Daniel Bwala, a presidential aide, defended President Bola Tinubu. He stated that calls for the president’s resignation lack constitutional basis. This follows increased bandit attacks. Bwala argues that public criticism alone does not justify such a demand.
He emphasized that public criticism, by itself, is not a legal basis for resignation.
Bwala shared these views during a Channels Television interview.
He clarified that national security issues do not inherently signal leadership failure.
Why Tinubu’s Resignation Demands Are Unconstitutional
Bwala noted that confronting challenges is not a flaw. He explained that all nations, even developed ones, face security threats.
Bwala highlighted higher crime rates in parts of the United States. Yet, these situations do not always lead to presidential resignation calls.
He acknowledged that citizens in a democracy may express opinions freely. This includes demands for a leader’s departure.
However, Bwala stressed that such demands require constitutional procedures.
He advised those seeking Tinubu’s resignation to initiate the proper process. This is necessary if they deem their demand legitimate.
Bwala called it “lazy” for government officials to mind common public frustration. He believes these are merely expressions of discontent.
Bwala Reconciles Past and Present Resignation Demands
Reporters questioned Tinubu’s 2014 call for Former President Goodluck Jonathan’s resignation. That demand followed the Chibok schoolgirls’ abduction. Bwala maintained that the situations were distinct.
He asserted that Jonathan’s government lacked solutions. They also denied the kidnapping incident’s severity.
Reminded of Tinubu’s delayed call, Bwala reiterated his stance. “Yes,” he affirmed, “it was a legitimate call then. It is not legitimate now.”
About the Author
