Reconciliation for Peaceful Coexistence: Pantami Should Build on the Bridge He Began Between El-Rufai and Uba Sani
By Umar Usman Duguri
The funeral of Hajiya Umma El-Rufai, mother of former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai, produced one of the more remarkable moments in Nigeria's increasingly polarised political environment.
Amid grief, political differences and the legal troubles surrounding the former governor, Professor Isa Ali Pantami stepped forward at the National Mosque in Abuja and appealed to El-Rufai and his successor, Governor Uba Sani, to forgive one another and embrace peace.
According to media accounts of the encounter, Pantami told the two political figures, “Your Excellency, forgive one another,” before subsequently announcing that they had forgiven each other. The intervention was widely reported as an attempt to broker peace between two men who had once been close political allies but whose relationship had deteriorated considerably.
That moment should not be allowed to remain merely a memorable scene captured by cameras at a funeral.
If the reconciliation was genuine, Professor Pantami has already opened a door. He should now help keep that door open.
A funeral that briefly suspended political hostility
Hajiya Umma El-Rufai's burial brought together political actors who, under normal political circumstances, might have found themselves on opposing sides.
Governor Uba Sani was among those who paid tribute following the death of the former governor's mother. Media reports also documented the presence of other prominent figures, including President Bola Tinubu, National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu and several former and serving political leaders. THISDAY described the funeral as a rare gathering in which estranged associates and political rivals set aside their differences to pay their respects.
But the significance of the occasion went beyond attendance.
It demonstrated that political disagreements do not necessarily have to make human reconciliation impossible.
El-Rufai and Uba Sani have a shared political history. Uba Sani served in the political structure of the administration that El-Rufai led in Kaduna and subsequently succeeded him as governor.
Their later disagreement has become a matter of public debate, particularly as accusations, counter-accusations and competing political interests have increasingly entered the public space.
Yet the funeral offered an alternative possibility: that former allies can disagree politically without becoming permanent enemies.
Pantami's intervention should become a process, not a photograph
Professor Pantami's intervention deserves to be considered within that broader context.
The former Minister of Communications did not, according to the reports, attempt to determine who was right or wrong in the political dispute. His message was essentially one of forgiveness and reconciliation.
That is precisely why the intervention could be useful beyond the funeral.
Pantami does not need to become an advocate for either political camp. His role, if he chooses to continue the initiative, should be that of a neutral bridge-builder.
The objective should not necessarily be a return to the old political alliance.
It should be peaceful coexistence, communication, mutual respect and the reduction of political hostility.
That distinction is important.
Reconciliation does not mean abandoning accountability. It does not mean asking law-enforcement agencies to discontinue legitimate investigations. It does not mean asking the courts to disregard their responsibilities.
It means recognising that political disputes and legal processes can exist alongside a commitment to peaceful human relations.
The El-Rufai detention question cannot be separated from the political environment
The reconciliation question has become more complicated because it coincides with a significant legal battle involving the former governor.
El-Rufai was detained by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) in February 2026. The ICPC subsequently stated that his detention was authorised by a court and that the agency was acting within the legal framework governing its investigation.
El-Rufai's family, however, challenged the basis of his continued detention and called for his release, arguing that the authorities should either charge him before a competent court or release him.
The matter subsequently moved into the courts, where El-Rufai faced criminal charges and pursued bail.
This is where the issue requires careful handling.
There are legitimate arguments on both sides. Law-enforcement agencies have a responsibility to investigate allegations of corruption and financial misconduct. A person facing allegations is also entitled to due process, fair hearing and the presumption of innocence until guilt is established by a competent court.
Neither principle should be sacrificed for political convenience.
The family's appeal for presidential intervention
The appeal from El-Rufai's family for intervention from President Bola Tinubu also deserves attention, particularly because the matter has implications beyond one individual.
A former governor of Kaduna State, former FCT minister and prominent national political figure remaining embroiled in prolonged legal proceedings inevitably attracts political attention.
The family's position has been that continued detention or difficult legal circumstances should not become a substitute for transparent judicial determination. At the same time, the government's position, as reflected in the ICPC's public statements, has been that the investigation and detention were undertaken pursuant to lawful processes.
The appropriate answer is therefore not political pressure on the judiciary.
Rather, it is for every relevant institution—including the executive, law-enforcement agencies and the courts—to ensure that the process remains transparent, timely and consistent with constitutional rights.
If President Tinubu chooses to encourage dialogue among political actors, that should be understood separately from the independence of ongoing judicial proceedings.
A presidential intervention aimed at political reconciliation and peaceful coexistence is fundamentally different from an intervention designed to determine the outcome of a criminal case.
The former can help reduce tension. The latter could raise serious questions about institutional independence.
Bail should not become punishment before trial
Another issue deserving public discussion is the practical effect of bail conditions.
In May 2026, the Federal High Court in Abuja granted El-Rufai bail in the sum of ₦100 million with one surety in like sum, alongside several conditions. Among them were requirements concerning the surety's residence, employment status, property documentation, passports, tax clearance and periodic reporting to the Department of State Services.
Such conditions are matters for the court and must be respected.
But the broader principle is worth discussing: bail should remain a judicial mechanism for ensuring a defendant's appearance before the court, not an indirect form of punishment before conviction.
Where conditions are so difficult that an accused person cannot realistically satisfy them, the practical consequence can become continued incarceration despite the formal grant of bail.
That is not an argument for special treatment for El-Rufai.
It is an argument for consistency.
The same principle should apply to every Nigerian facing trial, regardless of political status, wealth, influence or lack thereof.
The political consequences of prolonged detention
There is also a political dimension that cannot realistically be ignored.
El-Rufai is not an ordinary private citizen. He is a former governor with an established political network and national visibility. His political realignment and involvement with opposition forces have already generated significant public discussion ahead of the 2027 elections. Premium Times has reported on his political break with the Tinubu administration and his subsequent opposition alignment.
Consequently, any prolonged detention or highly restrictive bail arrangement involving him is likely to be interpreted through a political lens, whether or not the underlying legal process is politically motivated.
That perception itself can become consequential.
Supporters may regard prolonged detention as persecution. Government supporters may regard the investigation as legitimate accountability. Other Nigerians may simply want the courts to resolve the matter quickly and transparently.
The danger is that a legal case becomes absorbed into a larger political struggle.
That would serve neither justice nor national cohesion.
The best protection against political interpretation is due process
The most effective way to prevent a criminal investigation from becoming a political crisis is not to stop the investigation.
It is to ensure that the investigation and prosecution are demonstrably fair, transparent and timely.
If there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the case should proceed.
If the evidence does not support particular allegations, the appropriate legal consequences should follow.
If bail is granted, the conditions should serve the legitimate purposes of bail.
And if an accused person has grounds to challenge the legality of detention or the conditions imposed, the courts should remain the appropriate arena for resolving those disputes.
That is how institutions gain public confidence.
Where Uba Sani fits into the equation
Governor Uba Sani also has an important role to play—not necessarily in the legal case, which belongs to the appropriate institutions, but in the politics of Kaduna.
As the sitting governor, he represents the state and has a legitimate interest in political stability and social cohesion.
A durable reconciliation with his predecessor would not require either man to surrender his political identity.
They can maintain different political positions.
They can disagree over policy.
They can support different candidates.
They can even remain on opposite sides of the political divide.
But they can still demonstrate that political competition does not have to destroy personal dignity or the ability to communicate.
That would be an important message to their supporters.
Kaduna cannot afford permanent political warfare
Kaduna State has experienced enough political tension, insecurity and social division over the years.
The state's political leaders therefore have a responsibility to distinguish between legitimate political competition and destructive personal hostility.
The example set by the political class matters.
When senior politicians exchange accusations, their supporters often reproduce those divisions at the grassroots.
When the same leaders demonstrate restraint, forgiveness and dialogue, they create room for their followers to do the same.
This is why the Pantami intervention at the funeral deserves more than passing attention.
It represented an opportunity.
If Pantami meant it, he should continue
Professor Pantami has already done the difficult part: he stepped into a sensitive relationship and publicly called for forgiveness.
The next step could be quieter.
He could continue private engagement with both men, encourage direct communication where appropriate and remind them that political differences do not have to become permanent personal hostility.
If necessary, respected elders, traditional institutions and other credible figures could participate in a broader reconciliation effort.
Such an initiative would not need a political banner.
It would not need a press conference.
And it should not be presented as a victory for one side over another.
Its success should instead be measured by whether communication is restored, tensions are reduced and the two political camps can coexist without unnecessary escalation.
The President's role should be one of statesmanship
President Tinubu's role also deserves careful consideration.
Where members of a political family are divided, where a former governor is facing legal proceedings and where the dispute has acquired national political significance, the President can encourage peace without interfering with the judiciary.
A presidential appeal for political reconciliation, dialogue and restraint would not necessarily mean intervention in the substance of any criminal case.
Indeed, it could reinforce the principle that political disputes should not be allowed to destroy national cohesion.
But any intervention must be transparent in purpose and respectful of institutional boundaries.
The President should not determine guilt or innocence.
The courts should.
Law-enforcement agencies should investigate.
Prosecutors should present their cases.
Defendants should have the right to defend themselves.
And political leaders should be encouraged to reconcile where reconciliation is possible.
The real question is what happens after the cameras leave
The images from Hajiya Umma El-Rufai's funeral captured something that Nigerian politics rarely produces: political figures who had been on opposite sides of a bitter dispute standing together in a moment of mourning.
Professor Pantami's plea added another dimension to that moment.
The question now is whether that spirit can survive beyond the funeral.
If it can, the reconciliation could become bigger than El-Rufai and Uba Sani.
It could demonstrate that Nigeria's political class is capable of disagreeing without destroying relationships, pursuing accountability without turning every investigation into political warfare, and seeking reconciliation without compromising the independence of the courts.
That is the balance worth pursuing.
Pantami has already opened the door.
The question is whether he—and perhaps President Tinubu, Uba Sani, El-Rufai's family, respected traditional leaders and other stakeholders—will help keep it open.
For Kaduna, the objective should not be to determine who wins a political quarrel.
It should be to prevent political disagreement from becoming permanent hostility.
Peace does not require everyone to agree. It requires people to accept that disagreement does not make coexistence impossible.
And if the plea made at Hajiya Umma El-Rufai's funeral was sincere, then the time to continue that conversation is not after the next political crisis.
It is now.