Nasir El-Rufai, the former governor of Kaduna State, is one of the most polarizing figures in Nigerian politics, and his recent political movements have only amplified the complex, often contradictory legacy he has built over the years. Since stepping away from the political limelight after his tenure as governor, El-Rufai has skillfully reinvented himself, positioning himself as a principled opposition leader. His defection from the All Progressives Congress (APC) to the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in March 2025 seemed almost inevitable, given the tensions that had been simmering between him and President Bola Tinubu’s administration. But while some viewed his exit from the APC as a bold stance against a failing government, those familiar with El-Rufai’s political playbook saw it as nothing more than another calculated move in his long history of party-hopping.
According a report by Journalist101, El-Rufai’s political career has been marked by opportunism, often driven by his desire to remain relevant and in the spotlight, no matter the cost. His defection to the SDP seemed to be another example of this: a man, once entrenched in the corridors of power, desperately seeking to re-establish himself in the midst of personal and political setbacks. It’s important to note that his political maneuvers are never guided by ideology or a genuine desire to serve the country, but rather by his ambition and personal grievances. His criticism of President Tinubu’s administration and his claims of betrayal, particularly after being rejected by the Senate for a ministerial appointment, were framed not as a principled stand but as a reaction to his diminished status in Nigerian politics.
What is most striking about El-Rufai’s political journey, however, is the audacity with which he has rebranded himself. His media campaign has painted him as Nigeria’s “last democrat,” a voice of reason and opposition to the excesses of the Tinubu administration. But to anyone familiar with his governance style, this new persona is an ironic and dangerous distortion of his true character. As governor of Kaduna State, El-Rufai’s actions demonstrated an unapologetic disregard for the rights of minorities, particularly religious and ethnic groups in Southern Kaduna, where his policies seemed to favor the interests of Fulani Muslims at the expense of local Christian communities.
Under his leadership, Kaduna became a flashpoint for violence and division. His government’s handling of the Southern Kaduna crisis, where religious and ethnic tensions ran high, was marked by inaction and, in some cases, tacit support for the perpetrators of violence. The administration’s failure to address the suffering of Southern Kaduna’s Christian population, combined with its harsh treatment of the Shiite Muslim minority in the state, raises serious questions about El-Rufai’s commitment to democratic principles. His insistence on pursuing a Muslim-Muslim ticket in the 2019 elections, despite the state’s significant Christian population, further deepened these divisions, leaving a legacy of sectarian conflict and distrust.
El-Rufai’s defection to the SDP is, therefore, not just an example of political opportunism but also a symptom of the deeper issues plaguing Nigerian politics. His ability to move seamlessly between parties, from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), then to the APC, and finally to the SDP, shows a lack of ideological commitment and an overwhelming focus on self-preservation. The SDP, which was once associated with progressive ideals and pluralism, is now at risk of becoming yet another tool for El-Rufai to further his personal ambitions.
This pattern of shifting loyalties and allegiances is not new for El-Rufai. His early career as a technocrat, including his time as the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister under President Olusegun Obasanjo, established him as a figure who would stop at nothing to secure his interests. His role in the brutal displacement of poor residents during his time as FCT Minister is a stark example of his willingness to use power for personal gain, with little regard for the human cost. His legacy as a reformist was marred by the authoritarian nature of his policies, which often favored the interests of the elite while disregarding the suffering of ordinary Nigerians.
El-Rufai’s rise to prominence was also aided by his ability to frame himself as a strong leader capable of making tough decisions. His tenure as governor of Kaduna State was marked by a series of controversial policies that many viewed as authoritarian. The 2018 Land Use Act, which stripped communities of ancestral land rights, and his handling of the Southern Kaduna crisis were prime examples of his heavy-handed approach to governance. Yet despite these policies, he was able to maintain a loyal following among certain segments of the population, particularly those who appreciated his decisive, albeit divisive, leadership style.
His political survival has always hinged on his ability to adapt and pivot when necessary. As a master of political theater, El-Rufai understands the importance of maintaining a high public profile, even at the cost of his credibility. His defection to the SDP is not just a personal retreat but a strategic move to stay relevant in the ever-changing political landscape of Nigeria. By aligning himself with opposition forces, he hopes to position himself as a leader of the anti-Tinubu faction, even though his motivations are largely driven by personal vendettas rather than genuine ideological differences.
The irony of El-Rufai’s political rebranding is that, despite his attempts to present himself as a champion of democracy, his tenure as governor was marked by actions that undermined the very principles he now claims to uphold. His administration’s repression of dissent, the weaponization of state power against critics, and his blatant disregard for human rights suggest a man more concerned with consolidating power than advancing democratic values. His recent lamentations about being ostracized by the APC ring hollow when one considers his own role in the party’s decline, having helped transform it into a vehicle for patronage and Northern dominance.
El-Rufai’s latest attempts to position himself as a defender of democracy, however, are not just a matter of personal hypocrisy; they also serve as a warning about the dangers of allowing political opportunists to hijack the opposition space. By rebranding himself as a principled dissenter, El-Rufai risks obscuring the true nature of his political career, which has been defined by self-interest, sectarianism, and a ruthless drive for power.
The dangers of this type of political maneuvering are not just theoretical; they have real consequences for Nigeria’s democracy. El-Rufai’s legacy, especially in Kaduna, demonstrates how political elites can manipulate ethnic and religious divisions to solidify their hold on power. His policies, particularly in relation to land and religion, have left deep scars that continue to affect the state’s social fabric. His recent political moves, including his courtship of figures like Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, suggest that El-Rufai is less interested in fostering unity and more focused on rehabilitating his image and securing a future role in Nigerian politics.