Sir: It began in Turkey—not with a speech or diplomatic breakthrough, but with a stumble: A brief moment when President Bola Ahmed Tinubu appeared to lose his balance.
It was fleeting, the kind of human moment that should have disappeared with the next news cycle. Instead, it ignited Nigeria’s digital space.
Within hours, social media was flooded with reactions. Some laughed. Some mocked. Some speculated about health. Others turned the incident into memes and exaggerated narratives. A simple misstep became a national spectacle.
But this is not the first time. During a previous national ceremony, a similar moment occurred. Then, President Tinubu responded not with anger, but with history.
He reminded Nigerians of his role in the struggle for democracy, of the risks he took, the exile he endured, and the resistance he was part of during military rule.
He spoke as someone who had paid a price for the democratic space Nigerians now freely occupy—even the freedom to criticise him.
Yet today, the same man is reduced to hashtags.
Let us be honest. In African culture—especially in Nigeria—age carries meaning. Leadership carries meaning. You may question authority, but you do not ridicule elders. You do not strip leaders of basic human dignity, even in disagreement.
President Tinubu is not just a political figure; he is an elderly statesman and the sitting president. Mockery may feel like political expression, but it also reflects a loss of cultural restraint. Criticism is legitimate. Humiliation is not.
There is also a national dimension. However divided Nigerians may be politically, the presidency represents the state. When Nigerians publicly demean their own president, the image of the country itself suffers. Those who think they are only attacking Tinubu may not realise they are also diminishing Nigeria’s institutional dignity.
However, respect does not mean silence, and dignity does not erase accountability. The moment should not be weaponised for ridicule, but neither should it shield the government from legitimate scrutiny.
Some Nigerians now ask bluntly: Is Tinubu fit for the seat? That question must be answered with history, not emotion.
Tinubu’s political journey did not begin yesterday. He served as a senator. He governed Lagos State. Under his tenure, Lagos laid foundations for becoming Nigeria’s economic hub. He built political structures, mentored leaders, and played a central role in the coalition that birthed the All Progressives Congress (APC). He navigated complex political battles and ultimately won the presidency after one of the most competitive political journeys in Nigeria’s history.
It is intellectually dishonest to claim such a figure rose without political skill, strategic thinking, or administrative experience. The record exists. The political structures he built exist. The leaders he influenced exist.
Read Also: Nigeria on ‘healing journey’ to $1trn economy by 2030 – Presidency
This does not make him beyond criticism—but it does place current narratives in perspective.
World leaders stumble. Joe Biden has stumbled. Barack Obama has stumbled. Leaders are human before they are offices. A physical misstep is not proof of incapacity.
If falling were a qualification test, many global leaders would fail. So why should Tinubu’s stumble be treated as a national crisis or a national comedy? It is neither.
Nigeria faces serious economic and social challenges, but it is not alone. Inflation, debt pressures, insecurity, and global instability are realities many countries face. The presidency should therefore be judged by policy outcomes, not viral clips.
Let citizens assess reforms, security strategy, economic management, and governance delivery. Let debates be grounded in data, not memes. History—not hashtags—will be the final judge.
Tinubu’s stumble in Turkey revealed more about us than about him. It exposed our impatience, our anger, our digital culture of mockery, and our fragile relationship with leadership.
Citizens must criticise constructively, demand accountability, and push for better governance. But we must not destroy the dignity of national institutions in the process.
Because when the presidency is reduced to ridicule, the state itself weakens. And when a nation learns too easily to laugh at itself, it may soon find itself with reasons to cry.
