President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Special Adviser on Policy Communication, Daniel Bwala, has defended his principal’s demand in 2014 that former President Goodluck Jonathan resign following the abduction of schoolgirls in Chibok, Borno State.
The mass kidnapping of the Chibok girls, which shocked the international community, was widely regarded as the first significant school abduction in Nigeria, highlighting the country’s growing insecurity at the time. Tinubu, then a leader of the opposition, had accused Jonathan of failing to protect Nigerians, insisting that such a failure warranted his resignation.
Appearing on Channels Television’s The Morning Brief on Wednesday, Bwala argued that Tinubu’s demand was justified under the circumstances. “In the days of Jonathan, they did not have an idea of the solution. Why did I say that? They were in denial about the Chibok girls’ kidnapping. When President Tinubu, then Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, called for Jonathan’s resignation, it was a legitimate call,” Bwala stated.
Bwala explained that under Jonathan, terrorists had established control over some communities and even levied taxes. He contrasted this with the current administration, noting that Tinubu has implemented a zero-tolerance approach toward negotiating with kidnappers. “So instead of elements that are sponsoring them by giving them the money as ransom to collect the people, they also use the ransom money to buy more weapons. So the federal government does not tolerate the idea of negotiation,” he added.
He further emphasized that previous governments sometimes entered negotiations to save lives, but such practices indirectly financed terrorist activities. According to Bwala, Tinubu’s stance aims to avoid actions that would fund criminal groups.
The issue has regained attention as Nigeria continues to experience recurring school kidnappings and other security breaches. Critics have questioned the federal government’s strategies for tackling terrorism and insurgency.
Okay News reports that Bwala highlighted the distinction between past and present government policies, underscoring that preserving citizens’ lives must align with broader national security interests.
