Tinubu’s Stinging Verdict: In Any Civilized Country, Jonathan Should Have Resigned — And Now Nigeria Faces Its Worst Security Crisis in History
For many Nigerians, the issue of insecurity has become the defining problem of national governance in the modern era. Recently, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who once publicly accused former President Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan of failing to protect the nation from violent insurgency, is now confronting some of the most severe and widespread security threats Nigeria has ever experienced — even after eight years under President Muhammadu Buhari and into his own administration.
Tinubu’s words — originally spoken in the context of Nigeria’s fight against Boko Haram during Jonathan’s presidency — have resurfaced in public discourse amid a backdrop of escalating attacks, mass kidnappings, and territorial insecurity that many analysts warn could be unparalleled in the country’s history.
📍 The Original Remark That Shocked a Nation
In 2014, while campaigning in Ilorin, Kwara State, Bola Tinubu — then national leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC) — publicly criticized President Goodluck Jonathan’s handling of Nigeria’s security crisis. The comments were part of a broader political strategy to highlight weaknesses in the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP).
Speaking to a crowd, Tinubu said:
> “If you control the armed forces and you are the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic, why should any part of this country be under occupation? And you give us excuses every day. In any civilized country, Jonathan should have resigned.”
That phrase — “in any civilized country Jonathan should have resigned” — became one of the most quoted political attacks from the era. It implied that a leader who could not safeguard the nation’s territorial integrity and secure its citizens’ lives and property did not deserve to remain in office.
Tinubu’s sharp critique was aimed at Jonathan’s perceived inability to suppress the Boko Haram uprising that had engulfed Nigeria’s northeast, displacing thousands, killing civilians, and threatening national stability.
📌 Security Then — Boko Haram and Internally Displaced Persons
At the time of Tinubu’s remarks, Nigeria was grappling with insurgents linked to Boko Haram, an extremist group that had pledged allegiance to Islamic State West Africa Province. The militants were responsible for mass kidnappings (including the infamous Chibok schoolgirls abduction in 2014), village attacks, and widespread displacement.
The scale of violence prompted domestic outrage, and political leaders from opposition parties used the crisis to challenge the government’s legitimacy. Tinubu’s specific reference to “parts of this country under occupation” was a direct allusion to territories in the northeast that were effectively outside government control.
By questioning why the commander-in-chief could not reclaim these areas, Tinubu was asserting that Jonathan’s administration lacked the capacity, vision, and political will to protect Nigeria’s sovereignty.
🧠 How Nigeria’s Security Landscape Has Evolved
Nearly a decade later, and even after the transition of power to President Muhammadu Buhari in 2015, Nigeria’s security situation did not dramatically improve across all regions. Under Buhari’s leadership, the Boko Haram fight saw some tactical gains, but new violent actors — including bandits, herder-farmer militias, and other extremist groups — emerged, spreading insecurity to the northwest, central belt, and even southern states.
Today, under President Bola Tinubu’s own administration, Nigeria continues to face a proliferation of violent attacks, mass kidnappings, and terrorist incursions that many observers argue have reached levels more pervasive than during Jonathan’s presidency. Recent events include attacks that have left countless dead and entire villages devastated, particularly in states like Kwara, Kebbi, and Niger.
In some cases, hundreds of civilians have been killed in violent raids, prompting nationwide criticism and international attention.
📌 Tinubu’s Response and Current Policies
Unlike his remarks during the Jonathan era — when Tinubu was an opposition leader — President Tinubu today is the commander-in-chief entrusted with addressing these threats. Recognizing the urgent nature of Nigeria’s internal security situation, his government has taken several steps:
Declared a nationwide security emergency and ordered recruitment of tens of thousands of additional police officers to strengthen law enforcement capabilities.
Expanded deployment of forest guards and specialized units to pursue armed groups hiding in remote areas.
Called for legal reforms and state policing powers to enable subnational security responses.
These moves signal that, while the challenges persist, there is an active effort at the executive level to respond to multi-faceted threats across Nigeria. However, the scale and complexity of the violence have led to continued public questioning of whether these measures are sufficient.
🔥 The Irony and Debate: Then vs. Now
There is a growing debate among Nigerians, analysts, and commentators over the irony of Tinubu’s past critiques and the present realities of Nigeria’s security crisis. Some argue that when he challenged Jonathan to resign for failing to stop insurgents, Nigeria’s security threats were more regionally concentrated. Others point out that today’s security landscape, with multiple violent groups and attacks across diverse regions, reflects a deeper, more complex crisis that has expanded far beyond the northeast.
Critics contend that while conditions during Jonathan’s presidency were undoubtedly dire in parts of the northeast, Nigeria under successive administrations now faces a broader diffusion of violence — from jihadist insurgents to armed herders and bandits — resulting in insecurity that affects far more states and communities than before.
📍 What This Means for National Leadership and Public Confidence
Tinubu’s historical comments have resurfaced amid ongoing debates about leadership accountability, national security policy, and the expectations placed on presidents as commanders-in-chief.
Experts argue that a comparison between past and present security threats must take into account:
1. The evolving nature of violent groups that now operate with different tactics across regions.
2. Population growth and mobility, which complicate both intelligence gathering and law enforcement response.
3. Socio-economic factors, such as unemployment and poverty, that can influence recruitment into criminal networks.
This broadening scope suggests that addressing insecurity today requires not only military responses but also integrated development strategies that improve livelihoods and strengthen community resilience.
🏁 Conclusion: A Continuing Security Challenge
President Tinubu’s 2014 statement calling for former President Jonathan’s resignation over parts of Nigeria being under insurgent control remains one of the most memorable critiques of executive failure in Nigerian political history. Now, years later, Tinubu himself finds his administration judged against that high benchmark of national security performance.
Whether one agrees with his earlier critique, his current policies, or neither, the reality is stark: Nigerians continue to live in a country grappling with persistent, evolving, and multi-faceted security risks that defy simple solutions. The ongoing debate underscores a central truth about democratic leadership — that the security of the citizenry is both the most basic duty and the toughest test of any government.
0 Comments