire political elite—across party lines—of losing sight of governance.
He argued that both ruling and opposition figures are preoccupied with court cases, defections, and internal power struggles, while the everyday realities facing Nigerians are neglected.
According to him, the obsession with political supremacy has created a widening disconnect between leaders and citizens.
Even as he criticised the Federal Government, Lamido acknowledged that the turmoil within the PDP reflects the same deeper malaise affecting the country.
He described his own legal victory as “painful,” noting that it exposed a party weakened by ego-driven conflicts and abandoned by key figures who have since defected to the APC.
For Lamido, the PDP’s internal breakdown is not an isolated crisis—it is part of a broader pattern of political decay.
Despite his sharp tone, Lamido’s message carried an underlying appeal: that Nigeria’s leaders must shift focus from power contests to problem-solving.
He urged political actors to prioritise unity and national interest over ambition, warning that continued neglect of core issues like security and economic stability could have long-term consequences.
“If we truly care about Nigeria,” he argued, “we must first confront insecurity, poverty, and division—before politics.”
Beyond Victory
In the end, Lamido’s Supreme Court success has become less about reclaiming political ground and more about sounding an alarm.
His remarks underscore a central point: winning legal battles means little, he suggests, if the country itself is losing the fight for stability and progress.
And in that sense, his “victory” may carry a far heavier message than the judgment itself.
Lamido’s Broadside: Court Victory Becomes Platform for Scathing Attack on leadership
