The Nigerian Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Dele Alake, has said that the recent protests in Nigeria a hashtagged #EndBadGovernanceinNigeria was not just a demonstration but an orchestrated attempt to overthrow the government.
Alake made this assertion on Tuesday after the Council of State Meeting led by President Bola Tinubu.
The council, which convened with key political figures and former leaders, unanimously passed a vote of confidence in Tinubu’s administration, framing the protests as a serious threat to the nation’s democracy.
This declaration places the protest in a more severe context, with Alake stressing that any change in government must occur through the ballot box, not through force.
Notable Absences Raise Eyebrows
The Council of State meeting, the first under President Tinubu, witnessed the attendance of former Presidents Muhammadu Buhari and Goodluck Jonathan, who were present physically, while Generals Yakubu Gowon and Abdulsalami Abubakar joined virtually.
However, the absence of former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Ibrahim Babangida, both influential figures in Nigerian politics, did not go unnoticed. No official reason was provided for their absence from such a critical meeting, sparking speculation about underlying political tensions and their current stance on the nation’s governance.
Also Read: Anti-Tinubu protests undemocratic; activists should have voted out corrupt APC – Raji Bello
Also Read: #EndBadGovernance: Protesters berate court ruling restricting demonstrations to designated parks, demand logistics from Lagos government
Also Read: 2012 anti-subsidy removal protest was not violent because of Jonathan’s role, better economy, says ex-DSS director
Also Read: #EndSARS Protest – The Bravery of Nigerian Women
Government’s Response to the Protests
Briefing the press after the meeting, Alake revealed that the council praised Tinubu for his resolve in preventing what they described as a forcible takeover of the government.
Alake highlighted the briefing by National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, who outlined the security measures taken before, during, and after the protests.
Ribadu asserted that the protests, which had been largely perceived as a demand for better governance, were in fact a movement aimed at destabilising the government.
“The #EndBadGovernance protest was not just a protest; it was a movement intended to effect a change of regime by force, which was successfully resisted,” Alake stated.
He stressed that the Council of State strongly believes that any change in government should only occur through democratic processes, such as elections, rather than through unconstitutional means.
A Vote of Confidence Amidst Controversy
Despite the contentious framing of the protests, the Council of State, alongside the Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF), unanimously passed a vote of confidence in President Tinubu.
Governor Abdulrahman Abdulrazaq of Kwara State, who also chairs the NGF, echoed this sentiment, stating that the members were satisfied with the presentations made by the Federal Executive Council and that the country was “on the right track.”
However, the absence of Obasanjo and Babangida from this endorsement raises questions about the extent of the consensus within Nigeria’s political elite.
Analysis: Mobilising the Elite vs. Addressing the Masses
The absence of figures like Obasanjo and Babangida, coupled with the council’s framing of the protests, suggests a government strategy that prioritises elite support over addressing the genuine concerns of the populace. By rallying the support of former leaders and governors, the administration appears more focused on securing endorsements from influential political figures than engaging with the issues that fuelled the protests.
This approach, however, has drawn criticism from some quarters. Sam Amadi, a political analyst, remarked, “People surrounding Tinubu are telling him ‘cock and bull’ stories. The protests were spontaneous… the leaders in the southwest don’t have any recognition or clout to move crowds in the North.”
Amadi’s comment brings to the fore the disconnect between the government’s narrative and the realities on the ground, where grassroots discontent remains potent.
