In March 2014, while Boko Haram terrorism was ravaging Nigeria, twelve northern governors traveled to Washington, D.C., to confront President Goodluck Jonathan before his American counterpart, Barack Obama. During the meeting, they met Obama’s national‑security adviser, Susan Rice, and accused Jonathan of sponsoring the attacks. Media reports—still archived online—record that Governor Murtala Nyako of Adamawa State opened the session by reciting a litany of the president’s alleged sins. Governors Rabiu Kwankaso of Kano and Kashim Shettima of Borno joined Nyako in attacking Jonathan. The confrontation grew so heated that Nigerian Ambassador Prof. Ade Adefuye reportedly had to intervene to stop the governors from “washing Nigeria’s dirty linen in public.”
The episode foreshadowed later controversies involving the All Progressives Congress (APC). Chimamanda Adichie’s recent open letter to U.S. President Joe Biden, which condemned the conduct of Nigeria’s February presidential election, painted the APC as dirty as its predecessor, the Jonathan administration. Although the U.S. government is unlikely to respond publicly, Adichie’s account undermines a government that habitually seeks legitimacy from Western institutions. Prior to the letter’s publication, Minister of Information Lai Mohammed had traveled to Washington to tout the election as “the freest and fairest in the history of Nigeria,” a move that suggested anxiety about international perception. Adichie’s letter, therefore, struck a severe blow to an incoming presidency already under intense scrutiny. Critics responded with accusations of “colonial mentality,” “anti‑patriotism,” and “tribalism,” while questioning whether Shettima and his entourage, who bypassed local institutions to go to Washington, were pursuing a decolonisation agenda. They also wondered why the same officials did not return when Maj. Gen. Muhammadu Buhari’s government failed to curb banditry, highlighting the self‑serving nature of their politics.
The APC’s supporters have reacted to Adichie’s letter and the perceived irreverence of the “Obidients” with a mix of weak memory and moral inconsistency. Some claim that the online mob of partisan supporters is a historically unique phenomenon, forgetting that Buhari once inaugurated a troll farm to combat opponents and sow discord. The Buhari Media Centre’s shadowy operatives, along with a large retinue of media aides, have spent the past eight years identifying and attacking supposed enemies, justifying their salaries and relevance. This institutionalisation of trolling has created an environment where online harassment carries presidential gravitas, even as the regime claims to fight the very enemies it helped create. The current ferocity online can be traced to Buhari’s formalisation of trolling.
Comparisons of the Obidients to Hitler and Mussolini overlook the fact that Buhari’s supporters have repeatedly inflicted physical violence. After Buhari’s 2011 loss, his followers killed an estimated 800 people, attacked a man who named his dog “Buhari,” and assaulted protestors in Abuja. In April 2021, two anti‑Buhari demonstrators were whipped in Kogi State by Buhari supporters; the state officials later justified the violence as a manifestation of “faith in his integrity and quality leadership.” When the state legitimises violence, reprisals from disenfranchised citizens become inevitable.
The toxic politics sown by the APC have become overripe, and the rotten fruit now falls on their own faces. The weapons once used against the PDP are now available to anyone seeking to supplant the APC. The internet has ushered in a new historical phase: politicians can rally online armies to propagate their messages and counter the establishment. Each generation uses the tools of its time; in 2015, in 2023, and likely in 2031, social media grants narrative power to voices that would otherwise be unheard. When a mass can be formed, it can be heard, and disrupting the status quo requires not only shouting but also irreverence.
Vengeful politics has proven an effective strategy for the APC. If it propelled Shettima from Borno to Aso Rock, it must have viability. As long as it works for one side, there is little incentive to abandon it, and the opposing side may appropriate the same tactics. To maintain power, the APC must keep the spectre of “the enemy” alive, allowing supporters to focus their primal energies on destroying it—despite the exhausting nature of such venomous politics.
Some aides of the incoming president have resolved to battle the Obidients, declaring that “nobody has a monopoly of madness.” I wish them luck as they spend the next four years exchanging bitter words with fervent internet users. Their clashes will entertain a weary public and may ultimately consume the aides themselves, as they pursue the very enemy they created in their own image. In their attempts to punch up and down at opponents, both online and offline, they will repudiate every claim of righteousness and national interest once levelled against them. By the time they finish their campaign to demystify madness on Twitter, they may have shed all pretences of patriotism, virtue, and intellect. I sincerely hope they do not tire until they are entirely stripped of those façades.
Comments are closed for this story.