Tinubu Regime’s Shameful Legacy: Fueling Bigotry In Nigeria’s Fractured History

 

Tinubu Regime’s Shameful Legacy: Fueling Bigotry In Nigeria’s Fractured History

Opinion: By Oke Umurhohwo 

Since Bola Tinubu took office on May 29, 2023, Nigeria has spiraled into a cesspool of bigotry, be it ethnic, religious or regional hatred that very much now threatens to unravel the nation’s fragile unity. This regimes’s policies, silence and blatant favoritism have deepened divisions and also betrayed Nigeria’s long struggle to overcome its historical fault lines. From election violence to nepotistic appointments, Tinubu’s regime has emboldened prejudice, making bigotry a defining feature of his tenure. 

Nigeria’s history is scarred by division. The 1914 amalgamation forcibly merged diverse ethnic groups, sowing seeds of mistrust that persist today. The 1966 coups, fueled by ethnic rivalries, led to the pogroms against Igbos in the North, culminating in the Biafran War (1967–1970), which killed millions. Post-war policies like the “no victor, no vanquished” mantra aimed to heal wounds, but marginalization of Igbos persisted, evident in limited federal appointments and infrastructure neglect in the Southeast. Religious tensions also simmered, with riots like the 1987 Kafanchan crisis pitting Muslims against Christians. 

The Fourth Republic (1999–present) saw progress, with power-sharing norms like Christian-Muslim ticket balancing, but flare-ups such as the 2011 post-election violence killing over 800 people showed bigotry’s resilience.

Under previous administrations, bigotry was often managed, if imperfectly. Obasanjo’s government (1999–2007) pushed national conferences to address ethnic grievances, while Jonathan’s tenure (2010–2015) faced criticism for favoring South-South interests but avoided overt tribalism. Buhari’s regime (2015–2023) was accused of Northern favoritism, yet it maintained religious ticket balance. Tinubu’s presidency, however, marks a reckless departure, amplifying divisions through actions that echo the worst of Nigeria’s past while introducing new wounds. Tinubu’s regime has not just failed to curb bigotry, it has actively fueled it. 

The 2023 elections were a low point, reminiscent of the ethnic purges of the 1960s. In Lagos, Igbo voters faced violent intimidation, with thugs allegedly tied to Tinubu’s political machine attacking polling units and shouting slurs like “go back to Onitsha.” Videos on various social media platforms showed voters fleeing for safety, evoking memories of pre-Biafra pogroms. Tinubu’s silence as a candidate and later president signaled tacit approval, undermining democratic trust and reviving Igbo marginalization fears. This wasn’t just electoral malpractice; it was a tribal assault on Nigeria’s pluralism.

Tinubu’s Muslim-Muslim ticket with Kashim Shettima shattered Nigeria’s unwritten rule of religious balance, a norm upheld since 1999 to manage Christian-Muslim tensions. Historically, such balance prevented crises like the 1980s Sharia riots. By prioritizing political expediency, Tinubu alienated Christians, who make up nearly half the population, fueling fears of religious domination. His flippant defense of “competence over faith” ignored the symbolic weight of representation, deepening distrust in a way not seen since the 1993 Abiola annulment crisis, which sparked religious unrest.

Furthermore, Tinubu’s appointments are a masterclass in ethnic favoritism, rivaling the Northern hegemony under Buhari. Key roles in finance, economy, security and aviation overwhelmingly favour Yoruba allies. Under this regime, it appears and feels like bigotry is baked into state policy. The Southeast, historically shortchanged since Biafra, is again sidelined, with none of their person represented in top security posts as of 2025. This mirrors the post-civil war era, where Igbos were excluded from power, fostering resentment. Tinubu’s nepotism isn’t just unfair, it’s a recipe for regional rebellion.

Tinubu’s economic reforms, like fuel subsidy removal, have hit harder in poorer regions like the Northeast and Southeast, where infrastructure is weakest. This reflects “anti-Igbo and anti-North bias,” as Lagos-centric policies flourish while other zones languish. Historically, regional economic disparities fueled the 1966 coups. By prioritizing urban Southwest interests, Tinubu risks alienating entire regions, breeding resentment that could ignite violence.

The regime’s crackdown on journalists, with 12 detained in 2024 for “inciting unrest,” mirrors the censorship of the 1980s military era. Outlets critical of Tinubu, especially those owned by non-Yoruba, face harassment. This selective targeting fuels narratives of ethnic bias. Tinubu’s media war is a Yoruba power grab. Suppressing free speech while allowing pro-government propaganda deepens polarization, undermining the press as a unifying force.

Tinubu’s claim of being “no bigot” is laughable when his actions scream otherwise. Tinubu’s presidency doesn’t just echo historical failures, it amplifies them. Unlike past leaders who at least paid lip service to unity, Tinubu’s regime seems to thrive on division. His nepotism surpasses Buhari’s, his religious insensitivity outstrips military era decrees, and his inaction on violence rivals the chaos of the Second Republic’s collapse. 

Economically, his policies widen gaps that historically fueled unrest, while his repression of dissent revives authoritarian ghosts. The social media outcry a warning of a nation on the brink, as seen in the prelude to Biafra. The implications are dire. Ethnic distrust undermines institutions. Religious tensions threaten to revive sectarian violence, while economic disparities could spark class-based revolts with ethnic undertones. Tinubu’s failure to act decisively unlike Obasanjo’s 2000 peace accords or Yar’Adua’s amnesty programs shows a leader either clueless or complicit. His Southwest base may cheer, but the rest of Nigeria seethes and history teaches us that such imbalances end in chaos.

Tinubu’s regime has turned bigotry into a national crisis, betraying Nigeria’s dream of unity. His policies, silence and favoritism have revived wounds that past generations bled to heal. Nigerians deserve a leader who bridges divides, not one who digs trenches for political gain. The blood in Plateau, the slurs in Lagos, the despair of citizens are Tinubu’s legacy. He must answer for it, or history will judge him as the president who broke Nigeria’s fragile hope.

Oke Umurhohwo

Writes from Ughelli, Delta State.