#EndBadGovernanceInNigeria Protest: Matters arising and the way forward

The planned #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria protest is more than a demonstration of public discontent; it is a crucial moment for Nigeria’s democracy. This discourse interrogates the multifaceted issues surrounding the protest, from President Bola Tinubu’s historical shift from protester to anti-protest convert, the government’s use of scaremongering tactics, to protest as a constitutional right of Nigerians, and the need for a constructive path forward.

President Bola Tinubu’s recent statement warning against protests that destroy lives and property stands in stark contrast to his past actions and the historical context of his political activism. His assertion that “no government will condone protests that would destroy lives and property” and his reference to his involvement in peaceful protests during the military era warrant a critical examination. In 2012, Tinubu was a prominent figure in the ‘Occupy Nigeria’ protests against President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration. These protests were sparked by the government’s decision to remove fuel subsidies, leading to widespread demonstrations. Tinubu’s active role, which included carrying a mock coffin of President Jonathan, exemplified his strong opposition to policies he deemed harmful to the populace. The ‘Occupy Nigeria’ movement was marked by its intensity and, at times, by incidents of violence and property damage, although the core intent was to voice dissent against government policies perceived as unjust. Tinubu’s involvement in protests during Nigeria’s military regime underscores his long-standing commitment to activism. The military era, notorious for its autocratic tendencies, surprisingly allowed certain protests to occur without significant interference. This tolerance highlighted a paradox: an autocratic regime permitting a degree of dissent, arguably more than what is being observed under Tinubu’s current administration.

Tinubu’s recent statement suggests a zero-tolerance approach to protests that result in destruction. While it is reasonable for any government to maintain order and protect lives and property, Tinubu’s blanket condemnation of potentially disruptive protests seems to neglect the legitimate grievances that often drive such demonstrations. His administration’s hardline stance against protests, juxtaposed with his earlier activism, raises questions about consistency and the principles of democratic engagement. In a democracy, protests are a fundamental means for citizens to express discontent and demand accountability from their leaders. Tinubu’s assertion that “demonstrations are part of democracy” is undercut by his caveat against protests that lead to destruction. This rhetoric can be perceived as an attempt to delegitimize dissent by framing it as inherently violent or destructive, thereby justifying a crackdown on protesters. Such a stance can undermine democratic values and stifle legitimate expressions of public discontent.

As traditional professional protesters, many of the current government officials protested relentlessly until they eventually protested their way into power. Now, ensconced in the inebriating laps and perks of office, they frown upon and actively frustrate every effort of citizens to carry out #EndBadGovernance# protests. This behavior is reminiscent of the Igbo adage: “A serial killer is usually wary of a sword-bearer stalking them.” In other words, one whose hobby is killing and blood-letting hardly allows someone wielding a cutlass to stalk them. Many of the individuals now in government have a long history of protesting against previous administrations. They used the power of protest to highlight issues, mobilize public support, and eventually gain political power. Their ascension to power was predicated on the very democratic principles of free speech and assembly that they now seek to undermine. Once in power, these former protesters have become the very thing they once opposed.

The perks and privileges of office have clouded their commitment to the principles that brought them to power. This inconsistency reveals a self-serving nature, where the right to protest is only valued when it serves their interests. This duplicity erodes public trust and undermines the legitimacy of their governance. The Igbo adage about the serial killer being wary of a sword-bearer aptly describes the current government’s attitude towards protests. Having used protests as a tool to gain power, they now view any form of dissent as a threat to their hold on power. This fear of being toppled by the same means they employed reveals an underlying recognition of their own vulnerability and the fragility of their legitimacy. In their efforts to suppress protests, the government is effectively stifling democratic expression and civic engagement. This not only violates constitutional rights but also creates an environment of fear and repression. The suppression of dissent is a clear indication that the government recognizes the power of protest and is willing to go to great lengths to prevent it.

The statements by Nigerian security agencies—DSS, Police, and Army—regarding their identification of sponsors of the planned ‘Days of Rage’ protest in tandem with Mr. President’s intolerant disposition, raise significant concerns about the state of civil liberties and the right to protest in Nigeria. The authorities’ claim that the protests aim to cause violence, despite not naming or arresting any identified sponsors, appears to be a strategy to discourage and delegitimize public dissent. Protesting is a fundamental constitutional right in Nigeria, enshrined in the country’s legal framework. It is a crucial aspect of democratic engagement, allowing citizens to voice their grievances and hold the government accountable. The security agencies’ opposition to protests based on unproven claims of planned violence undermines this right and sets a dangerous precedent for the suppression of dissent. The reluctance to name or arrest the alleged sponsors of the ‘Days of Rage’ protests is not only a tacit admission of failure of actionable intelligence but also raises serious questions about the credibility of the security agencies’ claims. Without concrete evidence or transparency, these assertions appear to be an attempt to intimidate and discourage potential protesters. This approach not only undermines trust in the security agencies but also erodes the foundational principles of justice and accountability.

The security agencies’ stance on the planned protests reflects a broader trend of shrinking civic space in Nigeria. By framing protests as inherently violent or influenced by malicious actors, the government delegitimizes genuine public grievances and curtails citizens’ ability to engage in peaceful demonstrations. This erosion of democratic values undermines the very essence of a participatory democracy and stifles constructive dialogue between the government and its citizens. The threat of infiltration and violence, used as a pretext to oppose protests, creates a chilling effect on civic engagement. Citizens may be deterred from exercising their right to protest due to fear of repression or violence, whether orchestrated by infiltrators or the state itself. This climate of fear stifles the vibrant civil society necessary for a healthy democracy and perpetuates a cycle of disengagement and apathy.

The security agencies’ scaremongering statements suffice to reinforce and sustain the Government’s perception of the planned protest as a sure passport to anarchy! Security agencies have been instrumental in shaping the government’s narrative around the protest. By issuing warnings about potential chaos and anarchy, these agencies contribute to a climate of fear and suspicion. Statements highlighting the risks of violence, instability, and disorder suggest that the protest is a threat to national security, rather than a legitimate expression of democratic dissent. This scaremongering serves multiple strategic purposes, including intimidation, delegitimization, and narrative monopolization. By painting the protest as a prelude to anarchy, the government seeks to intimidate potential participants and dissuade them from joining. The fear of violence and instability can deter citizens from exercising their right to peaceful assembly. Characterizing the protest as a security threat undermines its legitimacy. By framing it as a danger to public order, the government can justify heavy-handed measures to suppress it, thereby delegitimizing the protestors’ grievances.

The focus on security risks shifts the narrative away from the core issues driving the protest, such as corruption, economic hardship, and poor governance. This diversion helps the government avoid addressing these underlying problems and maintain control over the public discourse. The continuous scaremongering statements from security agencies contribute to a sustained climate of fear. This climate not only deters participation but also fosters a perception that dissent and protest are inherently dangerous and destabilizing. In a democratic society, such a perception is detrimental, as it discourages civic engagement and stifles the public’s ability to hold their government accountable. The use of scaremongering tactics to reinforce the government’s narrative carries significant risks such as erosion of public trust, escalation of tensions, undermining democratic principles. When the government relies on fear to control public perception, it erodes trust. Citizens become wary of their leaders and skeptical of official narratives, which can lead to greater disillusionment and disengagement from the political process. Fear-based narratives can escalate tensions rather than diffuse them. Protestors who feel unjustly labeled as threats may become more determined, potentially leading to confrontations with security forces and increased instability. Democratic societies thrive on the free exchange of ideas and the right to dissent. Scaremongering undermines these principles, fostering a climate where fear suppresses free expression and the right to peaceful assembly.

The government’s disposition toward the planned protest can be aptly described as an ostrich tactic, akin to hiding its head in the sand to suggest that all is well, while the glaring issues remain exposed to the public. This approach amounts to self-delusion and a refusal to confront the pressing issues of bad governance. Rather than addressing the critical problems stemming from its people-unfriendly policies—such as the fuel subsidy scam, the floating of the Naira and the resulting runaway inflation, the high cost of living, hunger, malnutrition, and rising insecurity—the government pretends that all is well. This self-delusion not only undermines the credibility of the government but also exacerbates the problems it seeks to ignore. The ostentatious lifestyle of the ruling elite juxtaposed with the struggles of ordinary Nigerians creates a stark contrast that fuels public anger and frustration. The government’s pretense that all is well while the masses suffer from high costs of living, inflation, and insecurity further alienates it from the populace. This disconnection from reality can lead to increased unrest and a loss of public trust.

308128