The Moral Burden of Leadership – THISDAYLIVE

Ayoola Ajanaku

The crises engulfing the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) has become more than a routine leadership disagreement. What began as internal disputes over administrative control and constitutional interpretation has spiraled into a public institutional crisis involving the suspension of the Board of Trustees (BoT) Chairman, Alhaji Bashir Dalhatu (Walin Dutse) accusations against members of the National Executive Committee (NEC), the embattled position of the Forum’s Secretary-General, Murtala Aliyu, and even the dramatic sealing of the organisation’s headquarters by security operatives.

For an organisation historically regarded as one of Northern Nigeria’s most influential socio-political pressure groups, the unfolding events represent not merely a leadership struggle, but a profound test of institutional morality, legitimacy, and survival.

At the centre of the controversy is the suspension of the BoT Chairman, Alhaji Bashir Dalhatu, whose leadership has come under intense scrutiny following allegations of constitutional breaches, financial irregularities, and attempts to undermine internal administrative procedures. Although his supporters insist the allegations are politically motivated and driven by factional interests within the Forum, the National Executive Committee argues that disciplinary action became unavoidable in order to preserve institutional integrity.

The implications of such a suspension are enormous. In many elite organisations, particularly socio-cultural bodies rooted in traditional influence and political negotiation, the BoT Chairman is often perceived not merely as an administrator, but as a moral custodian. Suspending such a figure therefore signals a serious breakdown of trust at the highest levels of leadership.

Yet, the crisis did not emerge overnight. For months, tension had reportedly been building within the organisation over questions surrounding constitutional authority, tenure legitimacy, financial accountability, and the concentration of influence within a small leadership circle. Sources within the Forum have described deepening disagreements between members of the National Executive Committee and elements within the Board of Trustees over the future direction of the organisation and control of its administrative machinery.

Those disagreements eventually exploded into open confrontation. The situation deteriorated dramatically when security operatives sealed the ACF national headquarters amid fears of possible clashes between rival factions. The images and reports that emerged thereafter shocked many observers across the country. For an organisation that had long positioned itself as a stabilising voice on national unity, governance, and Northern interests, the spectacle of police barricades and factional infighting represented a humiliating reversal.

More troubling, however, is what the crises reveals about leadership culture within many elite institutions in Nigeria. At the core of the ACF turmoil lies an age-old institutional dilemma: whether loyalty should belong to constitutional principles or to powerful personalities. Once organisations begin to revolve excessively around individuals rather than procedures, internal disagreements inevitably become existential struggles. Constitutional provisions become tools for factional warfare rather than safeguards for institutional continuity.

This is where the role of the National Executive Committee becomes particularly significant. The NEC insists it acted within constitutional boundaries in suspending the BoT Chairman and initiating internal investigations. According to officials aligned with the executive committee, the measures were necessary to prevent what they described as “institutional capture” and administrative abuse. They argue that no individual, regardless of stature or contribution to the organisation, should be above accountability.

However, critics of the NEC accuse its leadership of selective enforcement, procedural opacity, and weaponisation of internal disciplinary mechanisms. Some members believe the committee escalated rather than managed the conflict by failing to pursue broader reconciliation before resorting to punitive measures.

These competing narratives have deepened factional divisions within the Forum and complicated efforts at mediation. Caught within this turbulence is the embattled Secretary-General, Murtala Aliyu, whose position has become increasingly precarious amid allegations, counter-allegations, and accusations of administrative bias.

The “locus standi” of Aliyu’s tenure so far as Secretary General, ACF has been the premise of rancorous tones. His first tenure ended much earlier and between that interregnum he was reelected for another tenure. The conclave of naysayers and fifth columnists have latched on this window to push for his unconstitutional ouster that he has overstayed the limits in office. The tenets of ACF constitution happen to be his trump card.

Aliyu occupies one of the most sensitive offices within the organisation. As Secretary-General, he serves not only as the chief administrative officer, but also as the institutional bridge between the Board of Trustees, the executive leadership, and the wider membership structure. In moments of stability, such a role demands diplomacy, discipline, and procedural consistency. In moments of crisis, however, the office can quickly become the epicentre of suspicion and factional contestation.

Critics within opposing camps have accused Aliyu of partisanship and administrative overreach, alleging that he aligned too closely with certain interests within the NEC during the escalation of the crisis. His supporters, however, argue that he merely discharged his constitutional responsibilities under extremely difficult circumstances.

The controversy surrounding Aliyu reflects a broader institutional challenge common within many socio-political organisations: the vulnerability of administrative offices during power struggles among elite stakeholders. Secretariats are expected to remain neutral custodians of procedure, but neutrality often becomes impossible when competing factions seek legitimacy through administrative processes.

The moral burden on leadership in such circumstances is immense. Leadership is not merely about authority or hierarchy; it is fundamentally about stewardship. Institutions survive when leaders possess the discipline to subordinate personal ambitions to collective continuity. Once ego, factionalism, and influence begin to outweigh constitutional order, institutional collapse becomes increasingly difficult to avoid.

This is precisely why the ACF crisis has generated concern beyond the organisation itself. Northern Nigeria continues to grapple with severe challenges such as insecurity, economic hardship, youth unemployment, educational decline, rural poverty, and political fragmentation. In such an environment, socio-political institutions like the ACF are expected to provide intellectual direction, mediation, advocacy, and strategic leadership. Internal implosion within such a body therefore weakens not only the organisation but also the broader regional capacity for consensus-building.

Many observers now fear that the prolonged conflict may permanently damage the Forum’s credibility if urgent reconciliation efforts are not pursued.

Already, public confidence has been eroded by the intensity of the accusations and the inability of internal mechanisms to contain the dispute. Once institutions lose moral authority internally, their external influence inevitably diminishes. It becomes difficult to preach discipline, accountability, and national cohesion while simultaneously battling accusations of internal disorder.

Still, the crises also presents an opportunity. Moments of institutional breakdown can become moments of institutional renewal if managed with honesty and courage. The calls for forensic audits, constitutional review, administrative reforms, and transparent investigations could provide the foundation for rebuilding trust within the organisation — but only if such processes are perceived as credible, independent, and non-selective.

The danger lies in reducing accountability to factional retaliation. If investigations are viewed merely as instruments for consolidating control or punishing rivals, the crisis may deepen further and produce long-term fragmentation. Reconciliation built on silence or elite compromise without addressing underlying grievances would equally fail to restore confidence.

The path forward therefore requires restraint from all parties. The suspended BoT Chairman must recognise the symbolic responsibility attached to his office and cooperate fully with legitimate institutional processes. The National Executive Committee must demonstrate transparency, fairness, and constitutional fidelity in handling disciplinary procedures. The Secretary-General must prioritise administrative neutrality and institutional stability above factional alignment.

Above all, the Forum must remember that institutions outlive individuals. Throughout history, enduring organisations have survived crises because their leaders understood that personal influence is temporary while institutional credibility is priceless. The tragedy of many Nigerian institutions is that leaders often fight to control structures they ultimately weaken in the process.

The ACF now stands at such a crossroads. Its present crisis is not merely about suspension, administrative disputes, or constitutional disagreements. It is fundamentally about whether leadership within the organisation still possesses the moral courage to preserve the institution above personal or factional interests.

History will not merely remember who prevailed in the current struggle. It will remember whether the organisation emerged stronger, weaker, or irreparably diminished. In that judgment lies the true burden of leadership.

•Ayoola Ajanaku is a Communications and Advocacy Specialist based in Lagos, Nigeria.