Nigerians’ frustration with the Tinubu government threatens to spill over.
Ali Ndume, a stalwart of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and, until last weekend, Chief Whip of the Nigerian Senate, is nobody’s idea of an opposition figure. Yet, as he fielded questions on “opposition” television station Arise News last week, one could have been forgiven for mistaking him for one. Senator Ndume pulled no punches as he delivered a withering criticism of the Bola Tinubu administration, which he accused of being lax in its approach to the country’s mounting economic and security problems. As he sees it, the real reason why the administration appears insensitive to the plight of the average Nigerian is because it has been “fenced off” and “caged off by “kakistocrats and kleptocrats.” Accordingly, the solution is for the President to “wake up” and “open his doors and meet those who will tell him the truth.”
Presumably, Mr. Ndume’s message must have breached the firewall of plutocrats, for no sooner had he spoken than he was unceremoniously relieved of his position as Chief Whip for apparent “disloyalty” to the party.
Far from being intimidated, Ndume has doubled down on his criticism of the administration, and his intransigence may even have emboldened others. For example, Salihu Lukman, a former National Vice Chairman of the party, has jumped to Ndume’s defense. Describing his expulsion as unwarranted, Lukman wondered whether Tinubu “has resolved that he will only be a one-term President,” considering that on his watch, “the living conditions of Nigerians is continuously getting worse. Instead of making efforts to develop clear plans to address the situation, the government is becoming more intolerant to criticism.”
As it happens, it is not only among the political elite that concern is being expressed at the administration’s perceived sluggishness in tackling the many challenges facing the country. Recently, as frustration at the economic situation across the country has grown, the idea of a mass protest involving Nigerians from all walks of life and across the length and breadth of the country has gained traction on social media. Coalesced around the hashtags “#EndBadGovernanceinNigeria” and “#EndBadGovernance2024,” the apparent aim is to organize “a nationwide protest” involving “every tribe (sic), religion and region” from August 1- 10.
The text of one of the many posters which have been circulating online offers a clue to the scale and political ambition of the planned protests, as it directs participants to gather at many strategic locations including “Governors’ offices and the National Assembly in Abuja.” Specifically, those “around Enugu, Lagos, Kano, PH (Port Harcourt, Abuja, and Kaduna” are to “block all roads leading to the city and airport on Day 1.”
An accompanying 12-item list of demands will be familiar to any student of contemporary Nigerian affairs. It includes ending the “subsidy scam,” a reference to the government’s contentious withdrawal of subsidy on petroleum products; restoring “electricity tariffs to affordable levels for the public;” returning “import duties to their previous rates;” declaring “a state of emergency on inflation;” and publicly disclosing and reducing “the salaries and allowances of all Senators, House of Representatives members, and the Speaker.”
While other demands, like making the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) “independent of the executive branch with transparent processes for appointing its chairman;” and enacting “a law mandating INEC to electronically transmit live electoral results” may point to simmering resentment over the conduct and outcome of the 2023 presidential election, the list in total indicates the depth of dissatisfaction with a regime whose economic policies have been blamed for inflicting a level of hardship arguably not seen in the country since the era of Structural Adjustment in the 1980s. To illustrate: food inflation is at an all-time high of 40 percent, while general inflation is not that far behind at a three-decade high of just over 34 per cent.
Either because of genuine sympathy with the plight of Nigerians or (which is more probable) panic at the prospect of a repeat of last month’s events in Kenya during which young protesters irked by a proposed tax hike stormed the country’s parliament and set it ablaze, members of the Nigerian House of Representatives have agreed to donate 50 percent of their N600,000 monthly salary for a period of six months in order to “assist the Federal Government in addressing the economic situation in the country.” With the gesture, the legislators hope to “appeal to the proponents of the proposed nationwide protest to maintain peace, eschew violence, and open windows (sic) for meaningful engagements (sic) with the governments (sic) at all levels in order to address their issues.”
Whether the legislators’ gesture will be enough to placate young Nigerians disgusted by the corruption, waste, and worrying evidence of lack of planning by the administration on the one hand; and apparently stirred by the Kenyan example on the other, remains unclear. For one thing, it seems unlikely that a 50 percent reduction in House members’ monthly salary will move the needle, given common knowledge that it is in the allowances and other opaque compensations that the legislators are making a killing. (Parliamentary salaries in Nigeria are reported to be among the highest in the world.) For another, the tone of online chatter among the organizers of the protests suggests that nothing less than the quality and scope of concessions wrested by the Kenyan protesters from President William Ruto will do. After initially condemning the protesters as “treasonous,” the President quickly backed down and acceded to most of their demands when it became clear that they meant business.
While there is a high probability that some protests will take place, particularly in urban centers across the southern regions with a history of political agitation, there is little guarantee that the protesters will be able to walk away with all their aims accomplished. With the notable exception of #Occupy Nigeria (2012), #BringBackOur Girls (2014), and #EndSars (2020), for various reasons, hashtag-driven protests in Nigeria [#OurMumuDonDo (2016–17), #TakeItBackMovement (2018), #RevolutionNow (2019] have tended to fall flat. That said, even if the protests are limited in scope, the sense of disillusionment across the country, particularly among young people, increases the probability of violence directed against government interests and entities.
Although the prospects are gloomy, for the Tinubu government, the situation is by no means irretrievable. For instance, it can borrow a leaf from the House of Representatives and outline its plan to revive the economy and reduce the burden on the average Nigerian. It can also point to some of its accomplishments, for instance more than doubling the public-sector minimum wage from 30,000 naira to N70,000 naira (about $45) after protracted negotiations, as evidence that it understands widespread animadversion against the government and is willing to address the situation. Accusing organizers of the protest of “insurrection against the administration” and inviting the State Security Service (SSS) to arrest them, as presidential aide Bayo Onanuga has done, is not only injudicious, it is unnecessarily confrontational and will most certainly reinforce the belief that the President’s closest advisers are disconnected from the public.
When all is said and done, it would appear that what Nigerians desire from the current administration is the same thing they have always demanded of its predecessors: that the President, his closest associates and family members, and the political class in general rein in profligacy and live by example. For Tinubu specifically, Nigerians want him to live up to the promises he made on the campaign trail, specifically the “action plan for a better Nigeria,” as articulated in his Renewed Hope Agenda [PDF].
That, in the final analysis, is what the rumblings of discontent heard all across the country boil down to.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations
