By Gaza Usman Tanko
Allegations of a coup plot involving a military officer identified as Lt Col AI Almakura against the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have stirred the conversation well beyond the security establishment to political circles.
The ripple effects have touched on Umaru Tanko Al-Makura, a former governor and senator and currently a prominent figure within the All Progressives Congress (APC), whose perceived silence to the very serious matter has become a subject of debate.
This is moreso with the inclusion of Sen Tanko Almakura in the recent APC National Convention where he played a prominent role in its organisation and processes.
This is because the alleged coupist is a blood relative of Senator Al-Makura, a supposed APC chieftain who is supposed to show in all acts and deed, loyalty to his party; his nation Nigeria and to the President who is a founding and leading member of his party, the APC.
Surprisingly however, Senator Almakura is yet to comment on the matter by either condemning or upbraiding those behind the alleged coup to confirm he is a true patriot and party leader.
His inability to do so raises questions about his loyalty to the President and to the APC which is in power and whether his silence could be construed to mean that he regrets that the coup did not succeed.
That he bears the same surname with one of the alleged lead coup plotters has sent dangerous signals across and is enough to have gingered him into action as the perception out there is not favourable due to blood ties to the officer and his stature within Nigeria’s political landscape.
In moments of national tension—especially those touching on the possibility of unconstitutional change—public expectations of political leaders tend to rise sharply.
The concern for some observers is not about direct implication, but about response. In a country with a history of military intervention, even unproven coup allegations carry symbolic weight.
Political figures, particularly those in the ruling party, are often expected to respond swiftly and unequivocally, reaffirming their commitment to democratic governance and constitutional order.
Al-Makura’s relative quietness has therefore been interpreted in different ways. Some of his supporters suggest that the restraint is deliberate, that acting otherwise could amplify speculation or interfere with ongoing security processes.
Many however, see it differently. They argue that in times of uncertainty, silence can create a vacuum that invites suspicion and narrative-building.
They contend that for a senior APC chieftain in the status of the former Nasarawa Governor, a clear and public rejection of any anti-democratic action would not only distance him from the controversy but also reinforce confidence in the political system.
This tension highlights a broader issue about democratic leadership. Credentials are not only built over years of service in elected office—as in Al-Makura’s case—but are also continually tested in moments of pressure. How leaders communicate during crises can shape public perception as much as their past records.
For the APC and the administration of President Tinubu, the stakes are collective. The ruling party’s image is tied to its ability to project unity, stability, and an unwavering commitment to democracy. Any perceived ambiguity among its leading figures can quickly become a focal point of national discourse.
Ultimately, the situation underscores the power of perception in politics. Even without evidence of wrongdoing, silence can become politically significant.
For Senator Al-Makura, addressing that perception directly may prove crucial, not to answer proven allegations, but to reaffirm, in clear terms, his alignment with Nigeria’s democratic order and show publicly where he stands on the matter.
