Kwankwaso's Principled Stand Against US Pressure Reveals the High Cost of Speaking Truth in Politics
At first glance, the news felt disconcerting and almost surreal. Among Northern Nigerian Muslim politicians, why was Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, former governor of Kano State and presidential candidate of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) in the 2023 general election, singled out by Republican lawmakers in the United States for potential visa restrictions and asset freezes under the proposed Nigeria Religious Freedom and Accountability Act of 2026?
The price of speaking truth in politics is starkly revealed through Kwankwaso's principled stand against US pressure. The instinctive reaction was one of shock, but a closer examination of the facts uncovers something more familiar, political, and revealing about power dynamics and the cost of constructive criticism and principled independence.
Kwankwaso's Critique of US Policy on Nigeria
On November 2, 2025, Kwankwaso responded to remarks by President Donald Trump, following the United States' designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern over alleged religious persecution. While many Nigerian political figures opted for silence or quiet diplomacy, Kwankwaso spoke calmly, deliberately, and with statesmanlike restraint.
He stated, "I have noted with increasing concern the heightened pronouncements on Nigeria by President Donald Trump. It is important to emphasise that our country is a sovereign nation whose people face different threats from outlaws across the country. The insecurity we face does not distinguish based on religious, ethnic, or political beliefs."
Kwankwaso rejected confrontation and instead proposed cooperation, suggesting that the United States should assist Nigerian authorities with better, cutting-edge technology to tackle security problems rather than posing threats that could further polarise the country. In a moment of patriotism and foresight, he appealed to Nigerians to emphasise unity over division.
Social Media Misrepresentation and Political Backlash
In today's ideological climate, nuance is often mistaken for defiance, and defiance is recast as guilt. Following Kwankwaso's critique, one of the co-sponsors of the proposed US legislation, Congressman Riley Moore, abandoned policy debate for personal accusation. On social media, Moore responded with a loaded indictment, accusing Kwankwaso of complicity in the death of Christians and linking him to Sharia law implementation in Kano.
This response flattened decades of history, erased context, and replaced complexity with moral absolutism. Kano's Sharia experience, documented as contested and cautiously implemented under Kwankwaso, was repackaged as proof of extremist intent. Kwankwaso did not respond, not due to a lack of answer, but because some accusations are designed for damage rather than dialogue.
Historical Context: Kwankwaso's Sharia Challenge in Kano
As governor of Kano State between 1999 and 2003, Kwankwaso presided over the emotionally charged agitation for the introduction of Sharia law in 2000. Contrary to revisionist narratives, he was not a cheerleader for Sharia but was deeply reluctant. Contemporary reporting shows a governor trapped between popular pressure, clerical insistence, and his own convictions about state authority and social cohesion.
Crucially, Kano's Sharia bill was not sponsored by Kwankwaso's government; it was a private legislative initiative that he resisted for months. This distinction placed him at odds with powerful religious interests and sections of the public, leading to intense pressure and personal safety concerns. When Sharia was eventually launched, Kwankwaso warned against vigilantism, insisted that only the state had authority to punish offenders, and urged protection for non-Muslims.
His cautious implementation of Sharia earned him no favours and contributed to his defeat in the 2003 gubernatorial election by Ibrahim Shekarau, the preferred candidate of the clerical establishment. In a political culture where fanaticism is often rewarded, Kwankwaso paid the price for moderation.
Why Kwankwaso Faces Criticism in Washington
By any fair assessment, Kwankwaso is an unlikely poster boy for religious extremism. His inclusion in the US bill stems not from his record in Kano but from his open criticism of the US designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern. Kwankwaso was the only nationally prominent Nigerian politician to object, arguing that the label oversimplifies a complex security crisis, risks inflaming interreligious tensions, and privileges confrontation over cooperation.
Congressman Moore's response, collapsing history and nuance into inflammatory charges, reflects a global pattern where foreign political challenges to US policy are often personalised. Criticism is reframed as guilt, and complexity is reduced to caricature. While the bill remains at a preliminary stage and may not advance, the symbolism matters, potentially recasting Kwankwaso as a symbol of principled dissent.
The Cost of Speaking Truth and Political Legacy
From principled critic to political target, Kwankwaso's story highlights the risks of independence in international politics. Public criticism of US policy by foreign figures, especially from the Global South, is often tolerated only when quiet and deferential. When it is open and principled, it becomes threatening.
Kwankwaso's inclusion in the bill appears less about his record and more about the symbolic danger of his voice: a northern Muslim leader rejecting a simplistic religious framing of Nigeria's crisis and insisting on sovereignty, cooperation, and national unity. Ironically, what was meant as censure may become validation, transforming him from a regional political force into a national symbol of principled disagreement.
When criticism proves costly, someone must still pay the price. Kwankwaso is paying it, but in politics, the cost of speaking truth often serves as a down payment on a lasting legacy. This incident underscores that moderation is often misunderstood, and criticism is rarely forgiven, revealing the high stakes of principled leadership in today's political landscape.
