Nigeria’s former Chief of Defence Staff, General Lucky Irabor (retd), launched his memoir in Abuja this week. Former President Goodluck Jonathan was there, and in his remarks, he reminded Nigerians of a fact that is both inconvenient and undeniable: Boko Haram once publicly named the late President Muhammadu Buhari as one of the men it trusted to mediate with the Federal Government.
Simple. Straightforward. Historical.
Jideofor Adibe, in his Brookings essay, Re-evaluating the Boko Haram Conflict, (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/re-evaluating-the-boko-haram-conflict/), captured this same expectation: many analysts assumed Buhari’s 2015 victory would undercut Boko Haram’s local support base. But Buhari’s rise to power did not bring an end to the insurgency. On the contrary, the killings and abductions continued. Jonathan’s reflections, I should think, fall squarely within this line of analysis.
This is not Jonathan speaking out of bitterness; it is Jonathan speaking from hard-earned experience. And anyone who pretends otherwise is either being dishonest or simply intoxicated by partisanship.
But trust Nigeria’s political echo chamber to turn an obvious recollection into a cheap scandal. Overnight, Jonathan’s sober reflections became, in the mouths of his critics, a “jab” at Buhari. Some even tried to paint it as an “attack.” The irony? The man never said Buhari accepted anything. He simply restated what the sect itself once declared. But in a country where bad faith has become a national pastime, facts are optional and distortion is sport.
Jonathan’s point was clear: Boko Haram is no child’s play. It is a multi-layered insurgency, with local grievances and foreign sponsorship, that no single strongman can wish away. My understanding of his speech is that he once thought a sect that trusted Buhari to mediate might finally drop its guns when Buhari came to power. But reality proved otherwise. The violence persisted. The bombings continued. The kidnappings multiplied.
Yet, instead of grappling with this inconvenient truth, Jonathan’s perennial hecklers are out there – foaming at the mouth, clutching at straws and congratulating themselves for twisting his words. It is almost comical to watch them masturbate over propaganda while ignoring the stubborn evidence.
And the evidence is everywhere. On November 1, 2012, Boko Haram’s spokesman, Abu Mohammed Ibn Abdulazeez, publicly listed Buhari—alongside Shettima Ali Monguno, Bukar Abba Ibrahim, Ambassador Gaji Galtimari, Hajia Aisha Wakil and Alkali Wakil – as potential mediators. They even proposed Saudi Arabia as the venue. This was widely reported. (See Vanguard, November 2012, https://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/11/boko-haram-names-buhari-5-others-as-mediators/). Jonathan did not invent this. The internet never forgets. Google is free.
Of course, Buhari promptly distanced himself. Through his now defunct Congress for Progressive Change CPC, he stated that no one had approached him and that he only learned of it through media reports. He dismissed the idea as mere speculation. End of story. Jonathan never claimed otherwise. Buhari dismissed it as speculation. That was his right. But to now weaponize Jonathan’s recollection of these facts as some sort of smear campaign is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.
So, what exactly is the outrage about? That Jonathan remembered? That he dared to say out loud what everyone already knows? Or that some people are simply addicted to twisting every word he utters?
Let’s be honest: Jonathan’s intervention was not a dig at Buhari. What Jonathan said is not even controversial. It is history. The only controversy here is the intellectual laziness of those trying to manufacture outrage where none exists. They would rather play politics with memory than confront the bitter truth that Boko Haram survived both Jonathan’s administration and Buhari’s.
Nowhere in Jonathan’s remarks did he “attack” Buhari, as some mischief-makers are now desperately peddling. What he did was to remind us that Boko Haram is not a simplistic problem, but a hydra-headed insurgency with domestic grievances, religious undertones and foreign sponsors.
What he did was to remind us of the layered, transnational and still unresolved challenge that Boko Haram poses – a reminder that deserves sober engagement, not malicious spin.
Jonathan’s critics should save themselves the embarrassment. You cannot erase the record. You cannot edit out November 2012. And you certainly cannot wish away what Boko Haram itself once said. The internet never forgets – even if selective amnesia has become a national disease.
Those who are twisting Jonathan’s words should pause for once and reflect: if we cannot even agree on the facts of yesterday, how do we expect to defeat the insurgencies of tomorrow?
As we approach the 2027 general election, there will be more attempts at revisionism by some partisan elements. It is the duty of the Media to continue to fact-check all of these claims and situate issues appropriately. At the end of the day, the internet never forgets.
Did Boko Haram nominate Buhari? Yes? Did Buhari accept his nomination? No. QED!