Why Tinubu must not go

A campaign has emerged from sections of the North under the blunt tag, “Tinubu Must Go!” Largely driven through Facebook, X and other political platforms, the campaign is loud, organised and increasingly visible. Its message is clear: President Bola Tinubu should be removed in 2027.

But before Nigerians accept that argument, there is an uncomfortable question that deserves an honest answer: where was this level of regional mobilisation during the eight years of President Muhammadu Buhari, when hardship was widespread, policies were painful and millions of ordinary citizens, particularly in the North, bore the consequences?

Buhari’s tenure was marked by serious economic difficulties. The 2019 land-border restrictions, introduced by his administration to curb smuggling and encourage domestic production, disrupted legitimate trade and drove up prices. The naira redesign and cash restrictions introduced toward the end of his administration also created severe liquidity problems, leaving businesses and ordinary citizens struggling to access cash.

Security challenges persisted across several parts of the North despite substantial government spending and the appointment of northerners to important positions. Programmes such as the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme and the National Social Investment Programme were introduced, but millions of Nigerians continued to experience poverty, unemployment and declining purchasing power.

Yet, through much of that period, no comparable “Buhari Must Go” campaign dominated northern social media and political conversations on the scale now associated with “Tinubu Must Go”.

That contrast deserves examination.

This is not an argument that Buhari should not have been criticised. He should have been. Every government should be subjected to scrutiny, regardless of the region from which its president comes. Nor should the current hardship facing Nigerians be dismissed because the Tinubu administration inherited a difficult economy.

Tinubu inherited an economy burdened by fuel-subsidy costs, multiple exchange-rate windows, weak government revenues, high debt obligations and structural deficiencies that had accumulated over successive administrations.

On May 29, 2023, he announced the removal of the petrol subsidy, a politically difficult decision that previous administrations had repeatedly struggled to implement permanently. The administration subsequently pursued exchange-rate reforms and tax changes as part of a broader attempt to restructure public finances and increase government revenue.

There is no denying the immediate consequences. Fuel prices rose sharply, transportation became more expensive, and households experienced a substantial increase in the cost of food and other basic necessities. Inflation and the erosion of purchasing power have understandably angered Nigerians.

But the existence of hardship does not, by itself, answer the question of whether the underlying reforms were necessary.

The administration has argued that the reforms are intended to correct structural weaknesses that successive governments have identified but struggled to address. The removal of the subsidy, for instance, has freed resources that the government says can be redirected towards infrastructure, social programmes and other areas of public expenditure.

The Nigerian Education Loan Fund has also expanded access to student financing, with the government reporting that more than one million students have benefited from the scheme. Major infrastructure projects have continued across the country, while reforms in the electricity sector have given states greater authority to participate in electricity generation and distribution.

The administration has also pursued compressed natural gas conversion as part of its response to rising petrol and transportation costs. The broader objective is to encourage Nigerians to use cheaper and more abundant domestic gas as an alternative fuel.

These policies should not be treated as automatically successful simply because the government introduced them. Their results must be measured. Nigerians deserve transparency over how much has been saved, where the money has gone, what projects have been funded and whether the reforms are actually improving productivity and living standards.

But the same principle should apply to the argument that Tinubu must go.

What is the alternative?

 If the criticism is that subsidy removal was too painful, what is the financially sustainable alternative? If exchange-rate reforms are being rejected, what alternative system should replace the previous multiple-rate regime? If the administration’s tax reforms are considered excessive, what other mechanism should Nigeria use to increase public revenue without worsening the country’s fiscal position?

• Ebonyi 2027: Why voters should go for competence (1)
• Tinubu can govern Nigeria from anywhere — Presidency
• Evening recap: Tinubu extends vacation, Dangote announces 2028 fertiliser IPO, other top stories

These questions should dominate the national conversation.

Political opposition is necessary in a democracy. The African Democratic Congress and other opposition parties have every right to challenge Tinubu’s policies and present different economic proposals. Nigerians should listen to those alternatives and examine how realistic they are.

What should concern everyone, however, is the emergence of a political culture in which the same economic difficulties are interpreted differently depending on the president’s region.

Hardship under a northern president should not be treated as something citizens must patiently endure, while hardship under a southern president is presented as evidence that the entire political arrangement has become unacceptable.

That would be a dangerous standard for a country as diverse as Nigeria.

Tinubu’s appointments of northerners to important political, economic and security positions do not, by themselves, establish the success of his administration. Representation cannot replace good governance. But his southern origin should not be a reason for northern Nigerians to reject policies solely on the basis of where the president comes from.

Nigeria has paid a heavy price for politics organised around regional suspicion.

The country needs continuity in areas where reforms are beginning to address long-standing structural problems, while also demanding adjustments where policies unnecessarily hurt citizens. A government should be capable of correcting its mistakes without abandoning every reform whenever it becomes politically difficult.

The debate over 2027 should therefore go beyond the slogan, “Tinubu Must Go!”

The real debate should be about what Nigeria needs next.

If the argument is that Tinubu’s economic reforms have failed, Nigerians should be shown the evidence. If the argument is that another administration would reverse them, Nigerians deserve to know which policies would replace them and how those policies would be funded. If the complaint is about insecurity, infrastructure or poverty, the records of all the political actors offering solutions should be examined.

The President should ultimately be judged by results, not by geography.

The North should not demand special treatment from any government, just as it should not be expected to remain silent when government policies fail. What Nigerians need is one standard of accountability that applies to every president, irrespective of ethnicity, region or political party.

The “Tinubu Must Go!” campaign may continue to gather momentum across Facebook, X and other platforms. That is part of democratic politics. But social-media mobilisation should not replace evidence, policy debate and an examination of alternatives.

Nigeria has tried political discontinuity many times. What it needs now is a serious conversation about which reforms should continue, which should be modified and which should be abandoned.

Tinubu must not go simply because he is a southern president, just as Buhari should not have been protected because he was a northern president.

If Tinubu is to be rejected in 2027, the argument should be based on his record, the consequences of his policies and the credibility of the alternatives before Nigerians — not on regional resentment.