In a recently circulated essay titled “The Battle to Break Tinubu Is a Battle to Break Nigeria”, Idowu Ephraim Faleye attempts to wrap President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the garb of martyrdom, suggesting that any criticism or demand for accountability is an assault on the Nigerian state itself. While the article presents emotionally charged arguments filled with nostalgia, conspiracy, and ethnic baiting, it fails the basic test of logic, history, and economic reality.
Let us be clear: criticizing Tinubu is not sabotaging Nigeria. On the contrary, refusing to hold any leader accountable—regardless of tribe or background—is what truly threatens Nigeria’s unity and survival. Below, we break down the contradictions, distortions, and double standards in Faleye’s piece using verifiable facts and historical clarity.
---
Tinubu Is Not Nigeria
The title of the article is itself flawed and dangerous. Nigeria is a sovereign state of over 200 million people, built on a constitution, democratic values, and civic responsibility—not on the ambitions of one man. To equate criticism of President Tinubu with an attempt to destroy Nigeria is not only intellectually lazy but deeply undemocratic. Tinubu himself led intense opposition against Presidents Obasanjo, Jonathan, and Buhari. If opposing a sitting president now amounts to treason, then what was Tinubu doing all those years?
---
Selective History and Ethnic Gaslighting
Faleye leans heavily on a conversation between Professor Omo Omoruyi and former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida, in which the latter allegedly received instructions from Northern elites to halt MKO Abiola’s rise to power. While the June 12 annulment was an injustice, it is misleading to frame it purely as a “Northern conspiracy.” MKO Abiola won a national mandate, including Northern states like Kano and Niger, where he defeated Bashir Tofa, a Northern candidate.
In reality, the annulment was a military power play, not a tribal one. Many Northerners stood firmly for Abiola—names like Balarabe Musa, Shehu Sani, and even the late Bala Usman come to mind. History must not be weaponized to create a false North-versus-South narrative that suits today’s political defenders.
---
Economic Realities Cannot Be Spun
Faleye praises Tinubu’s “reforms” such as the removal of the fuel subsidy and naira float, calling them painful but necessary. Yet the data tells a different story:
Inflation is at 34.19%, the highest in 28 years.
The naira has collapsed, trading at over ₦1,560 to the dollar, from around ₦750 when Tinubu took office.
Petrol prices have risen from ₦185 to ₦850 per litre, without any credible plan for local refining.
Nigeria’s poverty rate has surged, with over 133 million Nigerians now living in multidimensional poverty, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).
If this is “necessary pain,” where is the gain? The suffering is not theoretical—it’s on the faces of market women, schoolchildren, small business owners, and workers whose salaries remain stagnant.
---
Who Are the Real Beneficiaries of Power?
The article paints Tinubu as a reformist fighting entrenched interests. Yet, under his watch:
The 2023 budget approved ₦6.9 billion for luxury SUVs for lawmakers.
The government continues to spend billions on Hajj subsidies while claiming subsidy removal was necessary.
Oil theft has not abated—NEITI reports over $2.3 billion lost in 2024 alone.
Tantita Security, tied to former militant Tompolo, was awarded pipeline surveillance contracts without public bidding, reinforcing patronage.
Is this the bold new Nigeria Faleye envisions? Or is it just the same elite games under new management?
---
A “New Nigeria” With Old Faces?
Faleye claims Tinubu is shaking the system and bringing in a new order. Yet his cabinet and inner circle are populated by career politicians and power brokers who have long been part of the country’s problems:
Atiku Bagudu, ex-Kebbi governor, was named in foreign investigations involving money laundering during the Abacha era.
Nyesom Wike, once a fierce PDP stalwart, now holds de facto power over Abuja.
Festus Keyamo and Reno Omokri are professional defectors known for inconsistent principles.
This is not a revolutionary government. It’s a recycling plant for Nigeria’s most controversial politicians.
---
If Jonathan Could Be Opposed, Why Not Tinubu?
Faleye compares Tinubu’s predicament with that of former President Goodluck Jonathan, arguing that shadowy forces used propaganda to bring Jonathan down. Ironically, Tinubu was a key player in that movement. The APC ran campaigns labelling Jonathan as weak, clueless, and a national threat. They funded media houses, coordinated protests, and even blocked budget proposals. Was that democratic activism then—but now amounts to treason?
---
Democracy Demands Accountability
It is neither patriotic nor wise to defend hardship under the guise of sacrifice. Reforms, by definition, must be guided by logic, transparency, and compassion—not economic cruelty. When a reform causes more suffering than progress, it becomes a tool of oppression.
If the people protest hunger, inflation, and lack of basic services, the government must respond with empathy and solutions—not smear campaigns suggesting the people are pawns in a Northern conspiracy.
---
Conclusion: Let the Truth Speak Louder Than Propaganda
The battle for Nigeria is not about defending one man. It is about demanding leadership that works for all Nigerians, not a privileged few. Tinubu, like every other president before him, must be held to account. He must answer for the suffering of the people. He must be judged by results, not rhetoric.
Faleye’s article is a classic example of emotional manipulation wrapped in historical half-truths. It offers no solutions—only scapegoats. But Nigerians are wiser. They know that the cost of living is real, and no amount of political spin will change the price of garri in the market.
This is not a battle to break Tinubu. It is a battle to build Nigeria. And building Nigeria starts with holding every leader accountable—regardless of where they come from.
Tags
Opinion