by Mohammed Bello Doka
6 July, 2026
Should President Bola Ahmed Tinubu apologize to Goodluck Jonathan?
It is a question that grows more urgent with each passing day, each policy reversal, each borrowed dollar, each life lost to insecurity. For the man who once positioned himself as the nation's moral compass—critiquing Jonathan's every misstep with the righteous fury of a prophet—has now become the very thing he condemned. By many of the standards Tinubu himself established while in opposition—fuel prices, public debt, security, inflation and executive accountability—his administration now faces criticisms remarkably similar to those he once directed at Jonathan.
The Standards Tinubu Once Set
In January 2012, when Jonathan dared to remove fuel subsidies, Tinubu published a scathing letter that today reads as an unintended indictment of the policies his own administration would later pursue.
«"This crisis will bear his name and will be his legacy. The people now pay a steep tax for voting him into office. The removal of the subsidy is the 'Jonathan tax.'"»
Tinubu called Jonathan a "slave to wrong-headed economics" who would "enslave the people to greater misery." He warned that "more children will cry in hunger and more parents will cry at their children's despair."
Fast forward to May 29, 2023. During his inaugural address, Tinubu declared that the fuel subsidy was gone—a decision that immediately triggered a sharp increase in petrol prices and sent a nation already reeling into severe economic hardship. The "Jonathan tax" has now become the "Tinubu tax"—and the consequences have been far more severe. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, inflation has surged past 30 percent, while food inflation has exceeded 40 percent, pushing millions of Nigerians deeper into multidimensional poverty.
Then came security. In 2013, Tinubu declared Jonathan's administration a "failed government," insisting he should resign over Boko Haram attacks.
«"If you control the armed forces and you are the Commander-in-Chief, why should any part of this country be under occupation?"»
Today, the same question confronts Tinubu. Kidnappings have spread from the North into Oyo State—his own geopolitical backyard. According to SBM Intelligence, more than 4,500 Nigerians were killed and thousands more abducted within his first year alone. AFP reported in February 2026 that the government paid millions in ransom and released Boko Haram commanders to secure the freedom of abducted schoolchildren—precisely the kind of negotiation Tinubu once condemned as weakness. The government denied the report, but the allegations have continued to attract public attention.
Measured by His Own Words
On the economy, Tinubu has borrowed at a staggering rate. According to the Debt Management Office, his administration added approximately ₦65.9 trillion in just two years, pushing total public debt from about ₦87 trillion at the start of his tenure to roughly ₦160 trillion. His annual borrowing rate—estimated at ₦49.8 trillion per year—far exceeds Muhammadu Buhari's average annual borrowing over eight years and makes Jonathan's fiscal record appear comparatively restrained.
Supporters of the administration argue that Nigeria's public debt has actually declined in dollar terms. However, that argument is difficult to reconcile with the reality Nigerians experience. Public debt is serviced in naira revenues, and the sharp depreciation of the currency—from approximately ₦400 to ₦1,500 per dollar—has significantly increased that burden. Debt servicing continues to consume a very large share of government revenue, severely constraining fiscal space and limiting resources available for education, healthcare and infrastructure.
When Opposition Rhetoric Meets Governance
Which brings us to perhaps the most politically significant question.
Those who now accuse Jonathan of planning to "divide Southern votes" in 2027 have conveniently forgotten 2015.
Tinubu did not merely criticize Jonathan—he led the coalition that defeated him. He mobilized the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) into the merger that produced the All Progressives Congress (APC). He ensured Buhari secured the party's presidential nomination ahead of challengers such as Atiku Abubakar and Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso. Most importantly, Tinubu supplied what Buhari had consistently lacked: electoral strength in the South-West.
Buhari had contested presidential elections in 2003, 2007 and 2011 without success, despite consistently attracting around 12 million votes from his Northern base. In 2015, Tinubu's political machinery helped expand Buhari's national appeal. In Lagos alone, Buhari received 792,460 votes against Jonathan's 632,327—a dramatic reversal from the previous election. Buhari eventually won 25 states, comfortably surpassing the constitutional requirement for victory.
To now portray Jonathan as employing an illegitimate political strategy similar to the coalition-building that brought Tinubu himself to power reflects a clear inconsistency. It shifts attention away from the government's own record rather than engaging with the substance of current criticisms.
Jonathan has not declared any intention to contest the 2027 election. Yet public commentary from several pro-government voices has increasingly focused on discrediting his record despite the absence of any formal presidential ambition. Under Jonathan, Nigeria maintained foreign reserves of approximately $42 billion, operated a functioning Sovereign Wealth Fund, held about $2.2 billion in the Excess Crude Account, and recorded one of the world's strongest-performing stock markets in 2012.
My Reservations About Jonathan—And Why Tinubu Faces the Same Standards
Let me be clear: I have no illusions about Goodluck Jonathan. His handling of security left a lasting stain on his presidency. The Chibok schoolgirls' abduction and his administration's slow response remain defining failures. His record on press freedom attracted criticism, while Boko Haram expanded its territorial reach under his watch. His decision to seek re-election despite the zoning controversy also generated significant political tension.
None of those shortcomings, however, exempt Tinubu from scrutiny.
Jonathan's administration faced persistent allegations of corruption and weak accountability. Critics argue Tinubu's administration has, in turn, presided over opaque public finances and selective accountability. The reported ₦8.83 trillion in off-budget expenditure highlighted by the IMF, the PFIPC "phantom agency" controversy, and the Humanitarian Affairs Ministry scandal have all raised questions about financial transparency. Observers have also expressed concerns about judicial independence and allegations that anti-corruption institutions have been used more aggressively against political opponents than political allies.
The Burden of Consistency
Whether an apology is politically realistic is ultimately beside the point. The larger issue is that Tinubu now confronts many of the same challenges for which he once harshly condemned Jonathan.
Opposition politicians should expect to be judged by the standards they demanded of those they replaced. That is a universal democratic principle, and one Tinubu himself championed while in opposition.
Whether or not an apology is ever offered is ultimately secondary. What matters is whether Tinubu is willing to accept the standards he demanded of Jonathan and apply them equally to himself.
More than an apology, Tinubu owes Nigerians a lesson drawn from Jonathan's final act in office: the courage to recognize when the national interest must take precedence over personal ambition.
Jonathan conceded defeat in 2015 not because he lacked political options, but because he concluded that Nigeria's democratic stability mattered more than his continued hold on power. He chose national peace over prolonged political confrontation.
Tinubu now faces his own defining choice. He can continue attributing present difficulties to predecessors, opposition or the people while defending policies that have deepened public hardship. Or he can embrace a different model of leadership—one grounded in reflection, accountability, and the willingness to adjust course when circumstances demand it.
History rarely judges leaders by the promises they make while seeking power. It judges them by the standards they apply once they possess it. By that measure, President Tinubu is increasingly being assessed against the very arguments he once deployed against Goodluck Jonathan. Whether he accepts that comparison—or learns from it—may become one of the defining questions of Nigeria's journey toward 2027.
Mohammed Bello Doka can be reached via [email protected]
Abuja Network News
Tags
Opinion