The Kwali Youth Vanguard has called for a more balanced conversation about the development of Kwali Area Council, following what it described as recent attempts by supporters of the incumbent Chairman, Hon. Nuhu Daniel, to use political propaganda to diminish the contributions and legacy of former chairman Hon. Danladi Bomboyi Chiya.
According to the group, it is understandable for supporters of any sitting chairman to celebrate projects and programmes undertaken during an administration. However, it becomes problematic, in the group’s view, when such celebration is presented as though development in Kwali began with the current administration.
The Kwali Youth Vanguard said it has deliberately chosen to speak cautiously on the matter because political leadership should not become an exercise in rewriting history.
The group maintained that Hon. Danladi Chiya played a significant role in laying infrastructure and institutional foundations in Kwali, while also supporting individuals and community initiatives during his tenure.
The group said the political history surrounding the emergence of Nuhu Daniel should also not be separated from the contributions made by Chiya, arguing that the former chairman supported and worked toward the emergence of his successor.
“What else should a leader do for people he has mentored, supported and trusted with responsibility?” the group asked.
The Kwali Youth Vanguard said Chiya’s approach to leadership, as reflected in his public statements, appears to be different from the politics of personal ownership of achievements.
Rather than insisting that every succeeding chairman must remain behind his predecessor, Chiya has repeatedly emphasized the principle that a successor should build higher on whatever foundation was inherited.
That, according to the group, is why the popular statement that “a son must do better than his father” should not be interpreted as an insult to Nuhu Daniel.
Rather, the group said, it should be understood as a challenge to every succeeding administration to surpass previous achievements.
The controversy, according to the Kwali Youth Vanguard, arises when the phrase “Nuhu has done more in 100 days” is used without acknowledging the circumstances, infrastructure, institutions and previous interventions upon which any subsequent administration may build.
The group described such comparisons as incomplete unless the achievements of previous administrations are also placed on record.
“If buying cars, motorcycles, grinding machines and distributing other forms of assistance is the standard by which leadership is measured, then Danladi Chiya should be regarded as one of Nuhu’s mentors in philanthropy and rewarding excellence,” the group said.
The Vanguard argued that Chiya’s administration was known for supporting people, rewarding excellence and investing in grassroots development, and therefore questioned why such activities should suddenly become the sole basis for defining good leadership.
According to the group, philanthropy is only one component of governance. Roads, water projects, healthcare infrastructure, schools, electrification, agriculture, institutional development and continuity of government programmes are also important when assessing the performance of an administration.
The group therefore urged residents to look beyond photographs of newly purchased vehicles, motorcycles, grinding machines or distributed items and ask broader questions.
What projects were inherited?
What projects were initiated?
Which projects were completed?
What infrastructure already existed?
What programmes were continued?
What new interventions were introduced?
What was the cost?
Where were the projects located?
And, most importantly, what measurable impact did they have on residents?
The Kwali Youth Vanguard said these are the questions that should form the basis of any serious assessment of leadership.
The group further argued that saying a successor has achieved more than his predecessor within 100 days without acknowledging the predecessor’s foundation amounts to an incomplete comparison.
“Development does not happen in a vacuum. A road does not become useful only because another person repairs it. A borehole does not suddenly acquire value because another administration rehabilitates it. Institutions do not cease to exist because leadership changes,” the group stated.
It added that every administration inherits something from the one before it, whether those inheritances are infrastructure, policies, personnel, institutional knowledge, projects or community expectations.
The group said it is therefore unfair to present the current administration as though it entered an entirely empty Kwali.
The Vanguard also referenced Robert Greene’s widely discussed principle in The 48 Laws of Power concerning the danger of overshadowing those who came before.
However, the group said Chiya’s publicly expressed position appears to take the opposite approach.
“Chiya is not asking his successor to remain beneath him. He is saying openly that if Nuhu surpasses him, he will be proud. That is a remarkable distinction,” the group said.
According to the Vanguard, the real test is therefore not whether Nuhu Daniel surpasses Chiya, but whether the process of surpassing previous administrations is achieved by building upon their legitimate achievements rather than attempting to erase them.
The group said political succession should not become personal warfare.
A former chairman should not be treated as an enemy simply because a new chairman occupies the same office.
Likewise, a sitting chairman should not be expected to apologize for succeeding his predecessor.
“Let Nuhu build. Let him surpass Chiya. Let him do more. Let the people celebrate him. But let nobody rewrite history in the process,” the group stated.
The Kwali Youth Vanguard further said that the contribution Chiya allegedly made toward Nuhu’s emergence as chairman should not be dismissed simply because Nuhu now occupies the office.
The group said political support, mentorship and succession are part of the political process, but once an individual assumes office, the responsibility belongs to the people and not merely to the person who supported his emergence.
The Vanguard therefore cautioned both camps against turning Kwali’s development into a competition between personalities.
According to the group, if Nuhu Daniel has achieved something significant, it should be documented and celebrated. If Chiya established a foundation, that foundation should equally be documented.
“If Nuhu has done better in an area, let the people say so. If Chiya did better in another area, let the people say that too. Facts should not be afraid of comparison,” the group said.
The group also questioned the political wisdom of portraying every achievement of the present administration as proof that everything before it was irrelevant.
It argued that such a narrative ultimately harms the council because it discourages continuity.
A new chairman who inherits a functioning project should improve it, not abandon it simply because it belongs to a previous administration.
A successor who receives an established programme should strengthen it where necessary.
And where a previous policy failed, the successor should correct it.
That, according to the group, is what responsible governance should look like.
The Kwali Youth Vanguard further maintained that the relationship between a political mentor and successor should not be reduced to personal loyalty.
Power changes hands, but public responsibility remains.
The group said it would therefore be wrong for anyone to interpret Chiya’s praise of Nuhu as weakness or surrender.
Rather, it described the position as a willingness by a former leader to allow his successor to grow beyond him.
“Chiya is saying: take what I built and build something bigger. That is not weakness. That is confidence in the foundation he believes he left behind,” the group stated.
However, the Vanguard added a pointed political question: if someone was supported, mentored or helped into political prominence, should that person subsequently participate in efforts to destroy the political reputation or interests of those who helped him?
The group said that question should be answered by the facts and actions of the individuals involved, rather than by propaganda.
It emphasized that it was not asking Nuhu Daniel to remain indebted to Chiya politically.
“Once you become chairman, you are chairman for the people. But becoming chairman does not require you to erase the history of how you got there or who contributed to your journey,” the group said.
The Kwali Youth Vanguard urged residents to reject personality-driven propaganda and instead demand evidence.
It said Kwali deserves a conversation based on projects, expenditure, policies, impact and continuity rather than competing narratives about who is more popular.
The group concluded that Chiya’s greatest test may ultimately be whether the foundation attributed to his administration continues to produce benefits under subsequent governments, while Nuhu Daniel’s greatest test will be whether he can take that foundation further.
“Let the son surpass the father. Let the student surpass the teacher. Let the successor surpass the predecessor. But let nobody destroy the foundation in order to claim the building,” the Kwali Youth Vanguard said.
“For Kwali, the real victory should not be Chiya or Nuhu. The real victory should be the people.”