President Tinubu: Threatening a Democratically Elected Governor Is a War You Cannot Win, by John Egbeazien Oshodi

President Bola Tinubu must be reminded unequivocally: Nigeria is a democracy. It may be flawed, riddled with inconsistencies, and plagued by weak institutions, but it remains a democracy. Attempts to intimidate, silence, or threaten a democratically elected governor are not just unconstitutional—they are an outright affront to the very fabric of governance in Nigeria. Such actions undermine the principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and the fundamental right to dissent, all of which are the cornerstones of a democratic society.

Nigeria adopted the American-style presidential system to ensure accountability and balance between the various arms of government. Deviating from these principles signals a betrayal not only of the democratic framework but also of the oath President Tinubu swore to uphold. Governors like Bala Mohammed are not just leaders of their respective states; they are elected representatives of millions of Nigerians who have entrusted them to advocate for their interests. Any attempt to silence them is an attack on the people themselves.

Governor Bala Mohammed is not merely a regional figure. As a two-term senator and the current Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Governors’ Forum, he represents a critical bloc in Nigeria’s democracy. Threatening such a leader is not just a tactical error—it is a gross underestimation of his influence and the millions who stand behind him. To undermine his voice is to disregard the mandate given to him by the people of Bauchi and the broader opposition coalition he represents. Tinubu’s administration risks creating fractures in Nigeria’s already fragile democracy by adopting such a heavy-handed approach.

Tinubu’s Administration Must Embrace Dialogue, Not Dictatorship

Governor Mohammed’s criticism of President Tinubu’s proposed tax reforms was direct and unapologetic. He called the reforms “anti-northern” and warned of their potential to impoverish states and destabilize national unity. His statement at a Christmas gathering, “We’ll show President Tinubu our true colour,” was a bold declaration that rattled a presidency seemingly unused to being challenged so openly.

However, rather than addressing these valid concerns with humility and tact, the Presidency responded with an air of arrogance. Through his Special Adviser on Media and Public Communication, Sunday Dare, Tinubu’s administration dismissed Mohammed’s remarks as “inflammatory rhetoric” and demanded a retraction. Dare’s response, “The challenges we face—poverty to security, economic growth to social development—transcend state boundaries and political affiliations,” completely sidesteps the specific grievances raised by Mohammed and comes across as tone-deaf and dismissive.

This approach is emblematic of a larger problem within Tinubu’s administration: an unwillingness to engage in meaningful consultation and a tendency to act with impunity. Nigeria’s complex challenges require nuanced solutions, yet the federal government appears more focused on asserting dominance than building consensus. Policies such as the proposed VAT increase from 7.5% to 10% and new excise duties disproportionately burden less industrialized states like Bauchi while favoring wealthier regions. Mohammed’s warning that such policies could provoke unrest is not an empty threat—it is a reflection of the frustration brewing among Nigerians who feel excluded from the benefits of governance.

Sunday Dare’s Communication Blunders

Special Adviser Sunday Dare’s mishandling of the situation has only worsened the perception of Tinubu’s presidency. His demand that Governor Mohammed retract his comments was not just a miscalculation—it was a masterclass in how to make an already tense situation worse. Mohammed’s swift and unyielding response—“I cannot be threatened as a governor. I stand by my comments.”—was a resounding rejection that left Dare scrambling to salvage a misstep that never should have occurred

Dare’s approach has made Tinubu’s administration look petty, insecure, and out of touch with the realities of democratic governance. If he intends to continue as the voice of the presidency, Dare must first learn the basics of strategic communication. Rule one: never make demands that expose your administration’s fragility. Rule two: know when to pivot from confrontation to dialogue. Leadership is not about winning arguments; it is about building bridges.

The presidency’s response has done little more than paint Tinubu as a leader who cannot tolerate dissent—an image that fuels the perception of him as dictatorial rather than democratic. Sunday Dare’s communication blunders have transformed what could have been a productive dialogue into an unnecessary standoff that only deepens public distrust.

Tinubu’s Administration Risks a Lasting Stain

President Tinubu must understand that Nigeria’s democracy cannot afford the optics of authoritarianism. Every move to stifle opposition, dismiss dissent, or intimidate elected officials adds to the growing perception of his administration as intolerant and out of touch. Governor Mohammed’s criticisms are not merely personal—they reflect the voices of millions who demand fairness, inclusivity, and respect in policymaking.

Continuing down this path of arrogance and intimidation will not only harm Tinubu’s legacy but also destabilize Nigeria’s fragile unity. A president’s strength lies not in silencing opposition but in listening to it, understanding it, and addressing it. Anything less is a betrayal of democracy and the people it serves.

Nigeria’s Leaders Acting as Mini-Gods

One of the gravest issues in Nigeria today is the perception among political leaders that they are above reproach, acting as mini-gods who are untouchable. Recent years have seen a worrying trend of journalists, dissenters, and critics being locked up or threatened for daring to speak out against the federal government. This dangerous culture of silencing opposition cannot be extended to Governor Mohammed—or any other democratically elected leader—without severe consequences.

Governor Mohammed represents not just Bauchi but also the PDP governors across Nigeria, many of whom share his reservations about Tinubu’s policies. Trying to intimidate him risks triggering negative reactions not only from the North but also from non-Northern stakeholders, exacerbating Nigeria’s already volatile ethnic and regional tensions. Nigeria’s history of ethnic and regional conflict should serve as a stark warning to Tinubu’s administration: governance by force and threats will not succeed in a nation so deeply divided.

Federal Intimidation Undermines Democracy

It is unacceptable that Tinubu’s administration sees fit to label criticism as “threats” while engaging in tactics designed to silence dissent. Mohammed’s statement, “I cannot be threatened as a governor. I stand by my comments. It is not meant to malign, insult, or to do anything to the contrary other than mean well,” is a powerful reminder that elected officials are accountable to their people, not to the whims of the presidency.

Threatening Mohammed, who represents not only Bauchi but also the collective interests of PDP governors, is a dangerous precedent. It sends a message that dissent will be punished, dialogue will be ignored, and the federal government will rule by fiat rather than through collaboration. This is not the leadership Nigeria needs, nor is it the democracy Nigerians fought for.

Tinubu Must Remember: Power Is Temporary

Tinubu and his administration must understand that power is temporary, but the consequences of bad governance can be enduring. Attempts to silence Governor Mohammed and others like him will not erase the systemic problems they are raising. If anything, it will embolden them and reveal the administration’s fear of accountability.

Governor Mohammed has called for fairness, inclusion, and consultation in policymaking. His warnings about the tax reforms reflect the concerns of millions of Nigerians who feel left behind by policies that favor the wealthy while burdening the poor. His criticism is not a personal attack on Tinubu but a necessary challenge to a federal government that has lost touch with its people.

Mohammed’s statement, “We believe that as the leader of the federation and all other federating units, they should listen to us, not be arrogant and showing some elements of impunity that whatever happens, they would go ahead,” is a stark reminder that democracy requires humility from those in power.

The Presidency Must Choose Collaboration Over Confrontation

President Tinubu must decide whether his administration will be remembered for fostering collaboration and dialogue or for its arrogance and disregard for democracy. Mohammed’s criticism of the tax reforms is not unique; many governors, particularly in the North, have raised similar concerns. Instead of dismissing them, the federal government should engage in meaningful dialogue to address these issues.

The presidency’s claims that Bauchi received ₦144 billion in federal allocations under Tinubu’s administration do not excuse bad policymaking or justify silencing criticism. Governor Mohammed has repeatedly stated that the tax reforms would deepen inequality and harm states that already struggle with poverty and underdevelopment. His role as a governor—and as a leader within the opposition—is to ensure that such policies are scrutinized and, if necessary, opposed.

Democracy Thrives on Dissent

Democracy, by its very nature, is built on the foundation of dissent and the ability to question authority. When a government feels threatened by criticism, it reveals a fragile psyche—one that views accountability as an existential threat rather than a tool for progress. Governor Bala Mohammed’s stance against Tinubu’s administration is a mirror reflecting the cracks in a system that refuses to listen, a system that chooses suppression over dialogue.

President Tinubu, attempting to silence a democratically elected governor is not just a betrayal of the constitution; it is a public admission of weakness. It suggests an administration that fears the power of truth and the will of the people. Such actions do not project strength; they expose insecurity. Leaders who resort to threats and intimidation signal their inability to govern with confidence, relying instead on fear to maintain control.

The psychological toll of suppressing dissent is twofold. First, it alienates those who are silenced, creating enemies within a system that should thrive on collaboration. Second, it erodes public trust, planting seeds of rebellion in the minds of citizens who see their leaders as oppressors rather than protectors. The Nigerian people are watching, and every move made in arrogance rather than humility only deepens their discontent.

Governor Mohammed has made it clear: “I cannot be threatened as a governor.” These are not the words of a man easily broken. They are the words of a leader who understands his mandate, his power, and his obligation to his people. Any attempt to crush his voice will not only fail but will embolden others to stand against a government that has lost touch with its citizens.

Leadership isn’t about brute authority; it’s about earning respect through humility and confronting criticism with grace. If your administration continues down this path of intimidation and arrogance, it will not only erode the respect of the people but also chip away at the fragile foundation of Nigeria’s democracy.

This isn’t strength; it’s self-sabotage. And, Mr. President, in the end, the only losers in such a game are those who underestimate the resilience of a people who refuse to be dominated. Nigerians have shown time and again that they cannot be silenced or subdued.

So, as we step into a new year, Mr. President, perhaps it’s time for a new approach—one that values dialogue over discord, respect over repression. And to Sunday Dare, take time ooo—communication is an art, not a blunt instrument! Happy New Year, Mr. President. Let’s hope 2025 is the year your administration learns the beauty of collaboration over confrontation.

Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi, born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, is an American-based police and prison scientist, forensic/clinical psychologist, public policy psychologist, and legal psychologist. He’s a government advisor on forensic-clinical psychological services in the USA and the founder of the Dr. John Egbeazien Oshodi Foundation for Psychological Health. With a significant role in introducing forensic psychology to Nigeria through N.U.C. and Nasarawa State University, he’s also a former Secretary-General of the Nigeria Psychological Association. He’s taught at esteemed institutions like Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Nova Southeastern University, and more. and is currently an online faculty member at ISCOM University, Weldios University and Walden University.