By Dan Kano
I have watched Kano’s civil space rise and fall over the years, and I must confess, what we are living through today is one of the saddest chapters. The silence we now see did not come from bans, threats, or crackdowns. It came from within.
Our loudest voices, those who once stood before us as defenders of the people, were in fact working behind the scenes for the then-opposition party that now holds the seat of power.
On the surface, these men and women spoke the language of civil society: accountability, transparency, justice. They attended our town halls, drafted our communiqués, and stood at our press conferences. But as events have now shown, they were playing a double game, working for the citizens in daylight, but aligning their loyalties with politicians in the dark.
Take the Kano Civil Society Platform, for instance. For years, it was the face of civil society in Kano, leading the Civil platforms, presenting itself as an independent voice of the people. But what many of us did not see then was that its activism tilted toward the opposition, quietly laying the groundwork for its current role.
Today, the head is no longer the watchdog, but a Commissioner, the very voice of government. How can citizens trust that same platform to ever return to the civic space as an independent advocate?
Community Health Research Platform is another example. Highly respected in health advocacy and governance circles, it was perceived as fighting for citizens’ welfare.
Yet, its alignment with political interests has now been made clear by its place in the system. The independence we once admired was, in truth, compromised long before official appointment.
And then there is another, Executive Director KAJA (KAYA), KAJA once represented the fiercest face of accountability in Kano, known for exposing governance lapses and demanding transparency.
Many of us believed it was a shining example of what a watchdog should be. But today, with KAJA appointed to government, the fire has gone out. The once-vibrant KAJA is quiet, and the citizens who trusted it have been left disillusioned.
Even the Open Government Platform has not been spared. Its co-chair on the civil society side has been appointed to a government committee. This effectively blunts the citizens’ voice in Open Governance Platform processes.
The very platform designed to guarantee equal partnership between government and citizens is now lopsided, tilted in favor of those in power.
Networks like Education For All, which once campaigned vigorously for education reforms, now spend their time attending government meetings, collecting transport allowances, and receiving awards from the governor. The independence is gone, the credibility eroded.
The tragedy here is not just that these individuals accepted appointments, it is that for years, they masqueraded as neutral actors while quietly serving political interests.
Unlike One Commissioner, who publicly and honorably resigned from the civic space before joining politics, these others chose to corrupt the system from within. They played both sides, civil society by day, politics by night.
That is why I ask: how will they return after their tenures? How will they look citizens in the eye and claim once again to be “independent voices”? How will their organizations reclaim trust when their leaders have already betrayed it? For me, and for many others, that trust has been broken.
I do not deny that bringing civic actors into government can strengthen delivery. But when watchdogs pretend to be neutral while secretly serving politicians, it is not inclusion, it is manipulation. The cost is the death of independent scrutiny.
Today, only a few brave individuals, like two Marxists who remain outside the government’s orbit. They continue to speak up, but without funding, their voices are faint. The vibrant, united civic space we once had during the days of SFTAS and FCDO’s PERL and ARC project is gone, fractured by appointments and rewards.
The lesson is clear. Civic leaders who wish to join politics must do so openly, as One Commissioner did. But those who exploit the civic space as a stepping stone to political office only betray the citizens who trusted them. They may enjoy power today, but the day they return to claim the mantle of “civil society” again, the people will not forget.
For me, that is the greatest loss, not just of voices, but of trust. And once trust is broken, can the civic space in Kano ever be the same again?
This submission deliberately decides to hide the names of the individuals and organizations (whose names are tempered) in the submission for continued image protection, including the writer.
