Bwala Defends Calls for Jonathan’s Resignation, Rejects Same for Tinubu

The Presidency has offered an explanation for the apparent double standard in calling for the resignation of former President Goodluck Jonathan over insecurity, while arguing that a similar call for President Bola Tinubu’s resignation today is unwarranted.

Dependable NG reports that Daniel Bwala, Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Policy Communication, made the distinction during an interview on Channels Television’s The Morning Brief on Wednesday. Bwala was responding to an old statement made by Tinubu himself, who, in 2014 following the Chibok schoolgirls’ abduction, publicly demanded Jonathan resign due to the worsening insecurity.

Tinubu’s historic statement was: “Why should any part of this country be under occupation? In any civilized country, Jonathan should resign.”

Responding to the contradiction, Bwala asserted: “When Asiwaju called for then-President Jonathan to resign, it was a legitimate call. Now, it’s not legitimate to call for President Tinubu’s resignation.”

Bwala explained the difference lies in the approach to solving the problem. He claimed: “Being confronted with a problem is not a problem, but when you lack a solution to solving a problem, then you have a problem.” He stressed that security challenges exist everywhere, noting: “I was telling my guys at the BBC that the crime rate in the United States is higher than the crime rate in Nigeria.”

He maintained that the core issue during the Jonathan administration was a denial of the problem itself, specifically regarding the Chibok girls’ abduction, which indicated a lack of any idea for a solution.

Bwala added that citizens have the right to express their opinions, but if they truly believe the President should resign, they should initiate the formal process. Otherwise, he suggested, the calls are mere expressions of opinion: “If you believe that calling on the president to resign is a legitimate call, then begin the process; otherwise, it will be laziness on the part of the government to be concerned about individuals exercising their rights of expression.”