What was meant to be a routine constitutional exercise for the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Maiduguri unexpectedly turned into a political guessing game — not because of what was said, but because of who was not seen.
At the North East zonal public hearing on proposed amendments to the APC constitution, party heavyweights gathered under one roof: President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, governors from the zone, and top party officials. But as eyes scanned the event banner, one striking absence set tongues wagging — Vice President Kashim Shettima’s photograph was nowhere to be found.
The omission, especially glaring given that Shettima is from Borno State, quickly sparked unease within party circles. The Speaker of the Borno State House of Assembly openly faulted the banner, branding it unfair and provocative, and igniting speculation that the Maiduguri meeting may have carried an unspoken political message.
But the APC leadership has moved swiftly to douse the fire.
Speaking on Monday night, Deputy National Chairman of the party, Ali Bukar Dalori, dismissed the controversy as an overblown reaction to a simple error. According to him, there was no hidden agenda, no endorsement plot, and certainly no attempt to sideline the Vice President.
“Some people are reading too much meaning into a harmless comment,” Dalori said, insisting that the uproar stemmed from misplaced assumptions rather than party strategy.
He stressed that the party’s leadership in the North holds no hostility toward Shettima, noting his personal relationship with the Vice President and the longstanding loyalty of the APC structure in Borno State.
“There is no way we would organise or preside over a forum where the Vice President would be undermined,” Dalori stated.
Stripping the drama from the moment, the deputy chairman explained that the Maiduguri gathering had a narrow focus: reviewing and discussing proposed amendments to the APC constitution — nothing more, nothing less.
As for the missing photograph, Dalori attributed it to human error rather than political calculation.
“It was most likely an oversight by the organisers — an error of judgment, and nothing beyond that,” he said.
Yet, in a political climate where symbols often speak louder than speeches, the episode has shown how a single image — or the absence of one — can briefly hijack the national conversation, even at a meeting meant to be about party rules, not power play.
