Opposition elements again took to the streets this week under the aegis of a so-called movement to take back the rights of Nigerians to economic and social freedoms. They were in specific terms demanding the rights of Nigerians to economic empowerment which they believe has been eroded by the economic policies of the Bola Tinubu-led government to remove the subsidy on petrol and allow the market to determine the value of the naira, etc.

They also demanded the roll-back of some of the social media policies of the government that have seen the Nigeria Police arresting and prosecuting so-called social media activists for their online activities that have been characterised as cyber stalking and bullying. This week’s protest is about the third in six months, not counting others that were proclaimed by labour activists to protest against sudden price or related changes in the oil or labour sector. Some of these protests suffered still-birth either because they were called off at the last moment or held but failed to gain traction due to the lukewarm response of Nigerians.

The Tinubu administration was a child of protest. It was conceived and delivered in protest. It was in rebellion against the perceived opposition of his party hierarchy led by President Muhammadu Buhari that Tinubu, then an aspirant, launched his emilokan diatribe. He staked his claim to contest for the highest office in  the land on the platform of his party, the All Progressives Congress, APC, against the opposition of powerful members of the party. 

He would go on to clinch his party’s ticket but thereafter faced even the more herculean task of overcoming policies that were clearly meant to stall his ambition by a government led by his party and a man he helped into office. Against all odds he won the election to the consternation of his opponents that had, up to the last moment the results were declared, praised President Buhari for his apparent hostility (that they described as impartiality) to his party’s presidential candidate. 

From the minute he was declared winner of the 2023 presidential election, neither Tinubu nor the government that he would eventually form has been free from protests. In the early days the protests were for the cancellation of the results and for Tinubu not to be sworn into office when it seemed that would not work. As the dispute progressed to the Supreme Court the protesters intensified their campaign both locally and internationally for Tinubu’s victory to be overturned. The judges of the Supreme Court were bullied and called names ahead of the declaration of their position. “All eyes” were said to be on them in an effort, ultimately futile, to get them to do the bidding of the opposition parties, two of which separately claimed it won the election. 

Then followed an opposition-led protest/campaign for the military to step in. Opposition supporters went on their knees at the military headquarters and brazenly demanded military intervention. That call to anti-democratic elements is still being made from time to time accompanied with series of interminable protests that are meant to discover red herrings and amplify fault lines in the political system. This is where we are presently, just a month away from the administration’s mid-term, with the periodic protests that come under different name tags and so-called movements. These types of artificial protests have become the lightning rod of opposition leaders that have no political base now the opposition parties are in total disarray. 

The only means of relevance open to the opposition leaders, former flag bearers of their parties, is to engage in covert and over sponsorship of protests. President Tinubu was an expert in that and appears to be taking the heat from that direction in his stride. He well should! A solid opposition is the grist that oils democracy. The problem with today’s opposition protests is that they lack both cohesion and strategic focus. They often come from nowhere and are increasingly motivated by opportunism. This makes them chaotic and uncoordinated, wherein lies the danger because should they lead to any social upheaval, there is no credible alternative to the present socio-political order. All leading contestants in the last election promised Nigerians the same fare. They only differ in how they promise to implement their agenda based, no doubt, on their observation of how things have shaped up under Tinubu. 

I will return to this shortly but first to the periodic noise-making and manufactured disruption of the protests led by the misnamed movements. The key actors in these incidents are often practical nonentities with no clear idea of what they are doing beyond seeking attention through the affordances of the social media. If they are lucky to get noticed as some foolish officials give them opportunity to, they are lionised and so begin their career as professional agitators, available for hire and use by legal practitioners equally seeking public attention.

Even though the #EndSARS Movement predated the Tinubu administration, for example, the commemoration of its anniversary has become a flashpoint for opposition elements to throw tantrums at the government of the day.  It was during such commemoration that a so-called activist nurse, Olamide Thomas, was first arrested. She would again be arrested and arraigned in December of 2024 for cyber bullying. Her specific offence was issuing verbal attacks in the form of curses on Seyi Tinubu, the president’s son; Kayode Egbetokun, the Inspector General of Police; and Muyiwa Adejobi, the Police spokesperson. 

Another so-called activist, SeaKing, was arrested and charged for more or less the same offence. This time his vituperation was directed at the General Overseer of the Redeemed Christian Church, Pastor Enoch Adeboye. Even though Pastor Adeboye was oblivious of this arrest, a group of religious youth rose in his defence and reported the incident to the police. Before all of this there have been series of similar cases of unprovoked attacks or false claims made against people in their public or private capacities, many of which border on defamation.

Once the authorities concerned or law enforcement agents respond to the complaints of aggrieved persons, they are portrayed as acting on the specific instruction of some top government official or even the President and opposition figures feast on it. They rush out with wild claims about the curtailment of the freedom of speech of Nigerians. We saw that with the case of Dele Farotimi and Afe Babalola.

There was a whiff of it in the Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan-Godswill Akpabio  imbroglio. It was evident in the case of the activists I mentioned above, the misguided corps member who violated her code of conduct and the recent case of nursing students and the First Lady, Oluremi Tinubu, in Delta State. Opposition politics is now about tantrums.