Presidency Tags El-Rufai As Contradictory Leader, Says He Previously Paid Bandits Now Condemns Negotiations

 

A fresh wave of political confrontation has erupted between the presidency and former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, as officials accuse him of double standards over the contentious issue of negotiating with bandits. Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga took to social media platform X on Monday to challenge the former governor, describing him as a “master of ambivalence” who has shifted positions depending on political circumstances.

According to Onanuga, El-Rufai once openly endorsed and supervised payments to armed bandits in order to restore relative peace to parts of Kaduna State. The former governor is now being criticized for taking an opposite stance, as he has increasingly condemned the Tinubu administration’s rejection of talks with terrorists. This apparent reversal has triggered heated debate across political circles, with supporters and critics of both figures weighing in heavily.

The statement from the presidency highlighted what it described as a pattern of inconsistency by El-Rufai. Onanuga claimed that while El-Rufai once justified financial settlements with violent groups as a practical solution to insecurity, his current criticisms appear politically motivated. He stated, “Malam Nasir El-Rufai is the master of ambivalence. Once upon a time, he supported and led the way in paying bandits to calm them. Today, in the name of politics, he opposes it.”

Public discourse around this clash has intensified because of El-Rufai’s recent outspoken comments questioning the Tinubu government’s anti-terror policy. He has argued that outright refusal to engage with armed non-state actors is not pragmatic, particularly when innocent lives are being lost. His remarks, however, have been met with swift rejection from officials who insist that dialogue or ransom only emboldens criminal gangs.

Government representatives have repeatedly affirmed that Nigeria’s current administration will not succumb to the demands of kidnappers or terrorists. They argue that the long-term consequences of negotiating with such groups are more dangerous than the temporary relief it may provide. By making concessions, officials say, the state would effectively reward crime and create incentives for further violence.

The disagreement between El-Rufai and the presidency carries significant weight, not only because of his profile as a former governor but also due to his long-standing reputation for blunt and often controversial statements. During his tenure in Kaduna, El-Rufai was both praised and criticized for his tough stance on security. Reports emerged at the time that his government had resorted to negotiated settlements with certain armed groups in order to prevent further bloodshed. Those actions were framed by his administration as reluctant but necessary decisions to safeguard lives.

Observers now note that his criticism of the Tinubu government suggests a dramatic shift in his political positioning. Analysts point out that El-Rufai has been openly distancing himself from the ruling administration’s policies, a move seen by some as an attempt to realign politically for the future. His new stance has also been interpreted by others as part of a broader ideological clash within Nigeria’s political elite over how to manage escalating insecurity.

Supporters of El-Rufai argue that his approach was pragmatic at a time when Kaduna was under siege, claiming that negotiations bought breathing space for communities caught in the crossfire. They maintain that the circumstances of that period justify his actions, and they criticize the presidency for trying to rewrite history in order to silence dissenting voices. On the other hand, his critics insist that such tactics merely postponed the problem and entrenched the culture of impunity.

The presidency’s response underscores a determination to hold firm against ransom payments, regardless of public pressure. Officials maintain that only decisive military and intelligence operations can dismantle criminal networks, restore public confidence, and bring lasting peace. The sharp rebuke of El-Rufai reflects the government’s broader strategy of publicly countering any narrative that undermines its security policies.

Beyond the political theater, ordinary Nigerians remain deeply concerned about the relentless violence, kidnappings, and displacement caused by armed groups. Many citizens are less interested in political squabbles and more focused on seeing practical improvements in security across the country. Critics of both sides note that the ongoing war of words does little to ease the suffering of those in vulnerable communities.

El-Rufai has not directly responded to Onanuga’s comments, but his previous statements suggest he is unlikely to retreat from his criticisms. His role in shaping public debate ensures that the controversy will continue to reverberate. With insecurity still gripping several regions, the dispute has raised broader questions about whether Nigeria’s leaders can unite around a coherent strategy or whether political rivalries will continue to overshadow policy solutions.

As the rhetoric intensifies, the spotlight remains firmly fixed on the government’s next moves in its battle against armed criminality. Nigerians will be watching closely to see whether the administration can translate its firm stance into tangible improvements on the ground or whether the argument with El-Rufai will be remembered as another chapter of political contradiction in a country still struggling with endemic insecurity.