Nigeria is once again at a critical crossroads.
We have been here before: during the “Jonathan Must Go” movement and later the “Buhari Must Go” chants. Each moment was driven by genuine frustration, yet both ultimately led to outcomes many Nigerians now consider disappointing, if not outright failures.
In 2014, public attention was almost entirely focused on removing President Goodluck Jonathan of the PDP. What many failed to recognize at the time was that key political actors, many of whom had contributed to the system’s decay, were quietly regrouping under a new banner, the APC. Figures like Saraki, Atiku, El-Rufai and others aligned with Tinubu’s ACN and Buhari’s CPC, forming a coalition that eventually produced Saint Muhammadu Buhari as president in 2015.
What followed was predictable. Political investments had to be repaid. Those who played roles in bringing the government to power expected returns: through appointments, influence, and access to state resources. This marked the beginning of a familiar cycle: compromise, dilution of ideals, and eventual disappointment. When the system proved too powerful to resist, even those who came in with reformist expectations had to adapt. The result was a continuation, if not a deepening, of the very problems Nigerians had hoped to escape.
In 2023, after coming from the EndSars protest, Nigerians became more agitated and passionate for genuine change but still unconsciously followed the same pattern of mobilizing around politicians that were part of those who created the same current system. Once again, the dominant question was who must go, not what must replace them. The outcome is now evident. No matter who won among Tinubu, Atiku, or Obi, nothing would have changed. It would still be the same system of rewarding political investments by the ruling class.
Today, the slogan is “Tinubu Must Go.” While this reflects real hardship and frustration, it is only half of the conversation.
There is no doubt that the current policies of the Bola Tinubu regime—such as fuel subsidy removal, the floating of the naira, electricity tariff increases, and tax expansion, have contributed to a sharp rise in the cost of living. Transport fares, food prices, and basic goods have all surged, pushing more Nigerians into poverty. But beyond the urgency of removal lies a deeper, more important question:
What are we replacing Tinubu with?
Are we replacing Tinubu with another version of Tinubu, just as we replaced Jonathan with another version of Jonathan? This is where the question of political ideology becomes important. A political change simply means changing something to an opposing version, not another version of itself.
Are we once again relying on the same strategy that removed Jonathan but produced another cycle of failure? Or are we ready to do things differently?
There is a saying: you cannot eat your cake and have it at the same time. Nigeria must choose—either we challenge the system fundamentally, or we continue to recycle its outcomes.
Just like in 2014, familiar political actors are already regrouping under new platforms (coalition) like the ADC, promoting slogans like “anything but Tinubu.” But this is where caution is needed.
It is not enough to agree with the “Tinubu must go” part, we must also reject the dangerous vagueness of “anything.” Genuine change requires more than a change of faces or party names. It requires a clear break from the ideas and policies that created the current crisis.
Opposition is not simply about switching political platforms; it is about presenting alternative visions. A political force that supports subsidy removal and currency liberalization cannot meaningfully oppose another that advocates the same policies. Without ideological difference, there is no real opposition—only rotation.
Leave a Reply