Former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan has reignited an old controversy, saying that Boko Haram once nominated Muhammadu Buhari as a negotiator during peace talks in his administration.....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

Jonathan made the statement on Friday, October 3, 2025, at the public launch of a book written by retired General Lucky Irabor in Abuja. He recalled events from 2012 when his government set up a committee to explore dialogue with Boko Haram militants. According to him, a man who claimed to be a commander of the group held a press conference and named Buhari as their representative for negotiations.

The claim immediately stirred political reactions. Jonathan explained that his government treated the announcement with caution, since Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau later denied the man’s authority in a video message. The former president said the matter created confusion but insisted that the nomination was made publicly at the time.

Buhari, who later became president in 2015, had strongly distanced himself from the claim. His aides then, including Garba Shehu and Bashir Ahmad, have again rejected Jonathan’s fresh comments. They said the allegations are not only false but also politically motivated. Both men pointed out that Shekau and other Boko Haram members were openly hostile to Buhari, even threatening his life in public statements.

In July 2014, Boko Haram fighters attacked Buhari’s convoy in Kaduna. The assault killed over 80 people and left several others injured, though Buhari survived. His aides argue this proves he could not have been a trusted figure for the insurgents.

Garba Shehu, who served as Buhari’s media aide, accused Jonathan of rewriting history for political gain. “How can a man who was targeted for assassination by Boko Haram be the same person they wanted to represent them?” Shehu asked. Bashir Ahmad, another former presidential aide, called Jonathan’s remarks misleading and unfair.

The issue of Boko Haram negotiations remains a sensitive chapter in Nigeria’s fight against insurgency. In 2012, Jonathan’s administration sought ways to end the violence that had already claimed thousands of lives and displaced millions. While some supported the idea of dialogue, others criticized it, saying Boko Haram could not be trusted to honor agreements. The group’s continued attacks in the years that followed strengthened those doubts.

Jonathan, however, maintains that his government tried to explore every possible avenue for peace, including talking to those who claimed to speak for the insurgents. “We wanted to give peace a chance,” he said at the book launch, stressing that dialogue was considered as an option before military operations intensified.

Buhari, on his part, later took a different approach when he assumed power in 2015. His administration prioritized military action, launching major offensives in the northeast to weaken Boko Haram strongholds. Although the group has since split into factions, with some aligning with the Islamic State, Nigeria continues to face attacks in parts of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa states.

The renewed debate over who Boko Haram nominated in 2012 reflects the deep political divisions between Jonathan and Buhari’s camps. Observers note that such disputes often resurface whenever Nigeria revisits the history of the insurgency and its devastating impact.

For many Nigerians, the key concern remains security and peace, not political blame games. As one Abuja resident said after Jonathan’s remarks: “We just want to know what really happened and how leaders can stop this kind of crisis in the future.”

The controversy may fade again, but it highlights the lasting scars Boko Haram left on Nigeria and how the search for peace remains unfinished.