El-Rufai’s recent flirtation with the Social Democratic Party and reported plans to galvanize opposition forces against the Tinubu administration raise even more questions about his motivations. What exactly is El-Rufai fighting for—national interest or personal vendetta? The timing of his criticism, coming after he was denied a cabinet position, is too convenient to ignore. It betrays a bitterness that undermines any claim to principle. If El-Rufai had been cleared and appointed, would he today be singing a different tune?

What Nigerians must recognize is that political opportunism often wears the cloak of activism. El-Rufai’s new-found nationalism may appear noble on the surface but scratch a little deeper and it reveals the familiar pattern of self-interest masquerading as statesmanship which is a common among Nigeria’s political elite. For a man who once warned that those criticizing President Buhari were enemies of progress, his volte-face today exposes the hollowness of his convictions. He did not find his voice when the Buhari administration was overseeing widespread insecurity, when the economy was haemorrhaging, or when nepotism and human rights abuses became routine. He was not on the side of the people when it mattered most.

El-Rufai is not a passive observer of Nigeria’s decline; he is a protagonist. He helped build the APC machinery that produced both Buhari and Tinubu. He was not only in the room where decisions were made—he was often one of the loudest voices shaping them. It is therefore profoundly hypocritical for him to now attempt to distance himself from the consequences of those decisions. Leadership comes with accountability, not selective memory. In critiquing the Tinubu administration, El-Rufai is not wrong to highlight policy missteps or governance failures—no administration should be above scrutiny. But the messenger matters as much as the message. And in El-Rufai’s case, the contradictions are too glaring to ignore. His sudden pivot from insider to outsider, from kingmaker to critic, should be viewed with caution. It is a well-worn script in Nigerian politics, where actors reinvent themselves not for the sake of the nation, but to secure relevance and power.

El-Rufai’s April 2025 visit, alongside other political allies, to Buhari in Kaduna has raised eyebrows and rightly so. The optics of that meeting, one that appeared more like a political pilgrimage than a courtesy call, suggest that the former Kaduna governor is once again attempting to reassemble his power base in the North under the guise of national concern. Coming at a time when he has intensified his criticisms of President Tinubu’s administration, the visit is not without its undertones of strategic manoeuvring.

But Nigerians must ask: what exactly was the agenda of that visit? Was it an innocent reunion of political comrades, or a desperate attempt by El-Rufai to consolidate his own political influence for future battles. And more importantly, what moral ground does El-Rufai stand on to now accuse the Tinubu administration of corruption, intolerance and nepotism—the very sins that defined the Buhari government under which he served with unwavering loyalty?

On national television, El-Rufai recently declared that the current administration is the ‘most corrupt, intolerant and nepotistic’ in Nigeria’s history. It was a dramatic statement, designed to inflame and galvanize, but also deeply ironic coming from a man who served as a senior figure in an administration that many Nigerians remember for the exact same failings—and in many respects, worse.

Under Buhari, corruption was not only present, but it was also brazenly ignored. Nepotism was elevated to an art form, with an overwhelming percentage of high-level appointments skewed towards a narrow section of the North, often with little regard for competence or national balance. The country’s security agencies, key economic positions and strategic ministries were staffed with individuals from Buhari’s immediate circle, predominantly from his region and religion. Where was El-Rufai’s voice then? Not only was he silent, but he actively defended the administration, using every opportunity to dismiss critics as enemies of progress.