Every announcement from the Kano State Executive Council is now greeted by a familiar chorus from some quarters of the opposition. Once the word "approved" appears, social media erupts with ridicule. To them, every approval is another opportunity for mockery, another reason to dismiss the administration as one that only "approves" but does nothing.
Political criticism is not only legitimate; it is indispensable in any democracy. Governments should never be shielded from scrutiny. They must answer difficult questions, defend their priorities and account for the trust reposed in them by the people.
But there is an important distinction between objective criticism and blanket ridicule.
Somewhere along the line, we seem to have forgotten that governance is a process. Roads are not built before they are approved. Schools are not constructed before funds are approved. Hospitals are not commissioned before contracts are approved. Committees are not inaugurated before government first identifies a problem, consults relevant stakeholders and approves a framework for addressing it.
Approval is not the destination; it is the beginning of the journey.
This is why I find the current trend deeply troubling. Citizens are right to demand implementation. They are right to ask whether approved projects are completed on time. They are right to question abandoned projects, delayed execution and wasteful spending.
That is accountability.
But to ridicule every approval simply because it is an approval is to ridicule the very process through which responsible governance is carried out.
Should a government confronted with the menace of drug abuse refuse to establish a task force because someone may laugh at the approval?
Should it ignore the challenge of the Almajiri system because constituting a reform committee might become the next social media joke?
Should it avoid assembling experts to tackle complex societal problems simply to escape political ridicule? Surely not.
In recent months, the Kano State Government has constituted strategic committees and approved interventions on issues ranging from drug abuse and youth rehabilitation to media policy and the Almajiri reform programme. These are not ribbon-cutting projects designed for instant applause. They are institutional responses to deep-rooted challenges that require planning, consultation and coordination.
Whether these initiatives eventually succeed is a legitimate subject for public evaluation. But the decision to plan, consult and organise competent minds around pressing problems should never become an object of ridicule.
Indeed, a government that refuses to plan is a government preparing to fail.
Ironically, many of the same people who mock approvals today will tomorrow accuse government of acting without consultation if those approvals were never made.
That contradiction exposes the weakness in this style of opposition politics.
Opposition is one of democracy's greatest safeguards. It exists to question authority, expose shortcomings, challenge complacency and present better alternatives. A vibrant opposition strengthens governance because it compels those in power to perform.
However, opposition loses credibility when it abandons objective criticism for blanket ridicule.
The responsibility of an opposition is not simply to oppose. It is to persuade. It is not merely to mock government but to improve governance through reasoned criticism. The moment analysis gives way to sarcasm, and evidence is replaced by slogans, public discourse suffers.
The people deserve better than political entertainment masquerading as accountability.
Another criticism frequently advanced is that H.E Engr. Abba Kabir Yusuf does not communicate enough with the public. Every citizen has the right to desire greater direct engagement from elected leaders, and public communication remains an essential ingredient of democratic governance.
Yet fairness equally demands that we acknowledge realities where they exist.
H.E Engr. Abba Kabir Yusuf's style may not revolve around constant personal social media appearances, but that should not be mistaken for silence. Those who follow governance closely know that the administration monitors public opinion and has, on several occasions, responded to issues raised by citizens.
More significantly, since assuming office, the Honourable Commissioner for Information and Internal Affairs, Hon. Comr. Ibrahim Abdullahi Waiya, has institutionalised a more consistent communication culture by regularly briefing the public on the resolutions of Executive Council meetings. Decisions, approvals and policy directions are routinely communicated through official channels. Beyond that, the Commissioner has sustained engagements with journalists, media organisations, editors, publishers, civil society organisations and communication stakeholders within and outside Kano State.
That consistency deserves recognition, irrespective of political affiliation.
This should not be interpreted as suggesting that the administration is beyond criticism. No government is.
Projects that remain abandoned should be questioned. Delayed implementation should be questioned.
Poor policies should be questioned.
Wasteful expenditure should be questioned.
Even public officials whose conduct falls below the ethical standards expected of public service should be held accountable.
That is democracy. But democracy also demands intellectual honesty.
There is a world of difference between saying, "This project was approved but has not been implemented," and dismissing governance altogether because another approval has been announced.
The first strengthens accountability. The second weakens public understanding.
History reminds us that every great achievement begins with preparation. Every flyover easing traffic today was once an approval. Every hospital saving lives today was once an approval. Every school shaping young minds today was once an approval. Every policy that transformed a society was first discussed, debated and approved before implementation began.
Planning has never been the enemy of development. Failure to implement is.
As citizens, we should never lower the standard of our political conversations. Let us demand results. Let us insist on transparency. Let us hold every government accountable. Let us measure promises against performance.
But let us never ridicule planning itself.
For the day a society begins to mock preparation is the day it unknowingly begins to undermine the very foundation upon which development is built.
Nigeria does not need an opposition that applauds government, nor does it need a government that fears criticism. It needs citizens mature enough to distinguish between planning and performance, between approval and execution, between propaganda and principle.
Governments should ultimately be judged by what they deliver.
But they should never be condemned for taking the constitutional and administrative steps required to deliver it.
Nworisa Michael is the coordinator of Inter-tribe Community Support Forum and writes from nworisamichael1917@gmail.com
About The Nworisa Doctrine
The Nworisa Doctrine is a growing body of ideas centred on nation-building, civic responsibility, inclusive governance, institutional integrity and African self-determination. It is founded on the belief that lasting national transformation depends not on louder politics, but on stronger institutions, informed citizens and leaders whose principles are greater than their ambitions.
#TheNworisaDoctrine