A credible analyst should behave like a judge. Even if they were not in the room when conflict erupted, they are expected to listen to both sides, subject every claim to scrutiny, and deliver a verdict that enriches public discourse with truth, validation, and accountability.
I have read several interventions by Mohammed Bello Doka that provoke thought and stimulate curiosity. But too often they are rooted in emotion, speculation, and perception rather than evidence. The effect is judgmental writing that misleads, incites, and elevates allegations to the level of indictment without regard for the reputations it damages. That is not the work of a judge. It is the work of a hatchet man.
My suspicion is that as anti-Tinubu sentiment widens, it becomes tempting to adopt positions that attract applause, stir emotions, and cast the critic as bold. In that environment, the analyst risks abandoning the role of independent judge and becoming an echo chamber for groupthink and conspiracy. The critic stops challenging narratives and starts reinforcing them, even when the facts point elsewhere. What emerges is not analysis but transferred aggression, bitterness, paranoia, and hate directed at the government and anyone serving in it.
This pattern is clear in Doka’s piece titled “Knockout: Did El-Rufai’s Revenge Destroy Ribadu or Was the French Danger Just the Alibi?” He argues that NSA Nuhu Ribadu has been dumped by the system he helped build, and that this is El-Rufai’s sweetest revenge. That framing exposes Doka not as an impartial judge but as a partisan out for a score. If the logic holds, it would also make El-Rufai dishonorable, since he too helped build the same system that later turned against him. By that standard, if Ribadu becomes a villain, then the man whose detention became a political asset cannot claim the moral high ground.
Doka also tries to shape the narrative that Ribadu betrayed El-Rufai by arresting him, his old friend. As someone who understands the limits of public knowledge, I see an unfair judgment here. From what is public, El-Rufai fired the first shot with unsubstantiated claims. A truly critical analyst would demand evidence, not amplify innuendo. Instead, El-Rufai made himself more vulnerable. It looks like the hunter became the first victim, because those allegations would either nail Ribadu or boomerang on El-Rufai himself in the absence of proof. It is hard to say who the bad friend is when El-Rufai first took the matter public, especially when Ribadu, for a long time, resisted responding to El-Rufai’s serial charges and venom. Columnist Farooq Kperogi once noted what looked like envy on El-Rufai’s side toward his old friend.
Doka further claims that the appointment of retired Major General Famadewa as Homeland Security Adviser means Ribadu, once the most powerful in government, has been used and dumped by President Tinubu, just like Vice President Kashim Shettima. But why is Doka crying more than the bereaved? Have Ribadu and Shettima complained to him? Would the politicians Doka elevates as “saints” refuse the same appointment if offered? Does he believe Northern politicians are not interested in such roles, and that everyone should join him in fighting the Tinubu government?
He calls the appointment karma or nemesis. That reveals the emotional frame. If every setback is karma, why does Doka ignore that El-Rufai backed Governor Uba Sani of Kaduna State with a do-or-die approach that crushed opponents, only to fall out with him later? El-Rufai also backed Tinubu against Atiku, his new-found ally who later sidelined him. In all this, only Ribadu’s case is labeled a “fall,” perhaps because he is serving in a government Doka does not want to support.
The bias becomes clearer in how Doka once treated defections. He initially framed Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso’s move from NNPP to ADC as noble and right. But when Kwankwaso defected to NDC, Doka switched to character assassination, claiming he was working for Tinubu. What a double standard. If Tinubu is bad or disappointing, does it follow that no other candidate from another zone can be better for Kwankwaso to work with? Or that no other party is worth considering except the one Doka endorses?
There is also a flaw in Doka’s logic on friendship. He acknowledges that Ribadu is one of the most powerful figures in Tinubu’s government, arguably more influential than the Vice President. Yet his logic suggests we should discard a hundred good deeds for one perceived wrong. The fact that Tinubu first helped Ribadu and Shettima counts for nothing? Must the president or anyone owe them continuous satisfaction before gratitude is allowed? That is ingratitude and unfairness. A perceived disappointment should not erase a history of favors, nor turn a friend into an enemy.
At best, Doka’s intervention looks like crying more than the bereaved. He takes up other people’s fights and bitterness, without full knowledge of what transpired, and manufactures enemies out of emotion and a misguided anti-government sentiment. Political communication scholars like Doris Graber have shown that media and commentary often frame politics as conflict and betrayal to drive engagement. But when analysis becomes a vehicle for grievance, it ceases to inform and starts to polarize. A healthy democracy needs critics who hold power to account, not commentators who turn every appointment into a conspiracy and every disagreement into a vendetta.
Bagudu can be reached via bagudumohammed15197@gmail.com or 07034943575.
