By Elder Abraham Amah
Politics is not only about what is said, but equally about when it is said, why it is said, and what silence preceded it. In public life, timing is never a neutral detail; it often carries the entire meaning. When a sitting governor suddenly resurrects a private conversation allegedly held many years ago and deploys it at a moment of evident political frustration, attention naturally shifts from the substance of the claim to the motive behind its sudden disclosure.
Governor Seyi Makinde’s recent comments attributed to a past meeting involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, raise fundamental questions that go beyond partisan alignment. They touch on credibility, judgment, and political character. These are not legal questions; they are questions of statesmanship and moral consistency.
If such a conversation truly occurred and if it was as shocking as now portrayed, one is compelled to ask why conscience remained silent for years. Why was the party not notified at the time when intervention could still have been meaningful. Why did the alarm only surface after political leverage had been lost and after a failed attempt to impose personal influence on party structures through an ill fated national convention hosted and sponsored in Oyo State. Silence of this magnitude is never politically innocent. It is either consent, calculation, or convenience, and history has little sympathy for any of the three.
Politics, like philosophy, teaches that truth spoken without courage at the right moment loses its moral authority when later uttered for advantage. What we are witnessing is not the unveiling of a suppressed truth but the performance of a delayed narrative, one shaped by loss of influence rather than clarity of principle. This is less about conscience and more about reinvention.
There is also the unmistakable sense that this is a futile attempt to demarket the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike. That plot has failed. Available indicators suggest that the undertone of Governor Makinde’s outburst is also directed at President Tinubu, following his unsuccessful effort to influence the appointment of a minister from Oyo State. Actions driven by wounded ambition rarely wear the garment of principle convincingly. They often betray themselves through excess emotion and selective memory.
The reference to securing a one million dollar contract nearly three decades ago adds little to the argument. It is neither here nor there. What matters in leadership is not a single contract secured in youth but the capacity to build enduring institutions and enterprises thereafter. If such early financial success was so defining, the public is entitled to ask what equivalent of a Dangote Group or any other lasting industrial legacy emerged from it. Wealth without enduring structure is history without impact.
On the other hand, the casual reference to Minister Wike having just graduated from law school at that time inadvertently strengthens the case for his character. Being called to the Bar about twenty eight years ago is not an accident of privilege. It is a testament to discipline, personal development, and sustained effort. Securing a million dollar contract can, in some cases, be a by product of access or corruption. Being trained, examined, and admitted into the legal profession is a testament of hard work, resilience, and character.
History has a way of separating noise from substance. It will record Nyesom Wike as one of the most consequential and impactful governors of the Fourth Republic, a man whose tenure in Rivers State altered the infrastructural and political landscape of the state. It will also record his time as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory as a period of uncommon delivery, where long neglected infrastructure received decisive attention and visible transformation.
There is a deeper philosophical issue at play, the misuse of memory as a political weapon. Memory, when selectively activated, becomes less a tool of truth and more an instrument of convenience. The statesman remembers consistently. The tactician remembers strategically. The public is discerning enough to distinguish between the two.
Party politics cannot be sustained by theatrics or retrospective outrage. It is sustained by trust, and trust is built when leaders speak up at personal cost, not when silence is preserved for years and broken only after defeat. To express shock long after the fact is to admit that what is now condemned was once tolerated. That is not courage. It is revisionism.
The Peoples Democratic Party, like any serious political institution, deserves more than post defeat morality. It deserves leaders who act in real time, who respect process, law, and collective will, and who understand that internal democracy cannot be enforced through covert conventions, legal gymnastics, or selective disclosures.
This moment should therefore be elevated beyond personalities. It should stand as a lesson that political relevance cannot be reinvented through delayed revelations, and moral authority cannot be reclaimed through convenient truth telling. Power lost is not recovered by narratives alone. It is recovered by integrity, consistency, and service.
In the final analysis, history will not ask who spoke loudest after the battle was lost. It will ask who stood firm when silence was easier, who chose principle when compromise was tempting, and who understood that leadership is measured not by outrage after defeat, but by courage before it.
Elder Amah,a philosopher and public affairs analyst, contributed this piece from Abuja
