By Usman Abdulkadir Taleeki
In the last 2000 years, whenever betrayal is mentioned, the story of Judas and Jesus is the most recalled and most cited in the world because it represents the ultimate example of broken trust between a leader and a close follower. Some people also point to the case of Julius Caesar and Brutus as another historic symbol of betrayal. But as the title of this piece clearly states, today there is another case that, in terms of duration, depth of trust, and total investment, has overtaken them. I know many will find this title uncomfortable or surprising, but if you are patient enough to follow the facts and reasoning step by step in this column, I will lead you to a logical and evidence-based conclusion.
Let us begin with Judas and Jesus.
Judas Iscariot was one of the 12 disciples of Jesus Christ who joined Jesus’ ministry in its early days. He was not a distant follower but a core insider within the inner circle. He was trusted enough to manage the group’s finances, which shows a high level of confidence placed in him. His exact age at that time is not recorded in scripture, although many scholars believe he was likely in his mid-20s when he met Jesus. Judas later conspired with the religious authorities in Jerusalem who were threatened by the growing influence and message of Jesus. He agreed to help them identify and arrest Jesus in exchange for 30 pieces of silver, as recorded in Matthew 26:14–16.
This is historically powerful because betrayal from a trusted insider always cuts deeper than opposition from an enemy. Handing over your own master for money represents moral collapse at close range. The deepest dimension of betrayal is that it usually comes from someone trusted. However, in this case, Jesus already knew Judas would betray him. During the Last Supper, Jesus openly told his disciples that one of them would betray him. Judas asked directly if he was the one, and Jesus confirmed it, as recorded in John 13:21–27. This means the betrayal, though painful, was not unexpected from Jesus’ perspective. Historically, Jesus spent roughly 2 to 3 years with Judas. That duration is important in our comparison. Take note of it.
Now consider the case of Caesar and Brutus.
Julius Caesar was a dominant Roman general and statesman who, by 44 BC, had become the most powerful political figure in Rome. He rose to the position of dictator and controlled the direction of the Roman state. During this period, Brutus was a young senator, believed by historians to be in his 20s or early 30s. Despite his youth, Caesar brought him close and granted him significant political access and privilege. He was treated with unusual personal and political favor, which made him part of Caesar’s trusted circle.
The betrayal by Brutus shocked Rome because it came from someone considered loyal and ideologically aligned. Historical accounts state that when Caesar was attacked in the Senate and saw Brutus among the attackers, his reported last words were “Kai su, teknon?” meaning “You too, my child?” Whether quoted exactly or symbolically preserved, the meaning is clear. The emotional wound of betrayal was seen as deeper than the physical attack itself. Yet even with this depth, Brutus spent only about 5 to 6 years within Caesar’s close political and personal confidence. The betrayal was severe and unforgettable, but limited in duration of relationship. It cut deep and history preserved it, but does it reach the level of what happened in the Kwankwaso case? No. Follow the progression carefully.
Now to the case of Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso and Abba Kabir Yusuf.
Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso served as Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives during the Third Republic in 1992. During that period, he brought in a young man from his state, then in his mid-20s, to serve as his personal assistant. This was not a temporary engagement but the beginning of a long political and personal association. Even after the Third Republic collapsed, Kwankwaso did not distance himself from him. Instead, he kept him close and continued to mentor and support him like a political son.
When Kwankwaso became Governor of Kano State in 1999, he retained the same aide throughout his tenure. When he later became Minister of Defence in 2003, he again carried him along as personal assistant. When he moved into the role of Special Adviser and Special Envoy on Darfur and Somalia in 2007, he still kept him in that trusted position. When he served on the NDDC board representing the Northwest around 2010, the same relationship continued. This shows continuity of trust across multiple offices and levels of power.
When Kwankwaso returned as Governor in 2011, the relationship did not reduce but instead deepened. The aide was elevated to Principal Private Secretary and later appointed Commissioner of Works, moving from support staff into executive government authority. In 2015, Kwankwaso handed him a senatorial ticket but unfortunately somethings arose that he didn’t contest. After later political conflicts and realignments, Kwankwaso again, at great political cost, handed him the PDP governorship ticket in 2019 even when he was not the leading contender, causing internal divisions among long-term allies. In 2023, he again ensured he secured the ticket unopposed and emerged Governor. Their relationship was further sealed by family marriage ties.
Today, the split between Abba Kabir Yusuf and Kwankwaso is public and heated. Political defection alone is not unusual, but the argument here is about depth of investment versus reversal of loyalty. The movement structure, political capital, and long-term mentorship that enabled the rise are now being politically opposed by him with all he has. Factions have emerged within the same movement that once stood united for his rise and it is orchestrated by him. Insiders even claim that Kwankwaso made personal financial sacrifices in these efforts, something he has never done not even for himself.
Now examine the three scenarios analytically.
Betrayal becomes more severe when three things increase: duration of relationship, depth of trust, and scale of investment. Judas spent about 3 years with Jesus. Brutus spent about 5 years close to Caesar. Abba spent close to 40 years under Kwankwaso’s mentorship, political grooming, protection, and elevation.
Uncertainty also affects emotional impact. Jesus foresaw Judas’ betrayal. Caesar discovered Brutus’ betrayal at the final moment of his life and did not live beyond it. Kwankwaso, however, lives to witness the political reversal in real time from someone he built and empowered.
For thousands of years, the betrayals of Judas and Brutus have been recorded and taught as moral and political warnings. This present political episode will also be recorded and studied by future generations. In this analytical ordering, the sequence becomes Abba, Judas, and Brutus.
Usman Abdulkadir Taleeki writes from Abuja, Nigeria and can be reached via [email protected]
Abuja Network News
Tags
Opinion