Former President, Olusegun Obasanjo recently had a heated exchange with former Minister of Sports, Sunday Dare. The two time Nigerian leader had condemned President Bola Tinubu ‘s administration as a failure at the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum, Yale University, Connecticut, USA on November 18, 2024. Hours later, the government joined issues with Obasanjo through the Special Adviser on Public Communication & Orientation, Sunday Dare. In it’s reaction, the Tinubu administration dismissed the ex Head of State’s indictment as hypocritical and mischievous, making references to the administration’s gains in socio economic development.
Obasanjo’s grievance with the present government is captured in the following extracts from his keynote address. “The failing state status of Nigeria is confirmed and glaringly indicated for all to see. Nigeria’s failing state status is due to widespread corruption, poor leadership and immorality. That’s the situation mostly in Nigeria in the reign of Baba – go – slow and Emilokan. What is happening in Nigeria – right before our eyes – is state capture, where public institutions are subject to undue influence from vested interests.” But according to Dare, “it is laughable that Obasanjo who presided over one of the most corrupt governments in Nigeria’s history, now positions himself as a champion of anti corruption. He conveniently forgets how his own administration failed to deliver on critical infrastructure. There has been no explanation as to how a whopping $16b was wasted in generating megawatts of darkness across the nation.” Dare further submitted that “democracy suffered mortal wounds under his watch, capped by his murderous rage for an ill fated third term.”
The altercation deserves closer attention both for what it contained and what was left unsaid. A former President’s assessment of the ship of state is almost certain to be considered weighty. Even more so is the Presidency’s engagement on criticisms of it’s performance, which serve to provide insights into decisions of government. And by the very fact of the subject matter bordering on government and administration, the debate is a public one, involving all Nigerians as both audience and participants. Government is a continuum and the words of E.H. Carr are apt in this context. “History is an unending dialogue between the present and the past and the chief function of the historian is to master the past as a key to the understanding of the present.”
I suppose that the first thing that strikes any Nigerian who tries to engage the subject with some objectivity is a perceived mishandling by Obasanjo. By any standards of protocol, the retired general should have smooth access to the seat of federal government. Did he channel his concerns to the President? The former President’s scathing remarks equate to raising an alarm. Was a foreign venue the appropriate place to make such searing criticisms of Nigerian leadership? Even if differences between the former President and the incumbent had created a distance between them, Obasanjo should have been more restrained by responsibility of predecessorship. The feeling of Nigerians and the image of the country should have counted.
There is no disputing Nigeria’s grave condition. Nigeria is in a socio – political and economic crisis. Opinion may differ on the degree of Nigeria’s troubles, on the classification of failed state or failing state. The dislocations imposed by bandits in the north and separatists in the south are worrisome to say the least. It is also the case that corruption is alive and kicking in these times of Tinubu led federal government. The ascription of poor leadership to Tinubu’s Presidency is however debatable. Leadership rating is susceptible to subjectivity and easily assumes the colours of partisanship when it comes from a rival, in this case, Obasanjo. President Ahmed Tinubu definitely has a lot of work to do to turn around the conditions of underdevelopment, instability, systemic corruption and inequitable federation bogging down the Nigerian project. But these threats are by no means peculiar to the present government. These are historical failings that date back in time, which graduation the present government only inherited.
Broader perspectives on the subject of failing state and state capture locate their their inception in recent history. Boko Haram was formed in 2002, in the third year of Obasanjo’s presidency. Although it’s violent campaign did not start immediately, the recourse to militancy was predictable from the group’s fundamentalist ideology. What did the then President do with the intelligence reports at his disposal? It was also in Obasanjo’s first tenure that twelve out of nineteen northern States introduced Sharia law with statewide jurisdiction. What was the response to this challenge of the supremacy of Nigeria’s secular constitution? Obasanjo an arch opponent of restructuring proposals for State Police, kept mum when Sharia Police birthed in some States. In our view, any concern about Nigeria’s corporate integrity that does not address the threat of parallel structures to the State, is diversionary and most probably playing to the gallery.
Does the Otta farmer really expect Nigerians to take his lament about widespread corruption seriously? While the citizenry look forward to an ethical revolution in the public and private sectors, it is taking them for granted, to believe that they would clap at every anti corruption noise. Generalised, sweeping criticism is one of the easiest things anybody can do. All it requires is a mindset, an insistence on one’s infallibility. The salesman will surely put his oratorical skills to work but the people’s lived experience with a product determines its fate in the market. Nigerians’ battles with corruption also include the shameless rigging of the 2003 election preceded by the story of the forged Electoral Act of 2001. Along with the 2003 poll, the 2007 general elections were described by several international observer groups as fatally flawed. Our not too distant encounters with corruption include the cheap tactics of using EFCC – coerced minority number of legislators to impeach Governors in Plateau, Oyo, Bayelsa, Anambra and Adamawa States. Nigerians easily recall the scandal of cash distributed to members of the House of Representatives to remove Umar Ghali Naaba as Speaker of the House.
Reflecting on the rating of “poor leadership”, we observe that Tinubu’s overall performance is still evolving. The removal of fuel subsidy and the managing of it’s aftermath is definitely a low point for the administration. The socio – economic crises resulting from the policy would appear to overwhelm and negate the intended economic restructuring. On the front of ethnic tensions, a marked decline in the invasions of killer herdsmen has been witnessed since the advent of Tinubu’s Presidency. Ability to pacify hostile relations cannot be said to reflect poor leadership. The $4.2 agric grant recently secured from Brazil and visa exemption facility from South Africa do not support the charge of poor leadership. In contrast, many consider presidential globe trotting a reflection of fascination with the office rather than it’s responsibilities. By Obasanjo’s own account, he traveled to 97 countries as President from 1999 to 2003. A fact check by The Nation of November 6, 2019 showed that President Olusegun Obasanjo made 103 foreign trips between 1999 and 2003. The then President’s junketing was widely viewed as obsessive and needless tourism; which penchant drew the anger of late human rights activist, Gani Fawehinmi. By Obasanjo’s admission, the so – called shuttle diplomacy yielded little or no foreign aid. The government seeking foreign aid and investment had a bloated cabinet of 45 ministers, at least 8 ministers more than the prescribed number of 37.
However, Obasanjo’s presidency takes credit for it’s high level of inclusivity in federal appointments. From the headship of security agencies to the federal cabinet and extra ministerial departments, the composition consistently reflected diversity of the Nigerian federation. It is important to point out that it takes principle of fairness to all groups to uphold the federal character policy to the extent that Obasanjo, Umaru Yardua and Goodluck Jonathan did. Their presidencies stand out for running “detribalised” governments in composition and operation. The southeast and other marginalised groups had better treatment under these administrations. It was in the liberal climate of these governments that Mike Okiro and Ogbonaya Onovo became Inspectors General of Police; Air Marshal Paul Dike, Chief of Air Staff and later, Chief of Defence Staff; and Lt Gen Azubike Ihejirika, Chief of Army Staff.
The same cannot be said of the Buhari and Tinubu administrations. In an effort to dispel the charge of “yorubanisation” in security and other strategic appointments, Dare recently unveiled a list of 20 security offices with tally of regional distribution. Many were shocked that Dare, a brilliant and refined fellow with rich experience in public service could find the face to present such a skewed table in defence of the government. Yes, the allocation showed the northwest, rather than the southwest as tops with 8 slots out of 20. But the concomitant revelation was no less weighty. It showed the scandalous representation of the southeast and southsouth regions with one slot each. The explanation that the positions were gotten by merit and competence is bunkum. It’s an insult to the sensibilities of Nigerians, especially the groups so brazenly cheated. A similar pattern of dispossession defines the fate of the southeast in other appointments by the Tinubu administration. As much as the bad faith against disadvantaged groups rankles, the real tragedy is the wilful disregard for directive principles of our republic. Section 14 (3) of the 1999 Constitution (amended) is clearcut on the imperative of equitable representation in government. The provisions prohibit “predominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in government or any of it’s agencies.” It is not for nothing that the Constitution goes the extra mile to emphasise that adherence to these national values are necessary to achieve unity and loyalty. Ordinarily, the Senate should decline confirmation of nominations in breach of federal character until the executive remedies the lopsidedness. But the legislature is still weak and unassertive except when it comes to defending their obscene salaries and allowances. The choice is ours to make Nigeria work or wobble.
