MARCEL MBAMALU
SAFE IN NIGERIA? Boris Johnson’s Controversial Claim and the Outrage
By Dr Marcel Mbamalu
Join our WhatsApp ChannelIn a shocking display of disconnect, former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson claimed he felt “perfectly safe” in Nigeria, sparking widespread criticism and outrage. Johnson’s comments, made during a speech in Imo State, have been slammed as “laundering Nigeria’s image” and “mocking victims of violence”.
The timing is striking, given Nigeria’s escalating insecurity, with tens of thousands killed in recent years. Johnson’s visit has raised questions about accountability, post-office earnings, and the ethics of domestic leaders.
While Johnson’s speech fee was legitimate, many Nigerians see it as a symbol of wealth and privilege, highlighting the gap between foreign dignitaries and locals suffering daily violence.
Boris Johnson’s speech in Imo State Nigeria on 4 December drew widespread attention, not merely for its content but for his claim that he felt “perfectly safe” while travelling across a country beset by escalating insecurity. Perhaps the bandits avoided him precisely because any attack on a global figure could have crippled their operations.
READ ALSO: Former British Prime Minister Major Labels Boris Johnson ‘Politically Corrupt’
Public reaction was swift, with some suggesting that “Johnson’s speech betrays his bribe.” Yet the real issue is not bribery but the optics of wealth and privilege in a nation where the same colonial powers are often blamed for its enduring struggles. The episode highlights broader questions about accountability, post office earnings and the ethical conduct of domestic leaders.
Leaders’ Post-Office Earnings in Developed and Developing Countries
No doubt, Boris Johnson’s post-premiership career, which includes paid speeches and consultancy, reflects a globally accepted practice for former leaders who have long turned post-office speaking engagements into lucrative, legitimate work. He entered this circuit, earning more than £1 million in 2022 from a handful of speeches priced above £200,000 each.
Similarly, Tony Blair earns millions annually through consultancy, including a reported £1.5 million retainer from JP Morgan, and can receive about £250,000 for a single speech. Barack Obama reportedly commanded around US$500,000 per appearance shortly after leaving office.
In the West, former leaders’ expertise is valued, allowing them to contribute internationally while earning legally
Such engagements peharps serve as a way to sustain themselves after office, just as David Cameron, who served as UK prime minister from 2010 to 2016, may have faced financial adjustments after leaving office. His experience illustrates that these opportunities are both legitimate and a measure of a leader’s continued relevance.
By contrast, Nigeria presents a more complex picture. Former presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan have pursued various post-office ventures, often drawing scrutiny for their earnings, while incidents such as the Fayose $20,000 refund illustrate the tangled realities of political finances.
Many Nigerians note that Peter Obi, with his articulate public engagement, versatility, extempore speaking and relevance to global economic benchmarks, represents the potential for legitimate post-office contributions, though whether he will ever become president remains uncertain.
Johnson’s invitation further reflect accountability and integrity, highlighting the ethical and systemic gap between Nigerian and Western practices. Could former President Muhammadu Buhari have attracted foreign invitations for paid speeches? Given perceptions of his governance and limited global engagement, it seems unlikely. The current president’s prospects would depend on how other countries view his leadership.
Johnson’s visit peharps reflects the credibility he earned by not misusing public funds. In Nigeria, leaders are often accused of accumulating wealth through public resources, thereby reducing their need or legitimacy to seek post-office income legally.
Perhaps they have enough and do not need such invitations. Yet, beyond this reality, can the people of Imo genuinely take pride in Johnson’s visit and speeches?
Nigeria’s Realities, Colonial Rules and Johnson’s Speech
The former United Kingdom’s prime minister served from July 2019 to September 2022, after earlier roles as Foreign Secretary, Mayor of London and Member of Parliament.
It was during his premiership that Nigeria began facing escalating insecurity, including insurgency , including widespread banditry, kidnappings and communal clashes, with thousands of civilians and security personnel killed each year.
Conservative estimates indicate that at least tens of thousands of people have been killed, with the actual number likely higher due to under reporting. In 2019, reports documented 3,188 deaths linked to insurgency, banditry and kidnappings. Between 2019 and 2022, annual fatalities soared dramatically, with roughly 5,952 deaths in 2019, 8,459 in 2020, 10,880 in 2021 and 10,754 in 2022, bringing the total for those four years alone to around 36,000.
Evidently, Boris Johnson cannot claim that, as a global leader. Yet remarked he felt “perfectly safe” while travelling across Nigeria, dismissing reports of the crisis.
Although, maybe for the sake of image making, Mr Uzodimma is not to be blamed for allegedly using taxpayers’ money for such invitation, but the governor himself cannot truthfully claim that Nigeria or more precisely the people of Imo State are safe.
While Johnson has the legal right to collect fees for his speech, does he also have the moral right to downplay the suffering of Nigerians enduring daily violence, including the persecution of Christians, especially when Britain, the former colonial power, offers little support?
The United States recently designated Nigeria as a country of particular concern over Christian prosecution, yet no substantial assistance followed from the Britain. In this context, Johnson’s remarks stand as one of the few foreign responses, highlighting the disconnect between symbolic statements and the lived realities of Nigerians.
One can easily say that Nigeria is a sovereign state, but it must also assert sovereignty over its own realities, rather than allowing a foreign prime minister to dictate or downplay its circumstances.
Unlike the Britain in Nigeria, which largely avoided post independence intervention, France actively combined strategic, political and humanitarian motives. This is not to say that France does not indirectly control its colonial terrain. But Nigera colonial fathers seems to be more interested in what Nigeria can offer.
In Chad, French troops intervened twice from 1969 to 1972 under Operation Bison to help the government suppress a northern rebellion, and in 1983 and 1984 during Operation Manta to block Libyan backed rebels.
In the Central African Republic, Operation Barracuda in 1979 removed an autocratic ruler and reinstated a former president, officially to protect French citizens and restore stability.
In Côte d’Ivoire, France intervened in 2002 to protect foreigners during civil unrest and again in 2011 to end post election violence, contributing to the ousting of the incumbent president.
Across the Sahel, France signed defence agreements and repeatedly used military support to stabilise governments or safeguard its interests.
These actions explain why African populations sometimes expect former colonial powers to play a protective role and why visits by foreign leaders can trigger strong reactions.
A Visit Without Value for the People
Johnson’s appearance in Imo State may have conferred a veneer of international prestige on the state government, yet it offered no meaningful benefit to ordinary citizens who continue to endure insecurity, economic hardship and weakened public services.
His declaration of feeling “perfectly safe” stood at odds with the daily realities of residents, and if he was indeed remunerated, such funds amounted to resources diverted from urgent needs.
Nigeria’s long standing frustrations with Britain’s historical role compound the optics.
Ultimately, Johnson’s visit changes nothing for the people of Imo. Their advancement depends not on fleeting international appearances but on leaders who embrace accountability, prudent governance and a genuine commitment to transformative development.
Hence, state authorities must exercise discernment and prioritise internal development before committing scarce resources to symbolic gestures.
