AVM SALLAU RIBAH: The Price of Public Service and Accountability Without Public Humiliation — II

Air Vice Marshal Bala Sallau Ribah (Rtd)

Former Air Officer Commanding (AOC), Nigerian Air Force

The question now is not simply whether the outgoing leadership of the Zuru Emirate Development Society (ZEDS) deserved to be replaced, but whether the public statement announcing its dissolution was fair, proportionate and supported by evidence. An institution may have legitimate reasons to change its leadership, but those reasons should be communicated with restraint and precision. Where sweeping claims are made about the contributions, conduct or patriotism of those leaving office, the public is entitled to ask what evidence supports them and whether the language employed was necessary to explain the decision.

The press release issued by a Governor’s media aide, who also holds the traditional title of Sadaukin Zuru, therefore deserves scrutiny. Expressions such as “no record of contribution” and “unpatriotic criticism” go beyond a straightforward announcement of institutional change. The assertion that the outgoing leadership made no contribution to education, socio-economic development, infrastructure or security is particularly categorical. Such a claim ought to rest on a comprehensive assessment of the Society’s activities, not merely on dissatisfaction with its leadership.

There is, however, a responsibility that cannot be wished away. Whoever drafts, approves or circulates an official statement bears a duty to consider not only what the words say but also what they communicate to the public. In our local parlance, there is a difference between correcting a person and disgracing him; between calling attention to shortcomings and rubbing a person’s face in the dust. Our elders understood that a man could be corrected without being stripped of his dignity, just as a disagreement could be settled without turning yesterday’s associate into today’s enemy.

The pen of an official communicator should be a surgical instrument, not a machete wielded in anger. Surgery seeks to remove what is diseased while preserving what remains healthy; butchery makes no such distinction. An institutional statement should not confuse the two. Its purpose should be to communicate a decision and, where appropriate, explain its basis without unnecessarily injuring the dignity of those affected.

The issue becomes more consequential when the person at the receiving end is a retired senior officer of the Nigerian Armed Forces whose professional life spans approximately thirty-five years of service. AVM Bala Sallau Ribah is a former Air Officer Commanding of the Nigerian Air Force, a position of substantial operational responsibility, and a senior military officer whose professional record belongs to a wider national institution. His career as a military aviator, with its accumulated flying experience and professional responsibilities, provides relevant context for understanding his public standing, although it cannot, by itself, establish the quality of his performance as head of ZEDS.

Such credentials do not make him infallible or exempt his leadership from examination. They do, however, call for care when sweeping public claims are made about his contribution and character. A man may fall short in one office without his entire record being reduced to that deficiency. A tenure may be judged inadequate without pretending that the individual concerned has never contributed to his community. A fair society does not shield distinguished citizens from criticism; it ensures that criticism does not become an instrument for erasing the complexity of their service.

The reactions of some ZEDS members to the announcement are instructive. Beyond their expressions of respect for AVM Ribah, several contributors questioned the language employed and asked whether the statement reflected the considered position of the institution and the distinguished elders whose photographs accompanied it. These reactions do not, by themselves, establish a consensus among the membership, but they demonstrate that the wording raised concerns deserving attention.

One contributor, identifying himself as a founding member of ZEDS, reported that the Emir had explained the dissolution as a consequence of the expiration of the outgoing executive committee’s tenure. Although that account requires confirmation, it raises a legitimate question: if the dissolution was principally a matter of tenure, why was it communicated in language that appeared to disparage the outgoing leadership’s record? The issue is whether the language employed was fair, necessary and proportionate. These are questions that deserve clarification, not speculation, and answers that can restore confidence without deepening divisions within the Emirate.

The assertion that the outgoing leadership made no contribution to education, socio-economic development, infrastructure or security deserves particular scrutiny. Categorical statements carry a responsibility of proof. Before declaring that an administration contributed nothing across several fields, one must be prepared to account for its activities, initiatives, interventions and measurable outcomes throughout the period under review.

Air Vice Marshal Bala Sallau Ribah (Rtd)

Zuru Emirate Development Society, (ZEDS) Interim National President

An organisation may have fallen short of expectations while still undertaking projects of value. It may have achieved some objectives and failed in others, or made useful interventions that were insufficiently sustained or inadequately publicised. A fair assessment must distinguish among these possibilities rather than compress them into a sweeping verdict.

The circumstances in which the Governor’s media aide issued the statement also deserve clarification. Did he have the authority to communicate the Board’s decision? Was he acting under an express mandate from the relevant ZEDS authority, communicating an agreed institutional position, or exercising his own discretion? His position as a media aide and his traditional title do not, by themselves, establish whether he was authorised to issue the statement. That is precisely why clarification is preferable to assumption.

Holding a revered traditional title should impose an even greater obligation to exercise restraint, respect institutional boundaries and uphold the dignity of the Emirate. If the statement was issued under an authorised mandate, the nature of that mandate and the basis for its language deserve examination. If it was not, the question of responsibility becomes more pressing. This is important in establishing a sound precedent for the future. What is left unaddressed today may become an accepted practice tomorrow, to the detriment of the institution and the traditions we seek to preserve.

Although an official letter was eventually issued, the concerns raised by the earlier press release, particularly its disparaging language and the potential damage to the outgoing leadership’s reputation, have not, yet, been publicly addressed. Whether the Emirate Council summoned the media aide, sought an explanation or took any measures in his capacity as a traditional titleholder remains unknown to me. If the matter was handled privately, the public has not been informed. It would therefore be premature to conclude that no action was taken. Nevertheless, the absence of a public clarification leaves an important question unanswered: can a widely circulated statement with potentially damaging implications for individuals and institutions be left without an explanation of the authority behind it and the evidence supporting its categorical claims?

Justice must not only be done; in matters of this nature, the process must also inspire public confidence. Silence may preserve appearances in the short term, but it does not necessarily resolve the underlying concern. A measured clarification, where warranted, would help establish whether the statement reflected an authorised institutional position and whether its language was justified. That would serve the interests of fairness without requiring anyone to be publicly condemned on the basis of incomplete information.

The danger of such a precedent extends beyond the individual immediately affected. It is Sallau today; tomorrow, it could be you or anyone else. We should not wait until similar treatment is directed at someone closer to home before recognising the danger of allowing sweeping allegations to substitute for a fair assessment of performance.

The Galadiman Zuru, Distinguished Senator Major-General (rtd) Muhammadu Magoro, an octogenarian and the first Army General from the old Sokoto State—which comprised present-day Kebbi, Sokoto and Zamfara states—cannot easily forget the circumstances surrounding AVM Sallau Ribah’s emergence as National Interim President of ZEDS. From my understanding of those events, the Galadima personally prevailed upon AVM Ribah to accept the responsibility of leading the respected association.

If a distinguished veteran had to be persuaded to undertake such service, the subsequent assertion that the leadership made no contribution throughout its tenure deserves particularly careful examination. What evidence supports so sweeping a verdict? Those who encourage experienced and respected citizens to leave the comfort of retirement to accept demanding community responsibilities should expect their performance to be assessed fairly, on the basis of evidence, rather than through language that appears to dismiss their entire tenure.

Ultimately, the question is not whether AVM Sallau Ribah’s leadership was beyond reproach, but whether its record can fairly be dismissed without examining what it did, what it achieved and where it may have fallen short. A credible assessment must acknowledge both contributions and shortcomings, supported by evidence rather than sweeping declarations.