OpEd | Saliu Mustapha and AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq: Between Political Understanding and Political Propaganda

By Mustapha Olayiwola

The renewed controversy over an alleged 2022 agreement involving Senator Saliu Mustapha raises a rather simple question: what exactly was the agreement about?

Senator Mustapha has never denied that there was an understanding between him and Governor AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq. What he has consistently rejected is the interpretation of the document now being circulated as though it amounted to an undertaking never to seek a higher political office.

According to the Senator, the understanding was that he would not return to the Senate in 2027 because he intended to pursue a higher office. Events appear to support that account. He did not seek the APC Senate ticket; he contested the governorship ticket instead.

That distinction is crucial.

If the understanding was that Mustapha would vacate the Senate pathway in pursuit of the governorship, then he did precisely that. To subsequently reinterpret the same understanding as a prohibition against his governorship ambition is to change the meaning of the arrangement after the political circumstances have changed.

More interestingly, the alleged agreement has become a major political talking point only after the relationship between the Senator and the Governor collapsed. That naturally invites a question: is the document being used to establish history, or to construct a political narrative?

The larger issue, however, was never merely about a piece of paper. It was about trust, internal democracy and the handling of the APC governorship contest.

Mustapha and other aspirants and stakeholders believed the process that produced the party’s governorship candidate did not provide the level playing field they expected. Their disagreement eventually evolved into the G15 and the broader Otoge Progressives movement.

Mustapha’s eventual departure from the APC should therefore be understood within that wider political rupture, rather than reduced to the convenient claim that he simply broke an agreement.

There is nothing contradictory about saying: “I honoured the understanding by not seeking the Senate ticket, but I did not agree to surrender my ambition to govern.”

That is the distinction the present propaganda appears determined to blur.

If the agreement is genuine, its complete and original terms should settle the matter. But until its actual terms are established beyond political interpretation, the public should be wary of turning a disputed document into an unquestionable verdict.

Politics may rewrite alliances, but it should not rewrite history.