IN 2015, Bola Ahmed Tinubu stood on the podium of political persuasion, invoking the ghost of Winston Churchill to justify the mandate of Muhammadu Buhari.
He argued that Nigeria, in the throes of insecurity, required a “General” to stem the tide. He preached the gospel of the “buck stops here,” holding the incumbent accountable for every drop of blood spilled on Nigerian soil.
Fast forward to 2026. The irony is not just palpable; it is suffocating.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a man who once defined security through the lens of absolute executive accountability, has retreated into a fortress of paranoia and historical amnesia.
He has openly admitted that he and his predecessor, Buhari, are “one and the same”—a confession that, in any functional democracy, would be a resignation note.
By owning the Buhari legacy, he has effectively inherited the rot, the incompetence, and the strategic failure that has metastasized into the current insecurity crisis.
The Governance of Blame: A Symptom of Obsolescence
A leader who blames “the opposition” for national insecurity is a leader who has abandoned governance in favour of fantasy. To claim that political rivals are sponsoring the slaughter of citizens is not a strategy; it is an admission of operational impotence.
When the President lashes out at “enemies” and mocks the “disarray” of opposition parties, he is signaling to the world that he is still campaigning while the country is burning.
He is trapped in a 20th-century political mindset, viewing statecraft as a zero-sum game of street-level dominance rather than the complex, scientific, and technological management of a modern nation-state.
This is the hallmark of a regime that has run out of ideas. It is the rhetoric of the paranoid and the intellectually exhausted—a desperate attempt to externalize a catastrophe that is, in fact, an internal failure of the security architecture he presides over.
The Technological Void
The defining tragedy of this administration is its profound technological illiteracy. In an era where asymmetric warfare demands advanced cybernetic coordination, artificial intelligence-driven predictive modeling, and real-time geotagging capabilities, the Tinubu administration remains stuck in the era of kinetic, brute-force failure.
Security in 2026 is not just about boots on the ground; it is about data, nanotechnology in surveillance, and the precision of intelligence. While the modern world fights terror with algorithms and high-altitude, precision-guided security architecture, this administration persists with archaic methods that have consistently failed to protect our citizens.
Why is there no state-of-the-art AI integration to track insurgent movement patterns? Why is the administration allergic to the technological oversight required to secure our porous borders and educational institutions? The answer is simple: The President does not understand the threat. He treats national security as a political inconvenience rather than a technical imperative.
The “Prodigal Son” Doctrine: Complicity in Chaos
Perhaps most damning is the persistent, whispered suspicion—now becoming loud reality—that the military and security leadership treat terrorists as “brothers” or “prodigal sons.” When the state prioritizes “reintegration” and “amnesty” over the absolute, uncompromising neutralization of existential threats, it is not pursuing peace; it is fueling a cycle of slaughter.
If the President truly believes the opposition is the problem, he is willfully ignoring the elephant in the room: the security architecture itself has been compromised by the integration of ideologies that soft-pedal terror.
When citizens are kidnapped, raped, and slaughtered daily, and the state’s reaction is to look for “political scapegoats” rather than clean house within the barracks and the NSA’s office, we are not witnessing governance. We are witnessing an accommodation of terror.
The Verdict
President Tinubu is not the Churchillian figure he promised; he is the architect of a crumbling state, blinded by a legacy he clings to and a paranoia that consumes his ability to lead.
He campaigned for a “General” to save us, but instead, he has delivered a government that is as lost, confused, and disconnected from the reality of the average Nigerian as the very administration he helped replace. The “buck” does not stop at the table of the opposition. It stops at the Presidency.
It is time for the President to wake up from his administrative slumber, discard the victimhood of the “stubborn politician,” and embrace the technological and strategic rigor required to save this nation—or admit that he is, like his predecessor, fundamentally unfit for the scale of the crisis at hand.
Nigeria does not need another campaign speech. It needs a leader who understands that the only “enemy” currently destroying this nation is the one sitting in the seat of power, watching it burn while blaming everyone but himself.
Dr. Drama, PhD Counterterrorism contributed this piece via: Nigeriandrama@gmail.com
