Nigeria’s political history reveals an uncomfortable pattern that deserves serious national debate: Why does a Southern president seeking re-election sometimes face extraordinary hostility in parts of Northern Nigeria, while political accountability appears considerably less confrontational when the president comes from the same region?
The events of January 2015 remain a troubling reminder.
On January 20, 2015, then-President Goodluck Jonathan narrowly escaped a mob attack in Katsina State while visiting Hajia Dada, the mother of the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. Some youths chanting “Sai Buhari” and displaying APC brooms moved against his convoy, throwing stones as security personnel struggled to contain the situation.
Just two days later, on January 22, another violent incident occurred in Bauchi State. Jonathan’s campaign entourage was attacked by hostile youths wielding stones and other objects. The situation became so serious that six Department of State Services (DSS) operatives sustained injuries and were hospitalised. The presidential rally was subsequently disrupted.
These were not ordinary expressions of political disagreement. They were attacks against a sitting president and his campaign entourage during an electoral contest.
Fast-forward to 2026, and Nigeria has another Southern president, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, campaigning for a second term ahead of the 2027 presidential election. Once again, political dissatisfaction, economic hardship and opposition mobilisation have placed the Southern incumbent under intense scrutiny.
To be fair, Nigerians have legitimate reasons to question Tinubu’s administration.
The removal of fuel subsidy, foreign exchange reforms and other economic adjustments have imposed enormous costs on ordinary citizens. Transportation, food and essential commodities have become increasingly difficult for many households to afford. The International Monetary Fund's 2026 assessment acknowledges that, despite improvements in certain macroeconomic indicators, poverty and food insecurity remain serious national challenges.
The government may argue that these reforms were necessary to address longstanding economic distortions. However, necessity does not excuse poor implementation, inadequate social protection or the failure to deliver tangible relief to citizens.
Nigerians have every democratic right to protest, criticise and reject the policies of their government. What they do not have the right to do is turn political disagreement into physical violence.
But the bigger question is whether the same standards of political accountability apply to everybody.
Consider Goodluck Jonathan. His administration introduced Almajiri education initiatives, established schools targeting children in Northern Nigeria and pursued infrastructure and development projects across different parts of the country. His government was certainly not beyond criticism, but what justified the hostility that greeted his campaign visits?
Did development projects, national investments and political engagement mean nothing when it came to basic democratic tolerance?
And would the reaction have been identical if the president had been a Northern candidate?
Consider the administration of Muhammadu Buhari. His eight years in office were characterised by persistent security challenges, economic difficulties, controversies and widespread public dissatisfaction. Yet his political support remained particularly strong in substantial parts of the North, even as his administration faced criticism over its performance.
This is not an argument that Northerners never criticise their leaders. They do. However, the intensity and political consequences of such criticism deserve closer examination.
Take former Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami. He has emerged as the African Democratic Congress (ADC) governorship candidate in Kebbi State for the 2027 election. At the same time, he faces criminal proceedings instituted by the EFCC and DSS, while properties allegedly linked to him have been the subject of forfeiture proceedings.
These are serious matters that must be determined through due process, not political assumptions. Nevertheless, his emergence as a governorship candidate raises an important question about how political controversies affect the fortunes of candidates across different regions.
If comparable controversies surrounded a Southern political figure, would the political response be equally accommodating?
This is where Nigeria's problem of selective outrage becomes particularly disturbing.
Would Atiku Abubakar, if elected president, escape criticism from his political base if his administration doubled the economic suffering Nigerians currently experience? Would regional and religious affiliations suddenly become less important than performance?
The concern is that Nigerian politics increasingly rewards regional loyalty over objective evaluation of leadership. Ethnicity, religion and regional identity continue to influence political mobilisation, sometimes at the expense of competence and accountability.
It is also important to recognise that the North is not politically homogeneous. Millions of Northerners vote differently, demand accountability and reject violence. Blaming an entire region for the actions of particular groups would be another injustice.
Nevertheless, political elites and influential supporters must confront the culture of selective tolerance that allows political violence to be condemned in one circumstance and rationalised in another.
The issue is not whether Tinubu deserves re-election. He must earn it through his performance. The issue is whether every Nigerian president deserves the same democratic treatment, irrespective of ethnicity, religion or region.
If stoning a Southern president becomes an acceptable expression of political anger while comparable failures by Northern leaders attract considerably less resistance, then Nigeria has a problem far bigger than Tinubu, Jonathan or Buhari.
Perhaps the real question is not who is throwing the stones, but why our democracy continues to struggle with the simple principle that every president must be judged by the same standards.
The politics of stoning Southern presidents must not become another recurring feature of Nigeria's electoral history. Democracy demands accountability, not regional hostility.
0 Comments