Jonathan vs Buhari controversy: Jonathan Revives Claim: Boko Haram Nominated Buhari as 2012 Negotiator

Nigeria’s political arena has never lacked drama, but whenever former President Goodluck Jonathan speaks, controversies follow. In look like a shocking revival of one of the most explosive claims in recent Nigerian history, Jonathan has reignited the allegation that Boko Haram once nominated Muhammadu Buhari as a negotiator during the height of the insurgency in 2012.

This revelation, which had been buried under the sands of time,has suddenly been resurfaces at a moment when Nigerians are still grappling with the legacy of Buhari’s eight years in power. With this bombshell, Jonathan has thrown both his critics and supporters into heated debates about who really benefited from the Boko Haram war and what the insurgency meant for Nigeria’s leadership struggle.

Is this a mere political stunt by Jonathan to rewrite history, or is it a damning reminder of how close Nigeria’s leadership has always been to the shadow of insurgency?

Win Prizes 🎉

Exclusive Lifestyle & Travel Discounts

– Don’t Miss Out 👇

The Original 2012 Controversy

Back in 2012, Nigeria was in chaos. Boko Haram was burning churches, bombing markets, attacking police stations, and slaughtering innocent Nigerians almost weekly. Amid this, there were rumors of possible negotiations between the federal government and the insurgents.

It was during this tense period that a shocking list allegedly emerged, naming those who Boko Haram supposedly “trusted” enough to represent them in talks with the government. On that list was none other than General Muhammadu Buhari, a former military head of state and at that time, a fierce critic of Jonathan’s administration.

The implication was chilling: why would a terrorist organization choose Buhari as their representative if there were no hidden links or sympathies? Buhari himself was outraged, dismissing the claim as a smear campaign orchestrated to paint him as a Boko Haram sympathizer. He threatened to sue media houses that published it.

The matter died down, but not without leaving scars on Buhari’s public image.

Jonathan’s Recent Revival of the Claim

Fast forward to 2025, Jonathan has revived this claim, stating bluntly that Buhari’s nomination by Boko Haram in 2012 was not accidental. He insists that the matter was deliberately swept under the carpet to protect Buhari’s political ambitions.

Jonathan, who lost to Buhari in the historic 2015 election, is now suggesting that Nigerians must revisit those dark years if they want to truly understand how the insurgency shaped Nigeria’s democracy. His comments sparked outrage and fierce debate online, particularly because Buhari’s tenure as President (2015–2023) was heavily criticized for failing to end the same Boko Haram menace.

Why This Claim is So Explosive

The Question of Boko Haram’s Sponsors
For years, Nigerians have whispered about who really funds and supports Boko Haram. If Buhari’s name was genuinely put forward by the group, it raises uncomfortable questions:
- Did Boko Haram see Buhari as a sympathetic figure?
- Or was it a strategic ploy to create division in Nigeria’s politics?
Buhari’s 2015 Campaign Narrative
Buhari campaigned as the “messiah” who would crush Boko Haram within months. But under his government, not only did Boko Haram survive, new threats like ISWAP emerged. Jonathan’s reminder now paints Buhari’s campaign as a hypocrisy built on manipulation of Nigeria’s greatest security tragedy.
Rewriting Political History
Jonathan is essentially asking Nigerians to re-examine their collective memory:
- Did Nigerians unfairly blame his government for Boko Haram’s rise?
- Did Buhari ride the insurgency narrative into power, only to fail in delivering peace?

Buhari’s Counter-Argument

Of course, Buhari and his loyalists have long dismissed this story as political blackmail. They argue:

Buhari was a known critic of Jonathan and the ruling PDP, so linking him to Boko Haram was a way to silence his opposition.
Boko Haram might have mentioned Buhari’s name to stir confusion and discredit him, knowing full well he was popular among the northern masses.
Buhari himself was nearly killed in a Boko Haram-linked suicide bombing in 2014, which proves he was never aligned with them.

Still, critics argue that while Buhari may not have been a direct ally of Boko Haram, he benefited politically from the widespread perception that Jonathan was weak on security.

Win Prizes 🎉

Exclusive Lifestyle & Travel Discounts

– Don’t Miss Out 👇

Why Jonathan is Bringing This Up Now

The timing of Jonathan’s revival is suspicious but strategic. Nigerians are still reeling from economic hardship, insecurity, and corruption scandals tied to Buhari’s administration. By reviving this claim:

Jonathan positions himself as the wrongly accused leader who was sabotaged by enemies within and outside his government.
He reignites public anger against Buhari, shifting the blame for Nigeria’s failures between 2015–2023 back to the APC camp.
He strengthens the narrative that Jonathan was better than Buhari, potentially paving the way for his allies or protégés to make political comebacks.

The Political Fallout

Unsurprisingly, Jonathan’s remarks have split Nigeria’s political discourse:

Supporters of Jonathan: They argue that history is finally vindicating him. They believe Buhari’s government deliberately exploited Boko Haram for political gain and failed to solve the crisis because insecurity was their strongest campaign weapon.
Supporters of Buhari: They accuse Jonathan of trying to rewrite history and distract Nigerians from his own failures. They insist that Jonathan’s government was the weakest in tackling Boko Haram, and his current statements are bitter attempts to stay relevant.
Ordinary Nigerians: Many Nigerians on social media have responded cynically, saying that whether Jonathan or Buhari, both men failed to protect lives. For them, this revival of the 2012 story is just another reminder of how Nigeria’s leaders play politics with bloodshed.

Controversial Take: Did Nigerians Elect a Boko Haram Candidate?

If Jonathan’s claim is to be taken seriously, then Nigeria’s 2015 election becomes even more controversial. Nigerians may have unknowingly voted in a man whom a terrorist organization once nominated as their negotiator.

This leads to a disturbing possibility: Was Buhari’s rise to power inseparably linked to Boko Haram’s reign of terror?

Some analysts argue that Boko Haram’s ferocious attacks in Jonathan’s final years in office created the desperate hunger for change that made Buhari electable. If so, the insurgency was not just a security crisis but a political weapon.

WhatsnextNG Conclusion: The Unfinished Business of Truth

Jonathan’s revival of the Boko Haram-Buhari claim is not just about history it’s about Nigeria’s unresolved trauma. Boko Haram killed tens of thousands and displaced millions. Yet, to this day, Nigerians still do not know who truly funded, supported, or manipulated the insurgency.

Blog Summary – Jonathan Revives Claim Boko Haram Nominated Buhari as 2012 Negotiator

Former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan has reignited a major political storm by revisiting his old claim that the terrorist group Boko Haram once nominated Muhammadu Buhari as a negotiator during peace talks in 2012. The statement, which first surfaced over a decade ago, has resurfaced amid renewed debate over Nigeria’s fight against insurgency and the politics behind it.

In the article, Jonathan insists that his administration had credible intelligence linking Buhari’s name to Boko Haram’s proposed negotiation team a claim Buhari strongly denied at the time, describing it as an attempt to tarnish his reputation. Jonathan’s revival of this issue has stirred heated conversations across the political space, with many questioning whether Nigeria’s war on terror was ever free from political influence.

The blog breaks down the timeline of the 2012 Boko Haram negotiation attempt, the political tension it created, and how it may have shaped Buhari’s 2015 rise to power. It also explores public reactions, media interpretations, and what this revelation could mean for Nigeria’s image globally.

In a country where politics, terrorism, and public trust often overlap, Jonathan’s renewed statement reopens old wounds forcing Nigerians to question who really benefited from the chaos of those years.

By bringing this issue back, Jonathan forces Nigerians to confront their past mistakes. Did they vote for change in 2015, or did they walk into a trap set by terror and propaganda?

Until Nigeria confronts these uncomfortable truths, politicians will continue to weaponize insecurity for power. Jonathan has thrown the stone into the pond whether Nigerians will chase the ripples is another matter entirely.

Win Prizes 🎉

Exclusive Lifestyle & Travel Discounts

– Don’t Miss Out 👇

FAQ

1. What did Goodluck Jonathan say about Boko Haram and Buhari?

2. Did Boko Haram really name Buhari as a negotiator in 2012?

3. Why is Jonathan bringing up this issue again in 2025?

4. Is there any evidence linking Buhari to Boko Haram?

5. What is Boko Haram’s role in Nigeria’s ongoing insecurity?

6. What impact could Jonathan’s statement have on Nigerian politics?

👉 Was it just politics, or was there a deeper connection between Boko Haram and the power struggles of Nigeria’s elite?
Read the full investigation on WhatsNextNG to decide for yourself.