What looked like a national conversation on friendship and betrayal led me to an article by Prof. Farooq Kperogi titled “Sanusi and the Betrayal of El-Rufai,” published on the back page of the Saturday Tribune. Kperogi argues, and concludes, that: “I would be slow to call self-preservation betrayal.”
It is just that the title itself has already done the calling, even though Kperogi’s position in the body is fair and clear. My suspicion is that the attempt to attract readers with a catchy caption possibly tempted him to begin by framing the situation as betrayal, before ultimately arguing that he would be slow to call it one.
As soon as I finished reading Kperogi’s piece and processing the many lessons it offered, I encountered another write-up on friendship and betrayal, this time by columnist and novelist Gimba Kakanda.
He wrote: “Malam Nasir El-Rufai’s travails, regardless of what you think of his politics, offer a frightening lesson in what becomes of friendship when the going gets tough.” He explained that, as someone who values friendship deeply, he finds the idea of abandoning friends because they have fallen on hard times repugnant. Even when friends occupy different political camps, he believes disagreement should not necessarily destroy the friendships built over the years.
Kakanda went further: “It’s one thing to disagree over your political choices and still gather to laugh at each other over a pot of tea or a round of shisha. It’s another to join in the humiliation and destruction of your friends.” He concluded with the prayer, famously expressed by Babatunde Fashola, that our loyalty should never be tested.
The views of these two great thinkers, writers, columnists and respected personalities deserve consideration. They represent noble perspectives in the marketplace of ideas and invite reflection. Yet, with due respect, I see the matter somewhat differently.
My humble opinion, or rather my suspicion, is that betrayal may not be completely avoidable in human relationships and friendships. What matters, therefore, is not only whether betrayal occurs, but how we understand, manage and respond to it.
This is not cynicism. Social psychology suggests that human relationships are often built around implicit expectations. Social Exchange Theory, associated with George Homans and Peter Blau, explains relationships partly in terms of perceived costs, rewards and reciprocity. We invest care, loyalty, money, time and presence, often without consciously keeping accounts, but there is usually an expectation that the investment will be reciprocated in some form.
Equity Theory, associated with J. Stacy Adams, similarly explains that distress can arise when people perceive an imbalance between what they contribute and what they receive. Thus, when an expectation built into a friendship is not fulfilled, the feeling of betrayal can emerge even when the other person’s failure has a legitimate explanation.
If El-Rufai once helped Sanusi during a difficult period and Sanusi later could not reciprocate in the same way, whether because of circumstance, capacity, competing interests or self-preservation, we cannot simply erase the perception of disappointment. The inability to replicate a friend’s sacrifice may be understandable, but it does not necessarily make the other person’s sense of hurt imaginary.
This is where the idea of the psychological contract, developed by Denise Rousseau, becomes useful. Although the concept was originally prominent in workplace relationships, it applies powerfully to friendship. We do not sign written agreements with friends, but we often create invisible contracts in our hearts: I was there for you; I expect that you will be there for me.
When that expectation is broken, one person may see self-preservation while the other sees betrayal.
This happens even in romantic relationships. If a woman supports a man through school, stands beside him during difficult years and later feels abandoned or disappointed, the familiar response may be: “Despite everything I did for him.” The statement reveals something important about human relationships: acts of kindness may be freely given, but they are not always free from expectations.
That does not make the original kindness insincere. It simply means that human beings attach meaning and expectations to sacrifice.
This is also why betrayal can emerge in politics. People invest enormous emotional, financial and social capital in political relationships, candidates and causes. When circumstances change and interests collide, self-preservation may become unavoidable.Yet the person who feels abandoned may still experience the outcome as betrayal.
Both sides, therefore, may have legitimate arguments. One may believe that past sacrifice creates an obligation to reciprocate. The other may genuinely be unable to do so because of changed circumstances, competing responsibilities or personal survival. The inability to meet an expectation does not necessarily prove malicious betrayal, but neither does a legitimate excuse automatically erase the disappointment.
Gimba Kakanda’s vision of friends occupying opposing political camps while preserving their friendship is admirable. But reality is often more complicated. When political interests become intense, it may not always be possible to separate friendship completely from loyalty, family, ambition and self-preservation. A person may genuinely love a friend while supporting an opposing political cause. That contradiction is part of the complexity of human relationships.
The same applies to marriage. Every man and woman who enters marriage generally hopes it will last. Yet circumstances change. Irreconcilable differences emerge; people sometimes divorce for reasons they consider compelling. Even when the decision is justified from one person’s perspective, the other side may still experience it as betrayal or failure.
The same pattern appears in ordinary life. A friend who once supported you financially may later need your assistance, but you may be unable to provide it. Someone who stood beside you at your wedding may later live abroad and be unable to replicate the same presence at theirs. A person may expect you to support a particular position on a national or political issue, but your conscience or circumstances may lead you elsewhere.In each case, there can be disappointment without deliberate betrayal.
I also look at myself and recognise that I have probably “betrayed” people in this sense many times, not because I intended to hurt anyone, but because I could not meet an expectation or replicate a previous act of kindness. A friend may need money at a time when I cannot provide it. Someone may expect support that circumstances make impossible. The failure may be understandable, but it remains a failure from the perspective of the person who needed me.
This perhaps explains why godfathers and godsons, once inseparable, can eventually become bitter enemies. Relationships are affected by changing circumstances, interests, expectations and power. Friendship does not exist outside life; it exists inside life, and life keeps changing.
Perhaps, therefore, the real question is not whether betrayal can be completely avoided. It may be whether we can develop enough emotional maturity to distinguish deliberate betrayal from unavoidable disappointment, and enough humility to accept that we too may fail people who once depended on us.
Life is complicated, and our choices make it even more so. We should therefore pray for the wisdom to remain good friends, the honesty to acknowledge our failures, the generosity to understand the limitations of others, and the strength to bear disappointments when expectations are inevitably unmet.
As C.S. Lewis famously observed, friendship is uniquely vulnerable because it is voluntary. Perhaps the moment that voluntariness encounters necessity, competing interests or changing circumstances, the possibility of betrayal, or at least its shadow enters the relationship.The challenge, then, may not be to live without betrayal, but to learn how to live with imperfect human beings, including ourselves.
bagudumohammed15197@gmail.com
07034943575
Bagudu Mohammed is the founder of Alternative Perspectives, a widely read commentary platform on social media, and writes a weekly newspaper column published every Monday on the back page of Peoples Daily.Web: https://alternativeperspective.onrender.com
