Sule Lamido Slams APC: A Party Built on Bitterness, Not Vision
In a powerful and deeply reflective critique of Nigeria’s political evolution, Alhaji Sule Lamido, the former Governor of Jigawa State and one of the founding fathers of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has taken aim at the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). In his newly launched autobiography, Lamido does not mince words as he describes the APC as a political entity born from anger, malice, and bitterness, rather than ideology, integrity, or a clear vision for national development.
This scathing assessment is found in Chapter 16, page 421 of the book, where Lamido reflects on the tumultuous period leading up to the 2015 general elections. It was during this time that Nigeria witnessed an unprecedented political realignment, with several high-ranking members of the PDP defecting to the newly-formed APC.
A Party Born Out of Resentment
Lamido, who played a significant role in the formation of the PDP during Nigeria’s return to democracy in 1999, expressed his deep disappointment at the manner in which the APC emerged. According to him, the formation of the APC was not the result of a coherent political ideology or patriotic motivation, but rather a reactionary move by disgruntled politicians.
“I once had cause to explain to some members of the public after the APC was formed, that it was created out of anger, malice and hatred,” Lamido wrote. “It was not, and has never been, a serious political party; its proponents were only parochial scavengers, who see politics as a huge enterprise.”
Lamido’s words are a blistering indictment of the political motivations behind the formation of APC. By using terms like “parochial scavengers,” he implies that those who created and flocked to the party were driven primarily by self-interest rather than national interest. His statement is particularly important in the context of Nigeria’s ever-evolving political landscape, where defections and mergers often occur without a corresponding ideological alignment.
Historical Context: From the Fourth Republic to the APC
To understand Lamido’s criticism, one must first revisit the political history of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic, which began in 1999. At the time, the three dominant political parties were the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the Alliance for Democracy (AD), and the All Peoples Party (APP).
Lamido recounts how the AD and APP joined forces to back Olu Falae against Olusegun Obasanjo, who was the PDP’s presidential candidate. Despite their alliance, the PDP secured victory, cementing its place as the dominant party in Nigeria for the next sixteen years.
“The AD/APP alliance later dissolved into the ANPP. But they lost the elections; it was these losers that later came together to establish the APC,” Lamido noted.
This statement underscores his argument that the APC was essentially formed by politicians who had been repeatedly rejected at the polls. Rather than accepting defeat and working to build credible opposition based on alternative ideas and policies, these individuals allegedly sought power through a strategic merger, without addressing their fundamental ideological differences.
The Buhari Phenomenon and the “Mr. Integrity” Narrative
One of the most striking parts of Lamido’s reflection is his criticism of how the APC elevated Muhammadu Buhari into a near-mythical figure of integrity. While Buhari’s anti-corruption stance won him many admirers, Lamido believes that the adulation was exaggerated and historically misleading.
“Before Buhari came into the scene, we had leaders with an established record of integrity and powerful reputation, like Tafawa Balewa, Ahmadu Bello, Mallam Aminu Kano, Obafemi Awolowo, Nnamdi Azikiwe and General Murtala Mohammed,” he stated. “Unfortunately, even Buhari himself, with time, came to accept the praises of integrity being showered upon him by his political promoters.”
According to Lamido, Buhari’s rise was not merely the result of his record or policies, but a well-crafted narrative designed by political strategists. In doing so, these strategists pushed aside Nigeria’s earlier generation of iconic leaders, some of whom had deeper and longer-lasting legacies.
This form of political revisionism, Lamido argues, has led to an oversimplification of Nigeria’s history, where the contributions of past heroes are overshadowed by current political figures elevated by media and propaganda.
Silence on Northern Icons: A Betrayal of History?
Lamido, who hails from the North and shares a similar regional background with Buhari, expressed particular dismay that Buhari did not pay sufficient tribute to northern political icons like Mallam Aminu Kano and General Murtala Mohammed, especially in areas like Kano, where their legacies remain deeply revered.
His criticism touches on a broader theme in Nigerian politics: the erasure or marginalization of key historical figures in favor of contemporary leaders. This, he believes, is a disservice not only to the legacies of those leaders but also to the Nigerian people who look to history for guidance and inspiration.
Why Lamido Rejected APC Invitations
During the period of intense internal strife within the PDP, many influential members jumped ship, citing dissatisfaction with party leadership. However, Lamido remained steadfast, choosing to stay within the PDP and work towards reconciliation and reform.
He also disclosed that he was repeatedly approached by promoters of the APC during the height of PDP’s internal crisis, but turned down the invitations. According to him, the principled path was to remain within the PDP and work toward resolving its internal issues rather than defecting.
This decision, Lamido asserts, was rooted in principle rather than politics. By staying within the PDP, he sought to demonstrate that party loyalty and ideological consistency still matter in Nigerian democracy—a bold stance in an era where political defections are rampant.
APC and Nigeria’s Current Political Landscape
In light of Lamido’s revelations, questions are being raised once again about the true nature of the APC and its effectiveness as Nigeria’s ruling party. Critics of the APC have often accused it of lacking a coherent policy agenda, with internal divisions and ideological inconsistency marring its governance since 2015.
While the APC continues to hold significant political power, Lamido’s critique adds fuel to the argument that its foundation was politically expedient rather than ideologically sound. For many Nigerians who are disillusioned with the current state of governance, Lamido’s words serve as a sobering reminder of the consequences of building political platforms on shallow or reactionary foundations.
Conclusion: A Call for Political Introspection
As Nigeria moves towards yet another electoral cycle, the reflections of elder statesmen like Alhaji Sule Lamido are crucial. His observations are not merely criticisms—they are a call for deep political introspection. In a country where party loyalty is often trumped by political convenience, and where historical legacies are easily rewritten, voices like Lamido’s offer clarity, context, and a reminder of what truly matters in a democracy.
Whether one agrees with Lamido or not, his perspective adds valuable depth to the conversation about the future of Nigerian politics, the role of political parties, and the importance of historical integrity.
