The Bigger Battle Keeping Sokapu Bigger Than Any Individual Or Group

The Bigger Battle Keeping Sokapu Bigger Than Any Individual Or Group

Perhaps one of the most important issues to emerge from my conversation with Engr. Samuel Tabara Kato is a dimension of the SOKAPU crisis that goes beyond the personality of whoever occupies the office of National President.

According to Tabara, the fundamental battle has never simply been about ensuring that SOKAPU remains bigger than its president.

The deeper struggle, in his account, is about ensuring that the organisation remains bigger than any individual, faction, political interest or competing group seeking to determine its direction or speak on behalf of its constituency outside its established structures.

Tabara maintains that this has been one of the central challenges confronting SOKAPU since 2007, long before he assumed the presidency in December 2023.

During our interview, he referred to what he said were documented records and other evidence which, in his assessment, demonstrate a prolonged pattern of interference, rivalry and attempts to *supplant* , weaken or redirect the institutional authority of SOKAPU.

Among the individuals he specifically mentioned were *Elder* Darey Akau, Dr. Zuwaqhu Bonat, Apostle Kure and *Mr* Bature Likoro (now replaced by Dr Samuel Achie), alongside what he described as their respective allies and cohorts.

These are serious allegations and should be understood as Tabara’s account of the history of the SOKAPU leadership crisis. He says the documentary records in his possession support his position.

However, the allegations should not be presented as judicially established facts unless independently verified through appropriate evidence or proceedings. The individuals named are entitled to respond to the allegations and present their own accounts of the events.

What makes the matter significant is that Tabara does not portray the controversy simply as a disagreement between personalities.

He sees it as a deeper struggle over the identity, authority and independence of the organisation itself.
And that distinction is critical.

WHO SPEAKS FOR *SOUTHERN KADUNA?*
At the heart of the controversy is a deceptively simple question of,
Who speaks for *Southern Kaduna,* and under whose authority?
For an organisation that describes itself as the umbrella socio cultural body representing the interests of the diverse peoples of Southern Kaduna, institutional authority cannot be usurped by the influence of one individual or a collection of powerful personalities.

Neither should the organisation’s mandate be weakened whenever influential individuals or groups disagree with its leadership.

Tabara’s position, as conveyed during our interview, is that some of the prolonged disputes surrounding SOKAPU have arisen because individuals and groups have, at different times, sought to exercise influence over the organisation beyond the limits of its constitutional structures.

That assertion offers another lens through which to examine the leadership crisis.

What has often appeared to be a contest between personalities may, at a deeper level, involve questions of institutional legitimacy, constitutional authority and who has the recognised mandate to determine the collective direction of the Southern Kaduna People.

That is why the issue cannot simply be dismissed as another leadership disagreement.
THE 2007 QUESTION
The significance of Tabara’s account also lies in its historical dimension.

He traces what he regards as the roots of the present institutional predicament to developments dating back to 2007, arguing that the challenges confronting SOKAPU today cannot be fully understood without examining the succession of disagreements, rival centres of influence and leadership contests that have occurred since then.
According to him, the situation has been compounded by the activities of individuals and networks which, in his assessment, have contributed to the fragmentation of Southern Kaduna’s collective voice.
It is within this broader narrative that the names of Elder Darey Akau, Dr. Zuwaqhu Bonat, Apostle Kure and Bature Likoro / *Dr. Samuel Achie* arise.

Their alleged roles require careful treatment. A responsible historical account must distinguish between what Tabara alleges, what documentary evidence he says he possesses, what other actors have stated and what has independently been established.

That distinction does not make the allegations irrelevant. Rather, it provides the basis for examining them through evidence rather than personality, assumption or political sympathy.
WHEN DISAGREEMENT BECOMES INSTITUTIONAL *RIVALRY*

There is another dimension to the story.
Southern Kaduna is not a homogeneous social or political community.
It comprises numerous ethnic nationalities, traditional institutions, religious communities, professional associations, development organisations, political interests and advocacy platforms.

The existence of these groups is not inherently problematic. Indeed, diversity remains one of the region’s defining characteristics.

The difficulty arises when different organisations or personalities begin to claim competing authority over the same collective constituency, creating uncertainty about who has the legitimate mandate to speak for Southern Kaduna on matters of common interest.

This is where SOKAPU’s institutional position becomes particularly important.
The objective should not be to eliminate other Southern Kaduna organisations, nor should SOKAPU be expected to agree with every individual or organisation operating within the region.
What is necessary is *synergy and* a clear understanding of *respective* mandates.

SOKAPU must be allowed to operate according to its constitution and legitimate structures, while other organisations should equally be free to pursue their lawful mandates, *but aligned and consistent with the ideals of SOKAPU* .
The real institutional danger begins when personal influence becomes confused with organisational authority.

TABARA’S CENTRAL ARGUMENT
From my interview with Tabara, one message emerged with particular clarity: he does not believe the solution is merely to make SOKAPU bigger than its president.
His argument goes further.

SOKAPU, in his view, must be bigger than every president, former president, influential individual, political interest and competing group.

That, he says, is the institutional principle behind the battles he has faced since assuming office.
It also helps explain why some of the disputes surrounding his presidency have become difficult to resolve.

If the contest were solely about personalities, compromise might be relatively straightforward. But when competing sides believe they are defending the identity and authority of *their respective* institutions, the disagreements can become much more entrenched.
That appears to be one of the central realities behind the prolonged SOKAPU controversy.
THE EVIDENCE QUESTION
The documentary evidence referred to by Tabara also places an important responsibility on journalism and on anyone attempting to document the history of SOKAPU.
History should not be written solely from recollection.

Where records exist, they should be examined. Where correspondence exists, it should be preserved. Where court documents exist, they should be consulted. And where individuals are accused, they should be given a fair opportunity to respond.

Where competing accounts exist, the public deserves to know what is established, what is disputed and what remains unresolved.
That is particularly important in dealing with the allegations involving Akau, Bonat, Kure and Likoro/ *Achie* .

Their names should remain within the context in which they were raised as part of Tabara’s account of the historical struggle over SOKAPU’s institutional direction unless and until the underlying claims are independently established.

That approach protects both the integrity of the historical record and the rights of those named.

THE REAL LEGACY QUESTION
Ultimately, the bigger institutional challenge may be ensuring that the struggle described by Tabara does not simply produce another cycle in which one personality replaces another.

The more enduring question is whether SOKAPU can develop/ *harmonise with other* institutions strong enough to survive changes in leadership, political interests and internal disagreements.
That requires systems stronger than personalities.
It requires predictable leadership succession, credible internal democratic structures and effective mechanisms for resolving disputes before disagreements become factional conflicts.

It also requires a culture in which leadership is understood as a responsibility exercised under established rules rather than as personal ownership of an institution.
The test, therefore, is not simply whether Samuel Tabara Kato prevails in any particular dispute.

The larger question is whether SOKAPU can emerge from decades of contestation as an institution whose authority rests on constitutional legitimacy, accountability and broad representation.

For Southern Kaduna, that would be a more enduring institutional achievement than any individual victory.

Because ultimately, SOKAPU must *survive and* belong to the institution and the people it exists to serve not to any individual, faction or generation of leaders.

David E. Monday
Kaduna Correspondent, Media Today Nigeria

davidmondayemmanuel7@gmail.com