Terrorism Didn’t Start Today – It Took Root Years Ago. And Here’s Where It Gets Controversial...
The Nigerian Presidency has fired back at former President Olusegun Obasanjo, insisting he has no moral standing to criticize President Bola Tinubu over the nation’s deepening security crisis. According to the Presidency, the horrifying wave of terrorism haunting Nigeria today began under Obasanjo’s own administration — long before it spiraled into the national emergency it has become.
In a strongly worded statement shared on X (formerly Twitter) by Sunday Dare, the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communication, the Presidency condemned Obasanjo’s suggestion that Tinubu should seek help from foreign powers to fix Nigeria’s insecurity. That idea, Dare argued, is not an act of leadership but of surrender. “Handing over Nigeria’s internal security to foreign governments is not statesmanship; it is capitulation,” the post read.
The post, titled “Between Tinubu’s Capability and the Ignobility of Pseudo Statesmanship,” didn’t hold back in its criticism. It accused Obasanjo of “selective amnesia” and warned against allowing “those who midwifed Nigeria’s early security failures to rewrite history.” The message was clear: before offering advice about today’s threats, Obasanjo should confront his own record.
Dare continued, calling out those attempting to portray President Tinubu as incapable of protecting Nigerians. He labeled such claims “not only hypocritical but ignoble,” arguing that those critics failed to act when early warnings of terrorism emerged decades ago. “Now they want to sit in judgment,” he wrote. “Nigerians know better.”
The Presidency maintained that Nigeria’s security challenges are real and grave, describing them in stark terms: “The people killing Nigerians, raiding villages, kidnapping innocents, blowing up infrastructure, and defying state authority are terrorists—whether they carry foreign flags or not.”
It explained that today’s threat is a multi-layered web of danger — a complex ecosystem made up of:
- Globally recognized terror groups.
- ISIS and Al-Qaeda affiliates operating across the Sahel.
- Local extremist factions disguised as bandits.
- Cross-border militant cells exploiting porous borders.
- Ideological insurgents and hybrid criminal-terror networks in ungoverned zones.
These groups, the statement noted, work together, trading money, ideology, intelligence, and weapons. “Their collective mission is consistent — to weaken the Nigerian state and subdue its people. Let’s call them what they are: terrorists.”
In one of the most striking claims, the Presidency argued that the foundation of Boko Haram, Nigeria’s deadliest extremist movement, was laid during Obasanjo’s civilian rule. It alleged that while the sect recruited, spread ideology, and built camps, the government of that time looked the other way. That inaction, it said, allowed a manageable threat to evolve into something far worse:
- A ferocious insurgency.
- A cross-border terrorist franchise.
- A regional menace tied to global jihadist movements.
The post concluded with a stinging reproach: for a leader under whom terrorism found its first foothold, attempting to lecture the current President now dealing with its consequences is “the height of irony.”
But here’s the question that will spark debate: Is it fair to pin Nigeria’s complex terrorism crisis entirely on one administration from the past, or does the blame lie across decades of structural neglect and failed leadership? What do you think — should Obasanjo’s critique be seen as hypocrisy, or as an elder statesman’s genuine concern? Share your thoughts below — this conversation is far from over.
