Tinubu, protest, riot and hypocrisy
As the recent “hunger and hardship protest” in some parts of Nigeria raged, with the attendant killings and destruction of property, what came to one’s mind was the ugly experience of Cinna the Poet in William Shakespeare’s epic book, Julius Caesar. The popular and well-known Roman writer, ran into a mob rioting over the murder of Julius Caesar, the king, and was held hostage. Bearing the same name, Cinna, with one of those who conspired to have Caesar murdered and dethroned, he found himself in trouble.
When confronted by the mob, Cinna explained that he was Cinna the Poet, perhaps thinking that this explanation could persuade the mob. He was wrong. The mob, already charged and thirsty for blood, knew no reason and was not willing to let him go. The mob decreed that Cinna the Poet should be killed because of his “bad verses.”
Even though the allegation of “bad verses” may not have been true, the mob needed to execute its judgment on Cinna the Poet and justify it. With that, an innocent man was mobbed to death for bearing the same name with a perceived enemy, because a mob, frenzied and out to have a pound of flesh, had reached a point of no return.
Looking at what happened in Rome when Caesar was murdered and what happened in Nigeria from August 1 to August 5, there is no doubt that there were many Cinna the Poets. They were murdered, on both sides of the divide, and they died for nothing. Absolutely nothing!
We have heard the opposition talk about what happened in Nigeria in five days before what could pass for peace of the graveyard returned. We have heard the government talk about it. However, the fundamental question is: Was what happened in Nigeria a mob action, a protest or a riot?
Yes, some Nigerians, angry at a government they hoped would give them bread but which, advertently or inadvertently, served them stones, had given a notice to stage a nationwide protest. They wanted to ventilate their anger and show their displeasure with the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu government. After all efforts by the government to abort the action failed, the die was cast on August 1, 2024.
Amid overwhelming security nationwide and tension, people came out in large numbers in Kano, Sokoto, Kaduna, Plateau, Abuja and many other states in northern Nigeria. Indeed, in the majority of the cities in the North, the action turned bloody, with the killing of people and destruction of property.
In Lagos, the majority of residents stayed at home on the first day, while a few others converged on the designated protest arena, and peacefully demonstrated. In subsequent days, people went about their businesses. There was calm in some other South West states. However, in Rivers, Delta, Edo, in the South-South part of the country, there was some fury. In all, security was challenged in the North, the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, and other places where the mass action happened.
Taking everything that happened into consideration, the poser is: Was it a protest, mob action or riot?
The dictionary defines a mob as “a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.” A protest, according to the dictionary, is “a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something” or “to show or express strong disagreement with or disapproval of something,” which could be done in “marches, demonstrations, boycotts, silent vigils, petition, peaceful street protest and picketing.” A riot, the dictionary says, is “a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.”
From the above, it is apparent that what Nigeria saw for the five days or thereabouts cannot be called a protest. It was a mob action and riot. It was destructive. It was violent. It threatened the peace of the country and that of the citizenry, no matter how we pretend.
For the avoidance of doubt, protest is a fundamental ingredient of democracy and an inalienable right of the citizenry. Protests are a powerful tool for creating change, amplifying marginalised voices, and challenging injustice. It is a vital component of our collective push for a more just and equitable society.
Protest may seem like a quick fix to perceived injustices but when it becomes violent it is nothing less than mob action or riot. In violence form, protest is a dangerous and destructive approach that undermines the very fabric of our society. In that state, it becomes a riot. Although rioting has become an increasingly common response to social and political tensions, it is a destructive path that only leads to chaos, harm and regret.
With the bloodshed and destruction we saw in the country, the advocates, defenders and participants in the action that happened between August 1 and August 5 should asked themselves what they have achieved. Agreed that they have been “heard loud and clear” by the government, but, in the final analysis, what have they achieved?
The organisers of the protest and the protesters made some demands, one of which was that President Tinubu addressed the nation. In all the demands, the government met only one. President Tinubu did address the nation in a broadcast but it was a mere exercise to fulfil all righteousness. The other demands were not attended to. Although it does not sound nice to say, it must be stated that one has not seen the gain of the protest. It was an exercise in futility, an action whose outcome was predictable.
In supporting and organising protests, there should be caution. When someone throws a stone into the market, the person cannot predict who it would hit. We should stop politicising everything in the country. It was the politicisation of things that has brought Tinubu and his supporters to this sorry pass. It is indeed nemesis catching up with Tinubu.
When former President Goodluck Jonathan removed fuel subsidy in 2012, Tinubu and his Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) criticised the policy and called Nigerians out to protest against it. Some of the actors of today’s government actively participated in the protest. Now in the saddle, Tinubu has seen the need to remove fuel subsidy and he does not want Nigerians to protest. Call it hypocrisy or double standard, you would be right. Had Tinubu and his co-travellers not opposed the removal of fuel subsidy 12 years ago, the country would not be talking about it today.
Therefore, those who are supporting mob action and riots against the Tinubu government should know that since mob action is destructive, it could consume anybody. The South East people have proved to be wiser than the rest of the country. One laughs when some people raise issues about the fact that South-easterners shunned the riot. The truth is that the Igbo, knowing that they are always blamed for everything in the country, decided that they would not be scapegoats again. They watched while other Nigerians fooled themselves in the name of protesting hardship and hunger, a malaise they brought upon themselves.
The Igbo foresaw today and took a stand about the election that brought Tinubu to power. They did not believe in Tinubu and his “work tools” and they voted where they felt redemption lay. Now that the bad choice Nigerians made is haunting them, with hardship and hunger staring the majority in the face, the Igbo have no reason to protest. They refused to play to the gallery. Their attitude is like “we told you, but you didn’t listen. Now enjoy the fruit of your bad choice.” Therefore, they won’t protest over something whose outcome they foresaw, even before it happened.
Protest, riot and mob action cannot make the Tinubu government perform better. Nobody can give what he does not have. The best protest is to be prepared to vote the government out of office in the next election. Those who made up the crowd that came out in the North and other places, where mob action prevailed, have their voters’ cards. They should be ready to punish the government with their votes in 2027.
Undemocratic change of government, which some of the protesters called for, is anachronistic in today’s world. Democratic change of government, through the ballot, is the way to go. However, for the government to be voted out, Nigerians should play down ethnicity, bearing in mind that hardship and hunger have no colour, creed or tribe.
However, it must be said, for the sake of emphasis, that the manner Tinubu removed fuel subsidy was wrong. The action was desirable but the implementation is anti-progress. Certain things ought to have been done or put in place before the removal of fuel subsidy. The Minister of Finance and Coordination Minister for the Economy, Wale Edun, said that Nigeria does not know the total daily consumption of fuel. Can you imagine that! How could a government worth its name say such a thing? What does it take to know the total or average litres of fuel used in Nigeria daily? It is not rocket science.
The Tinubu government should not be telling Nigerians about the desirability of the removal of fuel subsidy. The government knows that the problem about fuel supply in the country is that petroleum products are smuggled to neighbouring countries from Nigeria. The government has to deal with it. The government has to deal with the corruption in the petroleum sector.
