Reconciliation is not a ceremonial gesture. It is a moral undertaking that demands credibility, restraint, and a demonstrable capacity for inclusion. Where these are absent, reconciliation becomes performance—convenient, noisy, and ultimately unconvincing.
Measured against these standards, the inclusion of Yahaya Bello on the APC reconciliation committee fails—decisively and beyond reasonable doubt.
Begin with the empirical record. Bello did not merely preside over disagreement in Kogi State; he presided over the systematic weakening of the All Progressives Congress in the state. Party structures lost coherence, internal democracy was diminished, and dissent increasingly came to be treated as disloyalty. What emerged was not a party anchored in persuasion and consensus, but a rigid command structure that alienated large segments of its own membership and eroded internal legitimacy.
The electoral consequences were not accidental; they were instructive. Under Bello’s stewardship, the APC lost Kogi Central Senatorial District to Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. This outcome was not an ideological upset but an organisational failure. Elections are, ultimately, referendums on leadership and party cohesion, and Kogi Central delivered a clear verdict. That verdict cannot be revised by post-election committee appointments.
This raises a fundamental question of logic and competence. If the APC could not be reconciled in Kogi under Bello’s watch, on what rational basis is he now positioned as a reconciler of aggrieved party members nationwide? Peace-building is not aspirational; it is evidence-based. You cannot export what you never possessed.
The challenge does not end with political outcomes; it deepens when ethics and law enter the frame. Bello is currently facing prosecution by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, with the EFCC Chairman having publicly placed on record allegations of large-scale looting of Kogi State resources during his administration. These are not rumours traded in partisan circles or amplified on social media; they are formal claims asserted by a constitutionally empowered agency of the Nigerian state.
This matters because reconciliation is not value-neutral. It requires moral authority and public trust. A figure operating under such a prosecutorial cloud cannot credibly serve as an arbiter of fairness or trust, particularly in a party already contending with perceptions that proximity to power often overrides accountability. Reconciliation requires clean hands, not contested ones.
From a narrative standpoint, this inclusion is indefensible. It undermines the reform language repeatedly articulated by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu about accountability, internal democracy, and progressive values. From an institutional standpoint, it amounts to self-sabotage—placing unresolved contradictions at the centre of a process whose success depends on confidence and legitimacy.
Put plainly, the APC does not need on a reconciliation committee someone whose record reflects fragmentation rather than inclusion. Party renewal requires individuals who have demonstrated the capacity to build bridges, manage dissent, and retain the confidence of their base—not figures whose stewardship coincided with electoral loss and internal estrangement.
There is also a reputational cost the party cannot afford to ignore. Politics is not only about what is done, but about what is seen to be tolerated. Elevating figures whose records are widely contested sends a corrosive message to party members and the wider public alike: that performance is optional, accountability negotiable, and consequences selectively applied. Such signals discourage reform-minded actors, alienate moderates, and weaken the party’s moral standing.
At its core, this moment confronts the APC with a simple but unforgiving question: can a party correct what it refuses to confront? Reconciliation that avoids uncomfortable truths merely postpones rupture. History is unkind to organisations that mistake committee formation for courage and elite accommodation for legitimacy. Committees do not save parties; courage does.
This is where the matter becomes unavoidable for the APC leadership. Trust cannot be rebuilt with symbols that remind members why trust collapsed in the first place. A reconciliation process that includes figures associated—fairly or otherwise—with division and controversy risks being perceived not as healing, but as revisionism.
For the APC, the choice is neither abstract nor academic. It is immediate and practical: credibility or contradiction; reform or recycling. Reconciliation, to be meaningful, must align personnel with purpose. Anything less undermines both.
Yahaya Bello’s inclusion on the reconciliation committee cannot stand. Not politically. Not morally. Not strategically. Until this contradiction is addressed, the reconciliation committee risks remaining an announcement rather than an achievement.
– Ahmad M.A.
For: Kogi Equity Alliance (KEA)
