HIS SIN WAS SEEKING FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: THE POLITICAL DEPOSITION OF GOODLUCK JONATHAN

By Comr Chukwu Abia Chikaodiri |Grassrootsmirro 

June 26th, 2025

In the tumultuous theatre of Nigerian politics, where power is fiercely contested, the story of Goodluck Ebele Jonathan stands as one of quiet irony and profound consequence. Unlike many African leaders who clung to power with iron fists and bloody trails, Jonathan’s most damning political "sin" was not tyranny, corruption, or incompetence—it was his audacious attempt to seek constitutional reform. For daring to challenge Nigeria’s entrenched oligarchies and archaic political structures, he was systematically removed—not through the barrel of a gun, but through the more elegant yet equally lethal instrument of democratic subterfuge.

A Presidency Born of Tragedy and Hope

Goodluck Jonathan rose through Nigeria’s political hierarchy not by sheer will, but by fate’s design. A man of humble origins from the creeks of the Niger Delta, his ascent from Deputy Governor to Vice President, and ultimately to President following the death of Umaru Musa Yar’Adua in 2010, seemed almost providential. Yet, his soft-spoken demeanor masked a reformist spirit that would, in time, provoke the wrath of Nigeria’s political elite.

Initially embraced as a symbol of Nigeria’s diversity and potential unity, Jonathan would soon become a controversial figure, not for the usual reasons of tribalism or authoritarianism, but because of a bold political philosophy: the urgent need for systemic reform of the Nigeria constitution.

The National Conference of 2014: A Catalyst for Controversy

In March 2014, President Jonathan convened a historic National Conference—a gathering of over 490 delegates from across ethnic, regional, and ideological lines. Its purpose was revolutionary: to discuss Nigeria’s existential challenges and recommend a new constitutional framework that would address the long-standing issues of fiscal federalism, state police, local government autonomy, power devolution, electoral reform, and more.

The conference achieved what many believed was impossible: consensus on over 600 recommendations, many of which were transformational. It was perhaps the most comprehensive and inclusive political dialogue in Nigeria’s history.

But in achieving this feat, Jonathan made enemies of the very structures that had long profited from Nigeria’s dysfunction. The political class—especially within the northern establishment, elements of the southwest elite, and parts of the military-industrial complex—began to view Jonathan not as a steward of democracy, but as a threat to their inherited privilege.

Why Constitutional Reform Was Seen as a Sin

To the average Nigerian, constitutional reform represented hope: better governance, resource control, decentralization, and equity. But to the political aristocracy, it meant redistribution of power.

Jonathan’s vision of true federalism would have:

• Reduced the financial dependence of states on the federal government.
• Empowered regional governments to harness and control local resources.
• Dismantled the unitary tendencies imposed by military rule.
• Reformed the judiciary for independence and local relevance.
• Created mechanisms for credible elections and people-driven governance.

These proposals were not just reforms—they were a revolution against the status quo. In a country where political power is often a zero-sum game, Jonathan’s reformist agenda was interpreted as an existential threat. He would be punished for it.

The 2015 Election: The Cloaked Coup

Jonathan’s removal from office was elegantly democratic. In the 2015 general elections, he lost to Muhammadu Buhari—an austere former military ruler rebranded as a populist savior. But behind Buhari’s campaign was a powerful convergence of interests: disillusioned elites, foreign economic interests, religious blocs, and a well-oiled propaganda machine.

The election was celebrated as a peaceful democratic transition—Nigeria’s first from one civilian government to another of a different party. Yet, beneath the international applause lay a bitter truth: Jonathan’s greatest sin was not incompetence, but challenging the foundations of Nigeria’s flawed federation.

He had dared to reform the architecture of power. And so, the machinery of state, media, and external influence were mobilized not just to defeat him—but to bury his vision.

Aftermath: The Reform That Never Was

After Jonathan left office, his successors ignored the 2014 National Conference Report. Buhari, who had promised “change,” dismissed it outright. The recommendations gathered dust in government archives. The hope that Nigeria could evolve into a truly federal and progressive state was deferred—again.

Worse still, the very problems Jonathan sought to address have metastasized:

• Insecurity has worsened, with banditry, terrorism, and separatist agitations growing.
• Economic disparity between regions has deepened.
• Youth disillusionment has reached critical levels.
• Corruption, though rebranded under new slogans, remains deeply entrenched.

A Quiet Hero or a Political Martyr?

In hindsight, Goodluck Jonathan’s presidency may be remembered not for what he accomplished, but for what he attempted. His name may not inspire the same fanatic loyalty as some before him, nor does it command the fear associated with authoritarian rule. But in a nation teetering on the edge of state failure, his crime of reformism now seems like a prophetic vision.

Unlike many of his peers, Jonathan willingly conceded defeat—a rare act in African politics. His iconic words, “My ambition is not worth the blood of any Nigerian,” now resonate with historical gravitas. That single gesture arguably saved Nigeria from descending into electoral violence in 2015. But it also marked the end of his political capital—and his vision for a restructured Nigeria.

Reform is Treason in a Captive Republic

In Nigeria, reformers are rarely celebrated in their time. The system resists change, and its guardians are ruthless. Jonathan’s attempt at constitutional reform was not just a political move—it was a moral conviction. For that, he was deposed, demonized, and discarded.

But history, with its slow and solemn pen, may yet vindicate him. For when Nigeria eventually confronts the inevitability of constitutional reform—and it must—the seeds planted by Goodluck Jonathan in 2014 may blossom again. And when they do, it will be clear: his sin was not failure, but vision beyond his time.