Tinubu, Obi and Jonathan: When power changes the rules

Power has a way of changing people. Or perhaps it is better to say that power simply reveals who people have always been. This played out last week in Nigeria following the announcement of the resignation of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, which became the trigger for another round of political crossfire between politicians.

Opposition figure, Peter Obi, seized the opportunity to argue that President Bola Tinubu should also consider stepping down. His argument was that the Tinubu administration has fallen short on many of the promises it made on security, the economy, transparency and the general welfare of Nigerians. Obi also reminded Nigerians that he was just following Tinubu’s example when he was the APC’s national leader. More than a decade ago, Tinubu himself repeatedly called on the then-President, Goodluck Jonathan, to resign over insecurity, the Chibok schoolgirls’ abduction and the deteriorating state of the country. It was seen as sound opposition at play. The work of opposition politicians is to use every opportunity to cast the leading party and politicians as unfit for leadership.

Nobody seriously expected President Tinubu to wake up the next morning, address the nation and announce his resignation because of the statement made by Obi. That was never the point. The point was political accountability.

The response from the Presidency came quickly and in line with character. Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga dismissed Obi’s statement as “childish,” “hollow,” “puerile”, and “anti-democratic”. He argued that Obi misunderstood the difference between Britain’s parliamentary system and Nigeria’s presidential system. In Britain, he said, a prime minister can resign or be replaced by the governing party without a general election. In Nigeria, the president serves a fixed constitutional four-year term.

That constitutional explanation is perfectly valid. Britain and Nigeria do not run the same political system. But that explanation was also hollow. Most educated Nigerians know the difference between Nigeria’s presidential system of government and the UK’s parliamentary system. Obi was not filing a constitutional motion of impeachment against Tinubu. He was simply doing what opposition leaders do in a democracy.

In every functioning democracy, the opposition’s job is not to clap for the government and join in chanting “On your mandate we shall stand”. The role of the opposition is to question it, criticise it, expose what it considers failures and persuade the public that there is a better alternative. Sometimes the criticism is fair. Sometimes it is exaggerated. Sometimes it is completely wrong. That does not matter. The issue is that they have every right – and indeed every responsibility – to make those comments. The Constitution even pays opposition leaders in the National Assembly to play such a role. The masses absorb all the criticism from the opposition and decide which makes sense and does not.

The irony is that many of those who now condemn Obi’s remarks celebrated similar attacks when Tinubu was in the opposition. Back then, Tinubu was relentless against Jonathan. Every terrorist attack became evidence that Jonathan had failed. Every economic difficulty became proof that Nigeria needed new leadership.

The opposition was energetic, aggressive and unapologetic. Lai Mohammed, the spokesperson of the Action Congress of Nigeria and later the APC, persistently came hard on Jonathan and the People’s Democratic Party. Muhammadu Buhari, Nasiru el-Rufai, Chibuike Amaechi, Bukola Saraki and other opposition figures hit Jonathan hard regularly.

Nobody accused Tinubu of misunderstanding the Constitution because he demanded Jonathan’s resignation. Nobody suggested that asking a president to resign was somehow beyond acceptable democratic discourse. Nobody dismissed him as childish and puerile because Nigeria practises the presidential system. It was simply seen as politics.

Today, many of the same voices react as though Obi has committed a mortal sin merely by applying the same political pressure that Tinubu and others applied. It is a sign of the disturbing political intolerance that permeates the country. Many Nigerians see opposition politics as bold, and only when their preferred politicians are in opposition. Once those politicians enter government, criticism suddenly becomes offensive, unpatriotic or irresponsible.

A healthy democracy cannot function like that. The government must have the freedom to govern, while the opposition must have the freedom to oppose. None of them should expect to always be applauded. That will be sycophancy.

One of the most noticeable features of the current administration has been its visible discomfort with criticism. Almost every criticism attracts an immediate personal attack on the critic rather than engagement with the substance of the argument. The only person who does not receive such is President Donald Trump of the USA. No matter how he mocks Nigeria, it is either silence from Aso Rock or an explanation.

Attacking critics rarely strengthens the confidence of the people. When governments show that they are too sensitive to criticism, they end up giving more power to the criticism. Sometimes silence is the stronger response. But even if a response is necessary, it should be done with polite and civil language. Young people who read newspapers and listen to the news should not be learning uncouth language and argumentum ad hominem from the Presidency.

If the administration believes its security record is improving, it can present the figures. If inflation is coming under control, let the data do the talking.

If investment is increasing, let Nigerians see the results in their daily lives.

Facts are stronger than insults and persuade people better. Calling someone “puerile” or “anti-democratic” may excite supporters for a day, but it neither settles the argument nor answers the questions being raised. Responses from the high office of the president must be courteous, presidential and issue-based.

The people should also learn a lesson from this incident. Opposition politics should be handled with a sense of responsibility. Calling for a president to resign should never become a slogan that is casually thrown around whenever an issue occurs. The reason democracies provide regular opportunities for elections is to ensure that citizens have the chance to pass judgment on governments. Not every unpopular government should resign. Some deserve to be voted out instead.

That is why Obi’s argument belongs in the political arena rather than the constitutional one. Nigerians will judge whether his criticism reflects reality. They will also judge whether the Tinubu administration has done enough to deserve another term. That decision belongs to the electorate.