From “Jonathan Must Go” to “How Dare You”: Nigeria’s Politics of Hypocrisy

By Fred Chukwuelobe

“Citizens who demanded accountability yesterday cannot become offended when others demand the same accountability today. The principle must remain constant. No leader should be above criticism, and no government should be exempt from the standards it once imposed on others”

When President Goodluck Jonathan was in office, opposition politicians, influential clerics, and many public commentators, including some who now occupy positions of power, took turns criticising his administration. At various times, they described him as clueless, demanded his resignation, and openly questioned his competence. Yet, the challenges facing Nigeria at that time were nowhere near the scale of the economic hardship, insecurity, and public discontent being experienced today.

Therefore, when Peter Obi recently called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to resign, citing developments in Britain where a Prime Minister stepped down, Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga dismissed the demand as “childish” and attempted to justify his position by arguing that Nigeria does not operate a parliamentary system of government.

That response misses the point entirely.

First, Peter Obi is fully within his democratic rights to call on the President to resign, just as many opposition figures, including those now in government, did during the Jonathan era. Such a call may be accepted or rejected by the President, but it is neither childish nor ignorant. What is childish is to suggest that citizens or opposition figures lose their right to demand accountability simply because the occupant of power has changed, or on account of the type of democracy that we practice.

Second, while it is true that Nigeria does not practise parliamentary democracy, that fact does not invalidate public demands for resignation. Democracies around the world, regardless of the system they operate, recognise the right of citizens and opposition leaders to express dissatisfaction with the performance of those in power.

The real issue is not whether Nigeria operates a parliamentary or presidential system. The real issue is political culture.

In many advanced democracies, political leaders view public office primarily as service to the nation. They understand that leadership is a trust, not a personal entitlement. When public confidence collapses or when they believe they have become a liability to governance, many choose to step aside. In such societies, public office holders are accountable not only at the ballot box but also to public opinion, party structures, and institutional checks.

Nigeria’s political reality is different. Here, resignation is often viewed as weakness rather than responsibility. Political office is fiercely protected, regardless of public sentiment. It is almost unthinkable for a ruling party to ask its leader to step aside, and even more unlikely for an incumbent president to resign in response to public pressure. That is not because our Constitution forbids resignation; it is because our political culture discourages it.

The same principle applies to some religious leaders who have suddenly discovered reasons why they should not criticise the current administration with the same intensity they deployed against the Jonathan government. Their explanations have not convinced many Nigerians.

Former President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, has broken ranks with those offering excuses and openly advised President Tinubu not to seek re-election. His intervention has reignited questions about consistency and sincerity among religious leaders who were once vocal critics of government but now appear reluctant to speak with the same courage.

The uncomfortable truth is that much of what passes for political and religious activism in Nigeria is often influenced by personal, ethnic, regional, or political loyalties. The standards applied to one leader are frequently abandoned when another leader from a preferred political or ethnic bloc assumes office.

That is why Nigerians should be wary of selective outrage.

Whether one agrees with Peter Obi or not is beside the point. The fundamental issue is that citizens in a democracy have the right to demand accountability from their leaders. They have the right to criticise government policies. They have the right to call for resignations when they believe leadership has failed.

Democracy does not end on election day. It requires continuous scrutiny of those entrusted with power.

Nigeria may not operate a parliamentary system, but accountability is not exclusive to parliamentary democracies. It is the lifeblood of every genuine democracy. Citizens who demanded accountability yesterday cannot become offended when others demand the same accountability today.

The principle must remain constant: no leader should be above criticism, and no government should be exempt from the standards it once imposed on others.

Chukwuelobe is an accomplished Journalist and Media Consultant