President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s handling of Nigeria’s worsening insecurity raises a fundamental question: should the standard he applied to former President Goodluck Jonathan in 2014 not also apply to his own administration?
In January 2014, Tinubu, then a prominent opposition figure, condemned the killing of Christian worshippers amid Boko Haram’s insurgency, questioning Jonathan’s competence to protect Nigerians.
Following the April 2014 bombing in Nyanya, Abuja, Tinubu again criticised the government, declaring that an administration unable to protect its citizens deserved to be questioned.
By September of that year, as Boko Haram intensified its attacks in the North-East, Tinubu went further, arguing that the situation demonstrated that Nigeria had no functioning government.
On November 6, 2014, he made his position unmistakable, stating that in any civilised country, Jonathan should resign if parts of the nation remained under occupation.
Tinubu’s argument was straightforward: a government that could not guarantee the safety of its citizens had failed in one of its most fundamental responsibilities.
More than a decade later, that same standard is being applied to his presidency.
Rising Insecurity and the Human Cost
Under Tinubu’s administration, Nigeria continues to grapple with killings, mass abductions and attacks on vulnerable communities. In parts of the North, armed groups are accused of exercising control over rural settlements, imposing levies and dictating the daily lives of residents.
The consequences extend beyond the loss of lives. Communities have been displaced, religious institutions attacked and livelihoods destroyed. According to the writer, a Catholic priest who once served in Niger State was forced to close his mission because of the activities of armed groups operating in the area.
Figures cited in the original commentary paint a grim picture. An Amnesty International investigation reportedly documented 10,217 deaths linked to gunmen across seven states during the first two years of Tinubu’s presidency.
Benue and Plateau states have suffered particularly devastating losses, with thousands reportedly killed and tens of thousands displaced. The figures, the writer argues, may not fully capture the scale of the crisis, given the possibility of unreported and underreported incidents.
A joint statement issued by more than 90 Nigerian civil society organisations in May 2026 reportedly put the number of people killed since Tinubu assumed office on May 29, 2023, at 19,980, with 12,362 abducted. The statement also reportedly included the deaths of 1,486 security personnel.
Separately, a mid-year report by the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety), released on July 2, reportedly recorded 3,610 deaths and 3,960 abductions between January and June 2026.
These figures, which require independent verification and careful attribution, underscore the urgency of addressing Nigeria’s persistent security crisis.
The Question of Accountability
For the writer, the issue goes beyond statistics. It is about the government’s responsibility to protect citizens, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, or location.
As a Catholic priest, the author acknowledges a personal connection to the crisis, noting that some of those killed or abducted have been Catholic priests and other religious figures, while members of other faith communities have also suffered.
The central argument is that Nigerians should be able to farm, worship, travel, and sleep in their homes without living under the constant threat of violence.
The writer therefore questions why Tinubu should be judged by a different standard from the one he established when he was in opposition.
Supporters of the president may argue that the current security challenges differ from those faced by previous administrations, particularly because of the complex and evolving nature of banditry, terrorism and other armed violence.
However, the writer maintains that Tinubu did not extend the same latitude to Jonathan in 2014. Rather than making resignation conditional on the circumstances surrounding the insurgency, he argued that the inability to protect citizens was sufficient grounds for a president to leave office.
By that reasoning, the author contends, the same principle should apply to the current administration.
Civic Space and Freedom of Expression
The commentary also raises concerns about the treatment of dissent under Tinubu’s presidency.
In 2014, Tinubu openly criticised Jonathan’s handling of insecurity without, according to the writer, facing the kind of restrictions on public expression that critics now fear.
The author cites a 2026 report by the Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Journalism, which reportedly documented 245 verified incidents of civic-space violations across Nigeria in 2025, based on 570 media reports from 54 organisations.
The figures, if accurately represented, raise further questions about the protection of citizens’ rights to criticise the government and demand accountability.
The writer argues that a government’s responsibility extends beyond fighting insecurity to protecting the democratic freedoms that enable citizens to hold public officials accountable.
Should Tinubu Seek Another Term?
As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general election, the debate over Tinubu’s security record is likely to remain central to assessments of his leadership.
The author insists that Nigerians do not need a new standard for evaluating the president. Instead, the country should apply the same test Tinubu used against Jonathan: whether a government that cannot adequately protect its citizens deserves another opportunity to lead.
The argument is not that the security crisis has a simple solution, but that the scale of the suffering demands accountability from those entrusted with power.
Ultimately, the call for Tinubu’s resignation is the writer’s political position, rooted in the belief that the protection of lives is the most basic duty of any government.
The message is clear: if the inability to protect Nigerians was sufficient reason for Jonathan to resign, Tinubu must explain why that standard should not apply to him.
