Connect with us

Opinion

4 Big Mistakes of the Buhari Administration Tinubu Should Avoid-Getso 

Published

on

Umma Getso

 

By Umma Getso

Leadership carries with it the weight of responsibility, shaping the trajectory of a nation and its people. As political figures emerge on the horizon, it becomes imperative to reflect upon the successes and failures of past administrations, seeking to build upon the former while avoiding the latter. In Nigeria, the presidency of Muhammadu Buhari marked a significant chapter in the country’s history, characterized by moments of progress and setbacks.

As President Asiwaju Bola Tinubu (BAT) assumed the mantle of leadership, it is vital to examine and learn from the four major mistakes made by the Buhari administration. By recognizing these pitfalls and charting a different course, Tinubu can steer the nation towards a future that embraces sound governance, effective policies, and sustainable development.

Here are the 4 big mistakes of the Buhari Administration that Tinubu should avoid.

1) Late Inauguration of Cabinet Members
President Muhammadu Buhari was sworn in as the president of Nigeria on May 29, 2015. However, he did not appoint his cabinet members until November 16, 2015. This six-month gap was widely criticized as a sign of indecisiveness and a lack of planning. This essay will argue that Buhari’s late inauguration of cabinet was a major mistake that damaged his reputation and hindered his governance.

One possible reason for Buhari’s delay in appointing his cabinet was that he wanted to find the best people for the job. He claimed that he was looking for people with integrity and competence who could help him fight corruption and insecurity. However, this reason did not convince many Nigerians who expected him to act faster and more decisively. According to a survey by NOI Polls, 67% of Nigerians were dissatisfied with Buhari’s delay in appointing his cabinet.

Another possible reason for Buhari’s delay in appointing his cabinet was that he was trying to balance the interests of his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC). The APC was a coalition of different political parties and factions that came together to defeat the incumbent president, Goodluck Jonathan. Buhari had to deal with the demands and expectations of his party members who wanted to be rewarded with ministerial positions. However, this reason also did not justify the delay, as it showed that Buhari was more concerned with appeasing his party than serving the nation.

The late inauguration of Buhari’s cabinet had a negative impact on his reputation and governance. It created a perception that Buhari was not prepared to lead the country. It also made it harder for Buhari to implement his policies and programs. For example, Buhari’s flagship policy, the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP), was launched in April 2017, almost two years after he took office. The late inauguration of Buhari’s cabinet also affected his relations with foreign leaders and partners. For example, Buhari could not attend the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015, because he did not have a foreign minister.

In conclusion, Buhari’s late inauguration of cabinet was a serious mistake that undermined his credibility and effectiveness. It showed that Buhari was not ready to lead the country. It also delayed the implementation of his policies and programs.
This is a big mistake President Bola Ahmed Tinubu must avoid.

2) Ineffective Monitoring of Presidential Directives
President Muhammadu Buhari has been widely criticized for his failure to monitor and enforce his directives on security matters. One of the most glaring examples of this failure was the case of the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Ibrahim Idris, who disobeyed Buhari’s order to relocate to Benue state and remain there until the herdsmen-farmers crisis was resolved.

Buhari gave the order to the IGP on January 9, 2018, after he met with Benue leaders over the killing of over 70 people by suspected herdsmen on New Year’s Day. Buhari said he had instructed the IGP to “get into (Benue) and take care” of the situation. However, it was later revealed that the IGP only spent one day in Benue and then moved to Nasarawa state, where he reportedly attended a birthday party. The IGP also failed to visit the affected communities or meet with the governor and other stakeholders in Benue.

What were the implications of Buhari’s failure to monitor his directive to the IGP? There were several negative consequences of this failure. One was that it exposed Buhari’s weakness and incompetence as a leader and commander-in-chief. It showed that he was not in charge of his administration and that he could not enforce his authority or ensure compliance with his orders. It also showed that he was not in touch with the reality and needs of the people.

Another consequence was that it worsened the security situation and the humanitarian crisis in Benue. It emboldened the herdsmen to continue their attacks and killings, as they perceived that the government was not serious or sincere about protecting the lives and properties of the people. It also increased the distrust and resentment of the people towards the government and the police, as they felt abandoned and betrayed by their leaders.

Advert

In conclusion, Buhari’s failure to monitor his directive to the IGP was a serious blunder that had grave implications for his leadership and governance.

If President BAT must outdo PMB, he should establish robust monitoring frameworks to track progress, identify bottlenecks, and make necessary adjustments. This will enhance accountability, transparency, and overall governance effectiveness, ensuring that policies translate into tangible results for the Nigerian population.

3) Lopsided Appointment
One of the major criticisms that President Muhammadu Buhari faced during his first six years in office was his alleged lopsided appointment of key officials in his administration. Many Nigerians accused him of violating the federal character principle and favouring his northern region and his party members over other parts of the country and other qualified candidates.

According to a report by Premium Times, as of August 2015, Buhari had appointed 29 key officials, out of which 75 per cent were from the north and 43 per cent were from his North West geopolitical zone. The South East had no appointee at all. The report also showed that Buhari had not appointed any female official, unlike his predecessor, Goodluck Jonathan, who had women in all major segments of government.

Why did Buhari make such lopsided appointments? One possible reason is that Buhari was influenced by his personal preferences and biases. He may have chosen people he knew and trusted, or people who shared his ethnic, religious, or political affiliation. He may have also been loyal to those who supported him during his election campaigns or who contributed to his party’s success.

True or false, whatever the reason was; it is pertinent to remember that public appointments should not be rewards for personal favour.

In the case of PMB, the alleged lopsided appointments created a perception that he was biased and partial. It also increased the distrust and resentment of some regions and groups towards the government and the security agencies, as they felt marginalized and oppressed.

As Nigeria enters a new era under President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, he should learn from Buhari’s mistake and avoid making lopsided appointments in his administration.

One of the blessings of a large population is the abundance of human resources. Every region and every state has competent people to fill in different areas. He should prioritize meritocracy, selecting individuals who are capable, experienced, and committed to serving the nation’s interests. He should appoint known and practising professionals to the appropriate ministries and not appoint an accountant to head the education ministry. By appointing qualified professionals, Tinubu can build a team capable of delivering tangible results and gaining the trust of the Nigerian people.

4) Poor Administration and Management of Changes in Policies
One of the most significant mistakes of the Buhari administration has been its poor administration and management of major changes in economic policies.

Although these policies may not be bad in themselves, the government’s failure to provide a cushion to interface between the existing and new policies presented a lot of challenges for the people.

The administration has been unable to effectively implement its policies, and it has often made changes without considering the impact on the people.

Border Closure

This has been evident in the administration’s handling of key economic policies, such as the closing of the border with the Benin Republic and the redesign of the naira notes.

The border closure, which was implemented in August 2019, was intended to curb smuggling and boost local production. However, it has had a devastating impact on the economy, particularly on the informal sector, which employs the majority of Nigerians. The closure has led to a shortage of goods, increased prices, and job losses. It has also disrupted cross-border trade, which is an important source of income for many Nigerians.

The government has defended the border closure, arguing that it is necessary to protect the country’s economy. However, critics argue that the policy has been poorly implemented and that it has caused more harm than good.

They point out that the government did not provide any support to businesses or workers who were affected by the closure. This forced many people to close their businesses or move to other parts of the country in search of work.

The border closure is just one example of the Buhari administration’s poor administration and management of changes in key policies.

Fuel Subsidy

In 2016, the government implemented a fuel subsidy removal, which led to a sharp increase in the price of petrol. This policy also had a devastating impact on the economy, particularly on the poor.

The Buhari administration’s failure to provide a cushion for Nigerians prior to the implementation of these policies has made it difficult for people to cope with the negative consequences of these policies. This has led to widespread discontent and has contributed to the rise of insecurity in the country.

Redesign of New Notes

The redesign of the naira notes is another example of the Buhari administration’s poor change management and administration. The new notes were introduced in 2020, and they were intended to make it more difficult to counterfeit the naira, encourage the digital economy, curb criminal activities and encourage ease of doing business.

However, the new notes policy presented serious difficulty for businesses and the people. This led to the eventual redirection of the policy.

To ensure a successful tenure, the Tinubu administration must recognize the importance of effective policy implementation alongside the formulation of new policies. It should prioritize both short-term and long-term impacts, understanding that intermittent progress is key to achieving lasting change.

The BAT administration should adopt a mindful approach to policy implementation, considering the potential hardships that may arise and strive to minimize them. By striking a balance between policy objectives and the well-being of the people, the administration can pave the way for productive and transformative governance.

Opinion

Matawalle: The Northern Anchor of Loyalty in Tinubu’s Administration

Published

on

 

By Adebayor Adetunji, PhD

In the broad and competitive terrain of Nigerian politics, loyalty is often spoken of, yet rarely sustained with consistency, courage and visible action. But within the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, one Northern appointee has demonstrated this quality not as a slogan, but as a lifestyle, as a political principle and as a national duty — Hon. (Dr.) Bello Muhammad Matawalle, Minister of State for Defence.

Since his appointment, Matawalle has stood out as one of the most loyal, outspoken and dependable pillars of support for the Tinubu administration in the North. He has never hesitated, not for a moment, to stand firmly behind the President. At every turn of controversy, in moments of public misunderstanding, and at times when political alliances waver, Matawalle has continued to speak boldly in defence of the government he serves. For him, loyalty is not an occasional gesture — it is a commitment evidenced through voice, alignment, and sacrifice.

Observers within and outside the ruling party recall numerous occasions where the former Zamfara State Governor took the front line in defending the government’s policies, actions and direction, even when others chose neutrality or silence. His interventions, always direct and clear, reflect not just loyalty to a leader, but faith in the future the President is building, a future anchored on economic reform, security revival, institutional strengthening and renewed national unity.

Advert

But Matawalle’s value to the administration does not stop at loyalty. In performance, visibility and active delivery of duty, he stands among the most engaged ministers currently serving in the federal cabinet. His portfolio, centred on defence and security, one of the most sensitive sectors in the country, demands expertise, availability and unbroken presence. Matawalle has not only embraced this responsibility, he has carried it with remarkable energy.

From high-level security meetings within Nigeria to strategic engagements across foreign capitals, Matawalle has represented the nation with clarity and confidence. His participation in defence summits, international cooperation talks, and regional security collaborations has positioned Nigeria as a voice of influence in global security discourse once again. At home, his involvement in military policy evaluation, counter-terrorism discussions and national defence restructuring reflects a minister who understands the urgency of Nigeria’s security needs, and shows up to work daily to address them.

Away from partisan battles, Matawalle has proven to be a bridge — between North and South, civilian leadership and military institutions, Nigeria and the wider world. His presence in government offers a mix of loyalty, performance and deep grounding in national interest, the type of partnership every President needs in turbulent times.

This is why calls, campaigns and whisperings aimed at undermining or isolating him must be resisted. Nigeria cannot afford to discourage its best-performing public servants, nor tighten the atmosphere for those who stand firmly for unity and national progress. The nation must learn to applaud where there is performance, support where there is loyalty, and encourage where there is commitment.

Hon. Bello Matawalle deserves commendation, not suspicion. Support — not sabotage. Encouragement, not exclusion from political strategy or power alignment due to narrow interests.

History does not forget those who stood when it mattered. Matawalle stands today for President Tinubu, for security, for loyalty, for national service. And in that place, he has earned a space not only in the present political equation, but in the future judgment of posterity.

Nigeria needs more leaders like him. And Nigeria must say so openly.

Adebayor Adetunji, PhD
A communication strategist and public commentator
Write from Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria

Continue Reading

Opinion

Drug Abuse Among People With Disabilities: The Hidden Crisis Nigeria Is Yet to Address

Published

on

 

By Abdulaziz Ibrahim

Statistically Invisible, Persons with Disabilities feel shut out of Nigeria’s drug abuse war as a report from Adamawa reveals lacks data and tailored support needed, forcing a vulnerable group to battle addiction alone.

In Adamawa State, the fight against drug abuse is gaining attention, but for many people living with disabilities (PWDs), their struggles remain largely unseen. A new report has uncovered deep gaps in support, treatment, and data tracking for PWDs battling addiction despite official claims of equal access.

For nearly three decades, Mallam Aliyu Hammawa, a visually impaired resident of Yola, navigated a world increasingly shrouded by drug dependency. He first encountered psychoactive substances through friends, and what began as casual use quickly escalated into long-term addiction.

“I used cannabis, tramadol, tablets, shooters everything I could get my hands on,” he recalled. “These drugs affected my behaviour and my relationship with the people close to me.”

Family members say his addiction changed him entirely. His friend, Hussaini Usman, described feeling “sad and worried” when he realized Aliyu had fallen into drug use.

Aliyu eventually made the decision to quit. It was marriage and the fear of hurting his wife that finally forced him to seek a new path. “Whenever I took the drugs, I felt normal. But my wife was confused about my behaviour,” he said. “I decided I had to stop before she discovered the full truth of what I was taking.”

A National Problem With Missing Data

Advert

Nigeria has one of the highest drug-use rates in West Africa, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Over 14 million Nigerians between the ages of 15 and 64 use psychoactive substances. Yet, within that massive user base, PWDs are statistically invisible.

There is almost no national data on drug abuse among persons with disabilitiesa critical gap that experts warn makes it impossible to design effective, inclusive rehabilitation programmes.

Ibrahim Idris Kochifa, the Secretary of the Adamawa State Association of Persons with Physical Disability, told this reporter that PWDs face unique, systemic pressures that intensify their vulnerability to drug abuse, specifically citing poverty, unemployment, isolation, and social discrimination.

“Whenever a person with disability is caught with drugs, the common decision is to seize the drugs and let him go,” Kochifa said, speaking on behalf of the disabled community leadership. “But if they consult us, we have advice to offer on how they can be treated and rehabilitated. Without involving us, no programme will fully benefit people with disabilities.”

NDLEA Responds

At the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) Command in Adamawa, officials insist their services are open to everyone without discrimination.

Mrs. Ibraham Nachafia, the Head of Media and Advocacy for the NDLEA Adamawa State Command, said during an interview, “Our rehabilitation centre is open to all. There is no discrimination. Anyone including persons with disabilities can access treatment.”

While the official position suggests inclusiveness, disability advocates call it “tokenistic.” They argue that equal access on paper does not translate to tailored support in practice. True rehabilitation for PWDs requires specialized counselling that understands their unique traumas, physically accessible facilities, and significantly stronger community engagement to prevent relapse.

A Call for More Inclusive Action

Advocates are now urging the Nigerian government and drug-control agencies to build a response framework that recognizes PWDs as a vulnerable group in need of targeted support.

The advocate Goodness Fedrick warns that until rehabilitation and prevention programmes reflect the realities faced by people with disabilities, Nigeria’s battle against drug abuse will remain incomplete.

For people like Aliyu Hammawa, who managed to recover without structured support, the message is clear: many others may not be as fortunate.

This story highlights the urgent need for inclusive, data-driven, and community-supported approaches in Nigeria’s fight against drug addiction. Until the nation sees and serves this ‘hidden crisis,’ its overall battle against addiction will continue to be fought with one hand tied behind its back.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Debunking the Myth of Christian Genocide in Nigeria: Unmasking America’s Militarism and Invasion Tactics

Published

on

 

By Sani Khamees

In 2017, while serving in Kano through the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) scheme in Nigeria, I crossed paths once more with Professor Horace Campbell. An invitation arrived at the department of Political Science, Aminu Kano College of Islamic and Legal Studies, summoning us to hear Campbell speak on his latest book, ‘Global NATO and Catastrophic Failure in Libya: Lessons for Africa in the forging of African unity.’ I shared with my HOD that I had first met Campbell in 2010, during his condolence visit for the late Dr Tajudeen Abdulraheem, my former school director in Funtua. My HOD eagerly accepted, and we prepared for the evening. After introducing myself to Campbell, he handed me his book and asked for a summary. His work reveals how Western powers, under the banner of NATO, used the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1973 and the so-called ‘responsibility to protect’ as a pretext to invade and devastate Libya (Campbell,2013).

The Libyan uprisings emerged from the Arab Spring, which began in Tunisia in 2010 and spread across Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, and finally Libya. After Tunisia’s Bin Ali fled and Egypt’s Mubarak was toppled by a tidal wave of revolution, Benghazi erupted in rebellion just days later. But the West soon intervened, transforming a popular movement into an armed struggle. In response, Gaddafi threatened to unleash the full force of the state to crush the discord.

By February 21, 2011, Western media had rewritten the story, claiming that innocent civilians faced imminent massacre by the Libyan army. Headlines like “Gaddafi Warns of ‘Rivers of Blood’ as UN Prepares to Vote” from The Guardian and reports from CNN suggesting the urgent need for intervention due to potential atrocities influenced public perception. The United States, Britain, and France seized the moment, pushing a UN Security Council resolution under the guise of ‘responsibility to protect.’ This cleared their path into Libya, leading to Gaddafi’s death and the takeover of the nation’s political and economic future.

In the aftermath of Libya’s collapse, chaos swept across the Sahel as militias like Boko Haram, Jama’at Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin (JIMIM), Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS), Islamic State – West Africa Province (ISWAP), Bandits, and Ansaru surged back into prominence. The collapse led to a vacuum of power and increased availability of weapons when Gaddafi’s vast armory was looted and diffused across the region. These armaments and the instability spurred by Libya’s breakdown facilitated the resurgence and strengthening of militant groups in surrounding areas, including Nigeria. In Nigeria, Boko Haram in the Northeast and Bandits in the Northwest became household names, operating mainly in the country’s northern regions. Boko Haram launched its campaign in Borno State with the rallying cry ‘no to western education’, then spread to Yobe, Gombe, Bauchi, and even Kano, areas with deep Muslim roots. Their reign of terror included bombings of worship centers, hospitals, markets, and busy roads, as well as kidnappings for forced marriage, abuse, and other social vices.

Rivaling Boko Haram in brutality are the armed bandits who first emerged in Zamfara State and quickly spread to Sokoto, Kebbi, Niger, and Katsina, now encroaching on the north-central states of Plateau, Benue, and Kwara. Unlike Boko Haram, these bandits are driven by profit, engaging in kidnappings for ransom, assaults on villages and towns, and the deliberate killing of civilians.

Advert

Both Boko Haram and the armed bandits have left a trail of devastation: thousands of civilians killed, worship centers and farmlands destroyed, and entire villages emptied as people flee for safety. Their violence knows no boundaries of religion, tribe, or ethnicity. Boko Haram has bombed mosques, including the Kano city mosque near the Emir’s palace, killing over 120 and injuring around 200. (wikipedia, 2014) Bandits have kidnapped thousands and indiscriminately attacked travelers and villagers. Their latest atrocity saw worshippers in Mantau village, Malumfashi, gunned down during dawn prayers.

It is a fact that most terror attacks in Nigeria occur in the Muslim-majority north. While these groups show no regard for religion or ethnicity, it is the Muslim population that suffers most, simply because they are the majority. However, the narrative of a targeted genocide against Christians fails to hold when we incorporate the experiences of both Muslim and Christian communities in the north. According to a report by the International Crisis Group, the majority of attacks and incidents of violence between 2010 and 2019 occurred in northern regions, with Muslim communities being disproportionately affected. Studies also suggest that around 8 out of 10 victims of Boko Haram’s attacks are Muslims (Group, 2010).  Testimonies from these communities reveal a shared struggle against violence and a mutual rejection of divisive labels imposed from outside. A Muslim community leader from Maiduguri described a neighborhood where Christians and Muslims live side by side, united in their fear and condemnation of extremist violence. Similarly, a Christian resident of Kaduna expressed that they view their Muslim neighbors as partners in resilience rather than adversaries. Such perspectives challenge simplistic genocide narratives and highlight how local identities and solidarities complicate the external binary framing of conflict in Nigeria.

Echoing the tactics used to justify intervention in Libya, a recent claim by American politician Bill Maher alleges that Christians in Nigeria are being targeted for genocide. He asserts that Islamists have killed over 100,000 Christians and destroyed 18,000 churches, painting a picture of a systematic campaign to erase Christianity from Nigeria. These claims are fabrications, designed to set the stage for another ‘responsibility to protect’ intervention. Nigeria’s wealth in natural resources and oil has long made it a target for Western interests.

It is clear that the US seeks to repeat the Libyan scenario in Nigeria. Western media excels at crafting divisive narratives that pave the way for imperial ambitions. This pattern is not new. Samir Amin, in ‘The Liberal Virus: Permanent War and the Americanization of the World,’ describes how Hitler used the Reichstag fire as a ploy for repression, drawing parallels to George Bush’s invasion of Iraq and NATO’s intervention in Libya (Amin, 2004). Now, the same playbook is being opened for Nigeria.

However, it is crucial to recognize the active role Nigerian actors, both in person and groups, play in countering these narratives and steering their own destiny. The Nigerian government has engaged in diplomatic dialogues and sought the support of international bodies to challenge misleading accounts and protect the country’s sovereignty.

Additionally, vibrant civil society organizations in Nigeria work tirelessly to foster inter-communal dialogue and resist attempts to sow discord. Nigerian media outlets, both traditional and digital, have amplified local voices and stories that underline a unified resistance against manipulative foreign interests. These efforts highlight Nigeria’s agency in shaping its future and resisting external exploitation.

Sani Khamees is a community activist and Pan-Africanist from Funtua, Katsina state of Nigeria.
Facebook: SaniKhamees@facebook.com
Twitter (X): @Khamees _sa54571

References
Campbell, H (2013). Global NATO and Catastrophic Failure in Libya: Lessons for Africa in the forging of African unity. New York, Monthly Review Press

Amin, S. (2004). The Liberal Virus: Permanent War and the Americanization of the World. Monthly Review Press. https://nyupress.org/9781583671078/the-liberal-virus/

(2014). 2014 Kano attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kano_attack

Group, I. C. (2010). Northern Nigeria: Background to Conflict. International Crisis Group. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/wps/icg/0020843/index.html

Amin, S. (2004). The Liberal Virus: Permanent War and the Americanization of the World. Monthly Review Press. https://nyupress.org/9781583671078/the-liberal-virus/

(2020). 90% of Boko Haram’s victims are Muslims — Buhari. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/02/90-of-boko-harams-victims-are-muslims-buhari/

Continue Reading

Trending