ABUJA, Nigeria — Former President Goodluck Jonathan has revealed that Nigeria’s 2010 constitutional crisis was deliberately engineered by a close aide of the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, who withheld a crucial letter meant to authorise Jonathan to serve as acting president during Yar’Adua’s prolonged medical absence.
In a rare and candid interview with the Rainbow Book Club, Jonathan disclosed that President Yar’Adua had written the required letter to the National Assembly, in accordance with Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution, before departing Nigeria for medical treatment abroad.
However, Jonathan said the aide entrusted with the letter refused to submit it, effectively denying the country a recognised head of state for months.
“That letter was written,” Jonathan said.
“But the person who the letter was handed over to — I will not mention the name to you now — was one of the aides of Yar’Adua [and he] refused to submit the letter to the National Assembly. And Yar’Adua became so ill that he had no control of issues.”
This deliberate omission plunged Nigeria into a leadership vacuum, with Jonathan performing limited duties as vice president but unable to exercise full executive authority, particularly the role of commander-in-chief.
“You know the president of Nigeria has two main responsibilities,” he explained.
“First, you are the chief executive of the country — that, the vice president can assume. But there was no commander-in-chief. And there’s nothing like acting commander-in-chief. Either you’re a commander-in-chief or not.”
Jonathan reflected on the delicate regional and religious dynamics that exacerbated the crisis, noting that Yar’Adua’s presidency followed eight years of Southern Christian rule under Olusegun Obasanjo, and there was strong sentiment in the North for Yar’Adua, a Northern Muslim, to complete his full term.
“Definitely the Northern Muslims wanted Yar’Adua to at least do eight years before power would return to the South, likely to another Christian,” Jonathan said.
“That’s why even allowing me to act as president became an issue.”
With Yar’Adua incapacitated and no formal transfer of power, Nigeria was effectively leaderless, despite the government continuing routine affairs through Jonathan’s chairmanship of the Federal Executive Council.
“We were having executive council meetings, we were approving memos from ministers, so the government was going on. But there was no commander-in-chief,” Jonathan said.
He contrasted Nigeria’s approach with that of the United States, where even minor medical procedures prompt the temporary handover of executive powers.
“If an American president wants to [undergo a procedure]… he will hand over to the vice president. Immediately he regains consciousness, he takes over. But we stayed [without a leader] for some time,” he lamented.
With mounting national uncertainty, the National Assembly invoked the doctrine of necessity in February 2010, a constitutional workaround that empowered Jonathan to serve as acting president without a formal letter from Yar’Adua.
Jonathan hailed the legislature’s decisi/on as critical to averting a full-blown national crisis.
“When the National Assembly felt that the country was in a situation where it was not expected, they now had to initiate this doctrine of necessity,” he said.
“And they now made me to act as a president without a letter from Yar’Adua.”
President Yar’Adua eventually died on May 5, 2010, and Jonathan completed his term before winning a full mandate in the 2011 presidential election.
The interview has reignited public interest in one of Nigeria’s most turbulent transitions, highlighting the dangers of power hoarding, lack of transparency, and the fragility of the country’s constitutional order in moments of political uncertainty.
