Former President Goodluck Jonathan has moved to clarify remarks suggesting that his successor, Muhammadu Buhari, was once nominated by Boko Haram to lead peace talks with the government, insisting his comments were distorted and never meant to imply that Buhari had any ties to the insurgents.
Jonathan’s clarification followed criticism directed at Garba Shehu, Buhari’s former Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, who publicly denied that his principal had ever been named by the terrorist group for any negotiation role.
Speaking at the public presentation of Scars: Nigeria’s Journey and the Boko Haram Conundrum—a book authored by former Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Lucky Irabor (rtd)—Jonathan recalled that during his presidency, “one of the committees we set up then, Boko Haram nominated Buhari to lead their team to negotiate with the government.”
The event, held in Abuja and attended by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, prompted renewed debate over the fraught history of Nigeria’s efforts to negotiate with insurgents. Jonathan said he had once assumed that Boko Haram might surrender once Buhari became president, given his earlier mention by the group.
However, Shehu swiftly refuted the account, describing Jonathan’s recollection as “deceptive,” and maintained that Buhari was never named or involved in any such discussions.
In response, Jonathan’s media adviser, Ikechukwu Eze, said on Saturday that the former president’s words had been “grossly misrepresented,” stressing that the remarks were part of a broader reflection on the deceitful strategies of Boko Haram during its early years.
“At no time did Dr Jonathan suggest, imply, or insinuate that President Buhari had any connection with Boko Haram or that he supported the group in any form,” Eze said. “The point Dr Jonathan sought to make was that Boko Haram, in its characteristic deceit, often invoked the names of respected public figures to sow confusion, exploit political divisions, and undermine public confidence in government.”
Jonathan further argued that if the insurgents had genuinely seen Buhari as their preferred negotiator, their violent campaign might have ceased once he assumed office.
The controversy has reignited on social media, with many Nigerians insisting that Jonathan’s claim was a matter of public record.
On Facebook, one Daniel Jonah wrote, “GEJ said your oga was nominated, not mediated. He was picked for the process.” Another user, Adam Nasara, added, “They mentioned him to be their mediator. It wasn’t something hidden.”
Users on X (formerly Twitter) echoed similar sentiments. Udom Owodiong-Idemeko wrote, “Garba Shehu, the facts are simple. In November 2012, multiple credible Nigerian newspapers published reports that a Boko Haram faction announced General Muhammadu Buhari among six people it preferred as mediators in peace talks with the Federal Government. Buhari himself later distanced himself from it, but the announcement was made and reported nationwide.”
Others were more scathing. “Mallam Shehu, please stop. Majority of us were around then. You didn’t deny it then; why are you crying more than the bereaved?” wrote Emmanuel Isijiola.
The exchange underscores the enduring sensitivities surrounding Nigeria’s battle against Boko Haram—and the political fault lines it continues to expose more than a decade after the insurgency began.
