The League of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in Kano State, unequivocally rejects and dissociates itself from the Kano State OGP Secretariat’s recent call for nominations into the Steering Committee and thematic lead positions, describing the exercise as a contrived process that violates the Open Government Partnership’s core standards, contradicts Nigeria’s co-creation framework, and undermines the independence of civil society representation.
This is not a matter of semantics or internal disagreement; it is a matter of legitimacy, governance integrity, and the future credibility of open government in Kano State. The League’s position is clear: the current process is flawed, exclusionary, and unacceptable.
Any attempt to present it as a legitimate civil society selection mechanism is misleading and should be treated as such by the public, reform partners, and all stakeholders committed to accountable governance.
The Open Government Partnership is founded on a simple but non-negotiable principle: government and civil society must co-create, not control one another.
Civil society seats in OGP structures are not to be produced by administrative convenience, political preference, or secretariat discretion; they are to emerge from a transparent, participatory, and independent process that reflects the will and confidence of the wider civil society community.
The global OGP guidance makes this unmistakably clear by requiring a fully transparent selection process that attracts capable candidates from diverse backgrounds and preserves the partnership’s balance, openness, and integrity.
In Kano’s case, however, the public call issued by the Secretariat has raised profound concerns because it appears to place the government-led structure at the centre of a process that should be civil society-owned and civil society-driven.
That is precisely the kind of overreach the OGP framework seeks to prevent. Once the government begins to shape, filter, or administratively manage the selection of non-state actors, the distinction between co-creation and control collapses.
The global OGP selection rules for civil society leadership emphasize that members are selected in their individual capacity through a process that is transparent, participatory, and capable of attracting broad civil society input.
The purpose is not merely to fill seats, but to ensure that those who sit at the table can genuinely represent the concerns and interests of the civil society community without fear, favour, or undue influence.
This is the institutional safeguard that preserves trust in the system.
The Kano Secretariat’s approach, as publicly circulated, conflicts with that standard because it appears to reduce an independence-based selection process into a state-managed nomination exercise.
The problem is not that nominations were invited; the problem is that the process is being perceived as structurally compromised, with civil society expected to validate a process that has not demonstrated independence, depth of consultation, or community ownership. Under OGP norms, legitimacy comes from process, not proclamation.
The OGP Nigeria co-creation brief reinforces this point by stressing that civil society should select its representatives in the National Steering Committee through inclusive means, and that public participation should be wide, transparent, and responsive to the broader reform community.
That logic applies even more strongly at the state level, where trust is fragile, and the temptation to politicize civil society platforms can be even greater. Any structure that blurs the line between state administration and non-state representation is, by definition, a departure from the OGP spirit.
Serial Cautions Ignored
The present crisis did not emerge overnight. It is the product of repeated warnings, professional counsel, and stakeholder engagement that the Kano State OGP Secretariat appears to have ignored or discounted.
Across multiple interventions, civil society actors have urged the Secretariat to respect the principle of independence, publish clear and agreed procedures, and ensure that the non-state actor component of the OGP is not manipulated through top-down management.
Those appeals were not hostile; they were corrective and necessary. Yet the Secretariat has continued in a manner that gives the impression of proceeding first and consulting later, if at all.
That approach is inconsistent with OGP’s participation and co-creation standards, which require meaningful engagement with stakeholders, regular communication, and transparent governance arrangements.
A process that repeatedly sidelines professional recommendations cannot later claim the moral authority of inclusiveness.
The League is particularly concerned that this pattern sends the wrong message to the public: that civil society legitimacy can be arranged by official invitation rather than earned through an independent process.
This is dangerous for governance reform because it weakens accountability, creates suspicion around outcomes, and encourages the public to see OGP as a managed platform instead of a public trust mechanism.
The League of CSOs in Kano State, has therefore made a deliberate and principled decision to dissociate itself from the process. This is not a tactical posture, and it is not a refusal to engage in reform; it is a rejection of a framework that, in the League’s assessment, no longer meets the minimum standards of openness and independence required under OGP.
To participate in such a process would amount to endorsing a structural violation and lending civil society credibility to what is increasingly seen as a managed exercise.
The League’s position is explicit: it does not recognize the present nomination and thematic lead selection process as a credible reflection of civil society self-determination.
It considers the exercise to be a sham in the sense that it imitates inclusion while eroding the very conditions that make inclusion meaningful. In the language of open governance, that is not a minor procedural defect; it is a substantive breach of principle.
Consequences for Kano
The implications of this conduct are serious and far-reaching. First, it threatens the credibility of the Kano State OGP Steering Committee before it even properly begins its work.
A body born from contested procedures will struggle to command confidence, and without confidence, reform outcomes will be fragile and easily disputed.
Second, it risks turning thematic leadership into a decorative structure rather than a serious platform for policy influence, monitoring, and accountability.
Third, the Secretariat’s actions may damage Kano’s standing within the wider OGP ecosystem, where state and civil society partners are expected to model openness, transparency, and mutual respect.
A state that appears unable or unwilling to protect civil society’s independence may be viewed as operating a compliance culture rather than an open-government culture. That reputational cost can affect partnership confidence, technical support, and the seriousness with which reform commitments are received.
Finally, and most importantly, this situation risks deepening civil society mistrust and internal fragmentation within Kano State.
When stakeholders believe a process is predetermined or politically influenced, they disengage, and once disengagement takes root, meaningful co-creation becomes extremely difficult to recover.
The result is not stronger participation, but weaker legitimacy and diminished reform energy.
Our Continuous Demand
The League calls for the immediate suspension and review of the current process, followed by a genuine reset anchored on OGP global standards and Nigeria’s national co-creation expectations.
Any renewed exercise must be civil society-led, transparent, broadly publicized, and clearly separated from government control in the selection of non-state representatives.
The Secretariat must also publish the full basis, criteria, and governance arrangements for the process to restore public confidence.
The League further urges relevant stakeholders, including reform-minded institutions and accountability partners, to insist that Kano respects the distinction between co-creation and capture.
Open government cannot be built on controlled participation, and civil society cannot be expected to legitimize a process that fails the basic test of independence.
If the Secretariat persists, it does so at the cost of legitimacy, trust, and the integrity of the entire OGP architecture in Kano.
Conclusion
The League of CSOs in Kano State, remains committed to open government, but it will not compromise on the principles that make open government real.
Its position is firm, public, and final: it dissociates itself from the Kano State OGP Secretariat’s current nomination process, rejects its legitimacy, and calls for a credible, independent, and co-created alternative. Kano State deserves a genuine OGP process, not a managed imitation of one.
Endorsed By:
1. Comrade Bala Abdullahi Gaduwama – Wuro Development Concerns (WDCN)
1. Yusha’u Sani Yankuzo, Esq. – Centre for Human Rights and Social Advancement (CEFSAN)
1. Mohammed Bello – African Centre for Innovative Research and Development (AFRI-CIRD)
1. Abdullahi Y. Sule – Youth and Environmental Development Association (YEDA)
1. Abdulkadir Musa Hausawa – Youth Enlightenment Forum
1. Adeniyi Aremu, Esq. – Civil Society Organization for Conflict Resolution in Nigeria (CS-CRIN)
1. Sani Ilyas Abdullahi, Esq. – Joint Action Front (JAF), Kano State
1. Comrade Fatima A. Ibrahim – United Action for Democracy (UAD), Kano State
1. Comrade Khadija Hudu A. – Justice, Accountability and Rights Advocacy Centre
1. Comrade Moh’d Sani Garba – Pay it Forward Initiative
1. Fatima Muhammad – Gender Inclusive and Development Support Initiative, Kano
1. Aminu Sani Muhammad, Esq. – Rule of Law and Justice Advancement Network (ROLJAN)
1. Comrade M. K. Adam – Societal-Based Initiative for Rights, Peace and Development (SOBIRPED)
1. Fatima Ibrahim Badamasi – Gender Support and Youth Empowerment Initiative (GENSAYE)
1. Buhari Abubakar Usman – Centre for Legal Orientation and Humanitarian Aid (CELOHA)
1. Abdullahi Yahaya, Esq. – Publish What You Pay (PWYP), Kano State
1. Comrade Auwal Salisu – Centre for Awareness Reorientation and Empowerment (CARE-Africa)
1. Umar Isa Sulaiman, Esq. – Frontier for Gender Advocacy, Accountability & Empowerment Initiative.
1. Maryam Garba Usman – Centre for Gender and Social Inclusion (CAGSI)
1. Fatima Chabir Aliyu, Esq. – Community-Based Equal Justice Initiative
1. Comrade Salisu Ibrahim Sa’eed – Kano Youth Integrity Forum
1. Comrade Baraya Garba Hassan – Centre for Education, Health and Entrepreneurship Development (CEHED), Nigeria.
1. Abba Bello Ahmed – Campaign for Democracy (CD), Kano State
17
