The Jonathanization of Tinubu: A Political Reckoning in Nigeria

In Nigeria’s complex political landscape, where power struggles intertwine with ethnic, regional, and economic fault lines, a new term has emerged to encapsulate a recurring strategy: the “Jonathanization of Tinubu.” Coined to describe the deliberate orchestration of coalitions and the exploitation of insecurity to unseat a sitting president, this phrase draws parallels between the ousting of former President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015 and the challenges facing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as he navigates his first term. For stakeholders in Nigeria’s political, economic, and social spheres, understanding this phenomenon is critical to anticipating the trajectory of Tinubu’s presidency and the nation’s stability ahead of the 2027 elections.

The term “Jonathanization” finds its roots in the events leading to Goodluck Jonathan’s electoral defeat in 2015. Jonathan, a South-South president, faced mounting public discontent during his tenure (2010–2015) over issues like corruption, economic stagnation, and, critically, escalating insecurity in northern Nigeria. The Boko Haram insurgency, marked by high-profile attacks such as the 2014 Chibok schoolgirls’ kidnapping, became a symbol of his administration’s perceived inability to secure the nation. Critics argued that insecurity was either inadequately addressed or, in some narratives, deliberately allowed to fester by political actors seeking to weaken Jonathan’s legitimacy.

Central to Jonathan’s ouster was a coalition spearheaded by Bola Tinubu, then a leading opposition figure and former Lagos governor. Tinubu’s strategic alliance with northern leaders, including Muhammadu Buhari, birthed the All Progressives Congress (APC), a formidable opposition that capitalized on public frustration to defeat Jonathan’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Posts on X reflect this history, noting that Tinubu “spearheaded the movement to remove Goodluck Jonathan, a southern president” by uniting disparate regional interests. The coalition’s success hinged on framing Jonathan as disconnected from Nigeria’s security and economic realities, a narrative amplified by the northern insecurity crisis.

Fast-forward to 2025, and President Tinubu, the architect of Jonathan’s political demise, now faces a strikingly similar playbook. The “Jonathanization of Tinubu” refers to efforts by political opponents to form coalitions that exploit Nigeria’s ongoing challenges—particularly insecurity in the north and economic hardship nationwide—to undermine his presidency. Since taking office in 2023, Tinubu’s bold reforms, such as the removal of fuel subsidies and naira devaluation, have triggered a cost-of-living crisis, with inflation soaring and living costs outpacing wage adjustments. These policies, while defended as necessary for long-term economic stability, have fueled public discontent, reminiscent of the backlash against Jonathan’s 2012 fuel subsidy removal.

Insecurity remains a persistent thorn in Tinubu’s side. Banditry, kidnappings, and insurgency in the northwest and northeast echo the northern security crisis under Jonathan. For instance, recent reports highlight abductions and violence in states like Zamfara and Kaduna, with critics arguing that the government’s response lacks urgency. The Ohanaeze Ndigbo Youth Council’s 2024 warning to Tinubu—to decisively address insecurity or face “Jonathan’s treatment”—underscores the perception that unchecked violence could erode his legitimacy, much as it did Jonathan’s. The term suggests that opponents may be leveraging or even exacerbating these security challenges to paint Tinubu as ineffective, setting the stage for a 2027 electoral challenge.

The formation of coalitions against Tinubu is already visible. In 2023, the PDP and Labour Party briefly united to challenge Tinubu’s election victory, alleging electoral irregularities, though their efforts faltered in court. More recently, unverified statements attributed to figures like Nasir El-Rufai suggest northern elites may be mobilizing to “ensure Tinubu goes back to Lagos,” hinting at a regional coalition reminiscent of the 2015 APC alliance. Tinubu’s Muslim-Muslim ticket, a bold but divisive choice, has alienated segments of the Christian south and middle belt, providing fertile ground for opposition unity. These dynamics mirror the regional and ethnic alliances that ousted Jonathan, with northern discontent again playing a pivotal role.

However, Tinubu’s political profile differs significantly from Jonathan’s. A seasoned strategist, Tinubu built the APC into a national force and secured Buhari’s 2015 victory through deft coalition-building. His administration argues that reforms are yielding results, such as increased federal allocations and debt repayment, and insists that insecurity won’t define his tenure as it did Jonathan’s. Yet, public perception remains a challenge. Controversial spending, like the purchase of a presidential jet amid economic hardship, has drawn comparisons to Jonathan’s perceived disconnect, amplifying narratives of elite insensitivity.

The notion of “deliberate insecurity” as a political tool is central to the “Jonathanization” narrative. During Jonathan’s era, some speculated that political actors allowed Boko Haram’s violence to spiral, undermining his government’s credibility. Similar suspicions surround Tinubu’s challenges, with critics questioning why security agencies struggle to curb banditry and kidnappings despite increased budgets. While definitive evidence of deliberate sabotage is absent, Nigeria’s history of political maneuvering fuels such narratives. Structural issues—poverty, weak institutions, and ethnic tensions—complicate the security landscape, but their persistence provides ammunition for opponents to frame Tinubu as failing on a core governance metric.

For Nigeria’s stakeholders—policymakers, business leaders, civil society, and citizens—the “Jonathanization of Tinubu” signals a volatile political future. The term highlights the cyclical nature of Nigeria’s power struggles, where economic and security challenges are weaponized to shift political fortunes. Key implications include:

Tinubu’s presidency stands at a crossroads. His political acumen and reform agenda could distinguish him from Jonathan, but only if he addresses the grievances fueling the “Jonathanization” narrative. Decisive action on security, transparent communication about economic reforms, and inclusive governance to counter regional biases are critical. Unlike Jonathan, who was seen as politically vulnerable, Tinubu’s experience offers a chance to disrupt this cycle—but only if he acts swiftly.

For stakeholders, the “Jonathanization of Tinubu” is a cautionary tale of how Nigeria’s challenges can be weaponized in pursuit of power. As 2027 approaches, the nation’s future hinges on whether Tinubu can rewrite the script or fall victim to the same strategy he once mastered. The stakes—for governance, stability, and national unity—could not be higher.