As the economic situation worsened in Nigeria, and in the wake of the remarkable youth-led protests in Kenya, the country saw growing calls for a nationwide protest. Key sentiments and slogans included frustration with the government of President Bola Tinubu, anger at high inflation due to high fuel prices and the cost of food skyrocketing by over 40.53%, and growing public intolerance of widespread corruption.
The “EndBadGovernance protest” or Hunger protest”, as the protesters tagged it, achieved significant participation, and also saw considerable unrest. This has been particularly true of Nigeria’s northern states, many of which did not vote for Tinubu in the 2023 general elections. The exact motivations and desires of protestors have also been the subject of considerable debate, as some of those who attended demonstrations were seen spotted brandishing Russian flags as they chanted “Tinubu must go.”
In the most remarkable and worrying scenes, some protestors called for military intervention – a shocking development in a country that has avoided a coup since returning to multiparty politics in 1999, and which suffered both physical brutality and economic failure at the hands of successive military regimes in the 1970s and 1980s.
So could Nigeria go down the same pathway as Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger? Or will the Nigerian people rise up to reject the kind of military rule and foreign intervention that have only spelt unhappiness in the past?
The rise of Russia
Russia is becoming the preferred security partner for an increasing number of African governments, most notably among military regimes in West Africa, where it has gradually replacing traditional allies such as France. Moscow has rapidly expanded its military cooperation with African nations through the private security company Wagner and its successor, Africa Corps, deploying Russian mercenaries to protect African leaders, secure their natural resources, and assist states in combating extremists.
Popular opinion on these developments is not always clear, but a combination of the historical role of the Soviet Union in supporting some African liberation movements, growing recognition of Western hypocrisy, and disinformation appears to have improved approval ratings of Russia in some West African countries. In many ways this is understandable – countries such as France have undermined their own credibility by supporting corrupt and undemocratic, while civilian leaders have failed to uphold democratic values. As a result, the domestic and international status quo effectively undermined its own position.
Indeed, it is clear that a range of international, political, cultural and religious sentiments influenced the protests, with some citizens expressing dissatisfaction with Western economic policies imposed by entities like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which many blame for Nigeria’s economic woes.
The rise in sympathy for Russia is nonetheless problematic, however. Those encouraging Russian intervention, and lauding Russia as an anti-colonial power, appear to be overlooking the treatment of countries such as Czechoslovakia and Poland under the Soviet Union, or the infringements on the sovereignty of Ukraine today. There is also the issue of the human rights violations committed by Wagner/Africa Corps forces on African soil, and the fact that key aspects of the relationship with Moscow – such as the export of natural resources to pay for the services of Wagner/Africa Corps – have a distinctly colonial flavour.
A backlash against Russia is yet to materialise, however, and in its absence the question of what effect Russian influence will have on Nigerian politics becomes more significant by the day.
How have the authorities responded?
The Russian embassy denies any involvement in the protests. Given the aggressive promotion of Russian interests and ideologies across West Africa over the last five years, however, the Nigerian government is taking few chances. Already, the security forces have begun detaining several tailors in Kano state if the northwestern region of the country for creating Russian flags.
The Department of State Services (DSS) also reported on X (formerly Twitter) that they had apprehended some individuals who had sponsored the tailors, though they did not provide further details. An investigation is underway, but the number of detained tailors and sponsors has not been disclosed.
The government and security forces have been clearer in their response to the calls for a coup to take place, with a wide range of security agencies criticising the protestors and taking turns to lament the including the descent of the demonstrations into violence, crimes, and looting. In some cases, the leaderless nature of these protests allowed local politicians to exploit the situation, with thugs hijacking peaceful demonstrations. Videos on social media show thugs attacking citizens, setting vehicles and businesses on fire, and attempting to breach restricted areas.
Other Nigerians on social media have asked whether it is traitorous to fly the flag of a foreign country in anger – and wondered how this could happen while people are alive who remember the period before the country became independent. The August protest was supposed to be about economic hardship, but some protestors very clearly had another agenda: to bring down the government.
This more radical set of protestors seem to have been in part been inspired by the recent example of the Niger Republic, when many citizens celebrated the downfall of the civilian regime and publicly demonstrated their support for the rejection of France and the US and the embrace of Russia. The big difference, of course is that this mobilization in Niger occurred during and after the coup, not before it. In that sense, events in Nigeria, most notably the waving of Russian flags at a point where no military intervention seems likely, is distinctive.
Pro-accountability or anti-democracy?
The complicated motivation of some protestors raises another important point. Should the protests be interpreted as an example of Nigerian citizens demanding their democratic rights, and better governance, as in Kenya? Or were they rather used as a foil for individuals who never wanted Tinubu to be president to vent their frustration and try and bring down a civilian government?
While questions can be asked about the electoral process that brought Tinubu to power, overthrowing him through force would not strengthen Nigerian democracy. Instead, it would undermine the transition from military rule, curtail efforts to build a stronger judiciary and electoral system, and leave Nigerians at the whim of a dictator who – if history is any guide to the future – is likely to manage the economy no better while performing significant worse on human rights.
If Nigeria’s angry young people really wish to make the country better, they should focus their energies on forcing the government to follow the rule of law, not on begging the military to destory it.
Idris Mohammed (@Edrees4P) is a journalist and researcher on extreme terror-related issues in Northern Nigeria. He is currently, a doctorate student at the School of Communication of The University of Alabama, United States.
Very interesting, more ink to your pen.