By Louis Achi
Azu Ishiekwene’s recent column titled, “Why Jonathan Won’t Contest, Whatever the Courts Say,” published across several traditional and new media platforms did not represent the best of that astute, senior journalist or validate his hard worn, top-notch intellectual grooming and reputation.
On the surface, Ishiekwene’s pitch offers an unsolicited, if brash advisory on why former President Goodluck Jonathan should not even contemplate running for the 2027 presidential election. But its decipherable nuances laced with surprising bias unfortunately suggest another agenda.
Ishiekwene, formerly editor of The Punch and executive director, Punch Nigeria, is currently the editor-in-chief of LEADERSHIP and author of the book, Writing for Media and Monetising It. Over the years he has evolved a unique writing style mirrored in his widely respected weekly columns and other literary efforts. In the often-bruising local media space, Ishiekwene has indeed proven a nimble survivor.
In his writeup under interrogation, Ishiekwene pushes about five grounds why Jonathan should perish the thought of entering the presidential electoral fray in 2027. The checklist includes – potential legal landmine, Jonathan was chased out of office in 2015, legacy of tackling terror by appeasement, fuel subsidy management and power sector reform challenges.
Quickly, on the potential legal landmine – the debate on this score is layered. It is legal, political, and historical. It challenges Nigerians to weigh constitutional language against judicial precedent, ambition against legacy, and the promise of experience against the risks of recycling jaded leadership. Pretty few issues better encapsulate the complexity of Nigeria’s democracy today.
The 1999 Constitution, amended in 2018, provides the foundation of the conversation. Section 137 disqualifies anyone elected president twice and, under its new subsection (3), bars anyone who completed another president’s term from being elected more than once. Jonathan’s unique trajectory makes him a test case.
In 2010, following the death of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, Jonathan was sworn in to complete the term. A year later, he won his own mandate and served until 2015. That sequence gave him two oaths of office. On the surface, this should foreclose the matter.
But in 2022, a Federal High Court in Bayelsa declared Jonathan eligible to contest again. The reasoning was twofold: first, that he has only been elected once, in 2011; and second, that the 2018 amendment introducing Section 137(3) cannot apply retroactively. The ruling has not been appealed, meaning, for now, the law slants in Jonathan’s favor. It can be pushed to the Supreme Court which would be required to rule definitively on a matter the trial court has ruled on.
By claiming rather discourteously that Jonathan was chased out of office in 2015, he misses a critical point. In the typical African leadership tradition, Jonathan could jolly well have stuck to power and damned the consequences. He did not. Jonathan is remembered not for clinging to power but for peacefully yielding it.
His 2015 concession, rare in Nigeria’s history, earned him international acclaim and respect at home. His words that his ambition was not worth the blood of any Nigerian still echo in the country’s democratic story. A return to the presidency in 2027 could enhance that legacy if he wins and governs effectively. Curiously, according to Ishiekwene, “This is why Jonathan looks like a viable option and is now beginning to think of himself as one.”
His alleged Jonathan legacy of tackling terror by appeasement or indulgence is curiously revisionist. He uncharitably went as far as alleging that, “His government turned a blind eye to militants in the Niger Delta, whose criminality the government treated as a counterbalance to violent extremism in the North… at the height of the Boko Haram insurgency under Jonathan, terrorists invaded schools, kidnapped students and bombed markets, motor parks, places of worship, and military installations.” Haba!
An exact clone of this insecurity scenario he described still subsists, by all comparative metrics, notwithstanding that the current regime is at its wits end to cage it.
Did Jonathan tackle insecurity by appeasement. Definitely not. It was the former president who signed the initial anti-terrorism law, the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, established to combat acts of terrorism and their financing within Nigeria. This definitely is not appeasement. The Act was later amended in 2013 and 2022 to strengthen its provisions.
Yushau A. Shuaib in his book, “Boko Haram War: An Encounter with the Spymaster,” documented how, in the twilight of Jonathan’s tenure, dozens of communities across Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe were liberated from Boko Haram under Dasuki’s watch as NSA. According to Shuaib, “military press releases and pictorial evidence confirm the recapture of towns such as Bama, Monguno, Gwoza, Michika, and Mubi, as well as the rescue of 234 abductees from Sambisa Forest on April 30, 2015. To ignore these facts is not only misleading but also diminishes credibility.”
Just this week, the Daily Trust reported that at least 188 public schools have been shut down due to insecurity in Northern Nigeria, specifically listing – at least 39 in Zamfara; 30 in Niger; six each in Sokoto and Kaduna in addition to the reported 52 and 55 schools in Katsina and Benue states respectively which have been shut.
Many public schools across Sokoto, Zamfara, Katsina, Niger, Kaduna, Kebbi, Benue and Kwara states have remained closed for years, others for months or weeks after they were shut down owing to attacks by Boko Haram, ISWAP, Ansaru, Lakurawa, Mahmuda terrorists and bandits.
Ishiekwene’s grudging concession that under President Jonathan’s leadership, Nigeria became Africa’s largest economy, with a rebased GDP of over $500 billion in 2014 was only a contrived prelude to demonise that administration nevertheless. His words: The foreign reserves that stood at $40 billion in May 2010 when he became president soon dropped to $29.6 billion when he left office.’’
But beyond contrived revisionism, under Jonathan (2010–2015), Nigeria’s economy experienced relative stability: the naira hovered around ₦150–₦165 to the dollar, GDP growth averaged 6–7%, and inflation remained within single digits for some years, a feat that many administrations have struggled to achieve. In fact, in 2014, Nigeria became Africa’s largest economy after a GDP rebasing. It could also not be easily forgotten that during Jonathans tenure, the country attracted the highest levels of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on the continent for several consecutive years.
A pointer to Jonathan’s visibility even on the global scale was that Nigeria served two consecutive terms on the United Nations Security Council under his tenure, a testament to the former President’s international stature and diplomatic clout.
Furthermore, major infrastructure projects, including the resuscitation of the rail system, road dualizations, and power reforms, began in earnest under his watch, notwithstanding the associated challenges. The Power Sector Reform Act and privatization of PHCN laid the groundwork for eventual sectoral improvements.
But Ishiekwene’s criticism of the fuel subsidy management and power sector reform challenges still speak to the same agenda of rubbishing Jonathan and nimbly promoting another candidate.
But significantly, perhaps unwittingly, Ishiekwene lifts the lid on the core motive of his critique project by defensively mentioning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and swiftly absolving him from current socio-economic and security woes by blaming Jonathan and past leaders. Context is important.
His words: “In hard, difficult times, every straw looks like a lifesaver. The sudden removal of petrol subsidy, followed almost immediately by the merger of the exchange rate by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s government, has taken a toll on households, evoking memories of a romantic past in many circles, often measured by the price of rice.
“But we are where we are mainly due to decades of kicking the can down the road. Sadly, politicians who have been kicking us, with the can, down the road are not only complaining the loudest, they are determined to exploit our misery and short memory for their benefit. Jonathan is their tribe. And whatever the courts say, we shouldn’t forget that.”
At a critical juncture in the convoluted socio-political evolution of the Nigerian state, what should be the focus of the nation’s intellectual class? Amidst contrived chaos, economic hardship, unending bloodletting, human misery and puzzling governance deficits that continue to define Nigeria’s democracy, many are wont to lose faith in the polity. This may be understandable. But history shows that mere loss of faith, a pathway to surrender, is taking the easy course.
The path of courage is to informedly and objectively interrogate the policies, concepts, leadership vision or visionlessness and socio-political triggers that generate regression using reasoned, temperate logic and candour. Next is to offer alternative vision of sustainable strategies to resolve extant human development and socio-economic challenges.
Ishiekwene certainly did not take this path in his quirky offensive against the possibility of former President Goodluck Jonathan’s reentry into the political fray to contest the 2027 presidency. It was rather a poorly veiled campaign pitch for his favoured candidate – damning the consequence of INEC’s tongue-in-cheek warnings against early political campaigns.
But at a fundamental level, this puzzling razzle-dazzle project is not suited to vintage Ishiekwene, a pragmatic intellectual who has considerably, positively impacted his milieu. In crafting this particularly underwhelming column under reference or better still – a sniper’s attack – what was Ishiekwene’s motive? Could it have been the Biblical voice of Jacob and hand of Esau scenario?
Perhaps, leveraging strategic ambiguity, Jonathan has told no Nigerian he will run for the presidency come 2027 or that he will not. Strategic ambiguity is the deliberate and calculated use of vague or imprecise language in organizational or political communication to achieve specific objectives, such as maintaining flexibility, influencing perceptions, or managing complex stakeholder expectations.
It is a conscious strategy that allows organizations or politicians to adapt to changing circumstances, preserve control over messaging, and enable diverse interpretations that serve different needs. Many politicians feel very much threatened by this exasperating stance.
In the face of the trending narratives that Jonathan may succumb to the alleged courtship of the ruling Northern political intelligentsia to enter the presidential race in 2027, several political calculations are being spawned. Perhaps more potently, this scenario is understandably generating some fear in several political quarters – starting from the ruling party.
At the time of this response, Jonathan, a biological scientist who has morphed into a respected national and international statesman has not given an indication of whether he will bite the alleged Northern bait. But this has not calmed the jitters – understandably.
But Ishiekwene must know that boxing in the political fray comes with collateral dangers – especially if it is anchored on jejune instead of genuine conviction. Perhaps more importantly, according to Dennis Brutus the South African protest poet, “Writers must not live a lie.”
