Babachir Lawal and the Burden of Perpetual Political Fallout

The resignation of Babachir David Lawal from the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and his blistering attack on former Vice President Atiku Abubakar is only the latest chapter in a political career increasingly defined not by enduring alliances or lasting achievements, but by recurring conflicts with former associates.

Politics is often a contest of interests, ideas, and ambitions. Disagreements are inevitable. However, when a public figure repeatedly finds himself at odds with almost every political platform and coalition he joins, it becomes legitimate to ask whether the problem lies with the institutions or with the individual himself.

Lawal’s latest broadside against Atiku Abubakar was remarkable not only for its severity but also for its deeply personal nature. He accused Atiku of being a tribal and religious bigot, alleged manipulation of party processes, questioned his competence, and even ventured into criticisms of his family and business background. These are not the words of a disappointed party member expressing policy differences; they are the words of a man determined to burn every bridge behind him.

Yet this is hardly an isolated incident.

As Secretary to the Government of the Federation under President Muhammadu Buhari, Babachir Lawal occupied one of the highest offices in the land. His tenure ended in controversy following the infamous “grass-cutting” scandal that eventually led to his removal. Although he was later acquitted by the courts, the political relationship between Lawal and the Buhari administration never recovered.

Thereafter, he emerged as one of the fiercest critics of the APC leadership, particularly over the Muslim-Muslim ticket that produced President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima. In exercising his democratic right to dissent, he again found himself in direct confrontation with many of the political associates with whom he had once shared common cause.

Subsequently, he gravitated toward opposition coalitions and became a visible figure within efforts to challenge the APC. Yet even there, harmony proved elusive. The latest fallout with Atiku Abubakar and the ADC suggests a continuation of a pattern rather than an isolated disagreement.

In Adamawa State, critics also point to his alleged role in the internal crises that engulfed the ADC and the controversial Nafiu Bala episode, which further deepened divisions within the party structure. Whether one accepts those accusations or not, the perception persists that wherever Babachir Lawal goes, controversy and factional conflict soon follow.

This raises a troubling question about leadership and character.

Statesmen are often judged not only by their convictions but by their capacity to build consensus, manage disagreements, and maintain relationships even amid political differences. The mark of political maturity is not the ability to identify flaws in others; it is the ability to work with imperfect people in pursuit of a larger objective.

Babachir Lawal’s public conduct increasingly suggests a politician more comfortable with confrontation than coalition-building. Former allies become adversaries. Political partners become targets. Movements he once championed become objects of criticism. Such a record inevitably diminishes public confidence in his judgment and consistency.

The tragedy is that Lawal’s credentials and experience should place him above such conduct. As a trained engineer, former SGF, and senior political figure, Nigerians would expect a measured voice capable of elevating public discourse. Instead, the nation repeatedly witnesses personal attacks, public feuds, and political divorces.

No political leader is beyond criticism. Atiku Abubakar is not. Buhari was not. Tinubu is not. But criticism carries greater weight when it is rooted in principle rather than personal animosity. When every former ally eventually becomes an object of condemnation, the credibility of the critic inevitably comes under scrutiny.

History is often kinder to bridge-builders than bridge-burners.

As Nigeria approaches another crucial electoral cycle, political leaders must demonstrate the maturity required to inspire confidence in a weary electorate. The country needs leaders capable of forging partnerships across religious, ethnic, and partisan divides—not personalities whose political journeys are marked by a trail of broken relationships and bitter recriminations.

Babachir Lawal’s latest departure from the ADC may ultimately tell Nigerians less about Atiku Abubakar and more about a recurring pattern in the former SGF’s own political career. For a man of his standing, experience, and national exposure, that is a disappointing legacy to cultivate.

Abdulkadir Ibrahim
Public Relations Professional, Public Affairs Analyst, and New Media Specialist