December 23, 2007
Although Chief Olusegun Obasanjo officially handed over the reins of presidential power to a handpicked successor, President Umaru Yar’Adua last May, the former president’s actions and inactions have continued to have a profound, if deleterious effect on the Nigerian polity. In acknowledgement of the strident criticisms that have emanated from the media and the public in the wake of his departure from the exalted office of President, Obasanjo has philosophically committed the final judgment on his eight-year tenure to the arms of history. ‘History shall vindicate me’, he proclaimed sometime during the year, anchoring his faith in the fairness and equity of the future.
Whereas Obasanjo’s soul can be comforted by a wheezy and uncertain rendezvous with the validity of futuristic evaluations, compatriots have passed their verdict here and now. Arising from the missed opportunities, holier-than-thou disposition, hypocrisy, and near fatalistic contradictions for which the administration became notorious, there has been a strong fervour to sound the message loud and clear. In other words, Nigerians have been quick to pass judgment on the man who dominated the political space so gregariously for eight years after a spell in gaol. The conclusion is that Obasanjo could have done better.
It may be apposite to affirm that it was not an all-negative period for Nigeria under Obasanjo. Our predilection to stress the negative when discussing Obasanjo arises from the tumultuous events of the last twelve months of his rule. The events were too profound to be forgotten. The Third Term Agenda. The Bakassi Matter. Petroleum pump price increase. Hounding political opponents. A fatally flawed general election.
Putting corruption on the front burner of national discourse and creating the instruments of legally confronting the ogre will never be forgotten by anyone. This certainly was positive. Thus even after he has quit office the EFCC continues to play the watch-dog role on official corruption, albeit in a refined manner. Also, Obasanjo’s acceptance to World Financial Institutions helped to ease the economic burden on the nation. A partial debt write-off came the nation’s way, thus paving the way for the consolidation efforts being embarked upon by the incumbent President. However, the tone and magisterial or headmaster temper of the Obasanjo administration alienated him from the people. It is on record that he was pelted with sachets of water in his home region days after leaving office. Added to this was a smirk of insincerity as witnessed in the selective targets of official prosecution and the fraudulent election that was conducted under his watch.
Sadly the April 2007 elections about which Obasanjo declared in the build-up to the polls, was a matter of life and death left a sour taste in the mouth. Condemned by both local and international bodies as the most flawed election yet in the annals of the nation, it was the parting shot of a democratic dictator who had gained international recognition in 1979 as an impartial judge in the succession game. Unfortunately, Obasanjo could not resist the allure of the disease of clinging to power ad infinitum. With the failure of the so-called Third Term agenda, this unlikely hero from the hilly country of Egbaland, apparently switched to Option B: to produce through a manipulated election process a successor who is beholden to him. Nigerians both at home and in the Diaspora took notice. The international community did not miss this chicanery. The Mo Ibrahim Prize awarded to former Mozambican President Chissano was an indirect indictment on Obasanjo, a man who had started off with so much promise and hope for the Nigerian people. Chissano did what Obasanjo could not do. He did not play God.
Obasanjo left ash in the mouth of suffering Nigerians when he jacked up the pump price of petroleum products in the twilight of his administration. When he left office on May 29 the nation was virtually at war with the Federal Government. The Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) was on strike. Why, everyone asked, did Obasanjo decide to make his departure more painful than his many years in office? Why did he decide to inflict pain when he could have tried to ameliorate suffering? Was there something deep in Obasanjo’s personality that needed the urgent attention of a psychologist? In all history, departing leaders take steps that would etch their names favourably in the minds of the people, the electorate. Perhaps the truth is that at the bottom of his heart, Obasanjo has remained a dictator, an anti-people person who does not care for the niceties of the democratic tradition. In summary, he was not an astute or even an average politician. He was a dictator. Indeed the stature of a statesman which he garnered in 1979 vanished in a puff soon after April 2007.
Just before he left office, Obasanjo re-visited the issue of unresolved political assassinations. Singling out the Bola Ige case, he conducted a puerile effort through the Inspector General of Police in the courts by parading some convicted felons as the killers of the Federal Attorney-General. The façade was a manifestation of his lingering fear over the failure of his administration to arrest and prosecute the assassins of the Chief Law Officer of the country. Elsewhere in the world, all resources, scientific and otherwise, are deployed to fishing out criminals who dare attack the person of the Attorney General. Expectedly, the attempt collapsed like a pack of cards in the law courts. The halo of unresolved murders will haunt Obasanjo all his days.
It would be interesting to penetrate Obasanjo’s mind at this time and assess his perception of his successor. President Yar’Adua has gradually but firmly distanced himself from the style and modus operandi of his benefactor. Significantly, some of the controversial decisions which Obasanjo took particularly in the last days in office have been reversed. It is now an open secret that the sale of the refineries, NICON, indeed, the entire privatisation process was not above board. Approving radio and television licences for himself has also been questioned. Also, the Presidential Library which obliged contractors and corporations were compelled to fund is another dent on the image of Chief Obasanjo who had built the reputation of his government of a moral trajectory.
As we write, Obasanjo is locked in battle with fellow PDP members over his Chairmanship of the Board of Trustees of the party. The party’s convention has been postponed indefinitely. How this will end we do not know. But the perception is that Obasanjo wants to extend his rule and influence things from the side. Chairmanship of the BOT is a veritable channel of political control over the PDP machinery. Certainly, this is not the spirit and temper of a committed democrat.
In concluding these reflections on how much impact Chief Obasanjo has had on the polity in 2007, it may be crucial to ask why and how this man, to whom nature had been so kind, could not rise to the grandeur and stature of the Presidency. Was there a deficiency in his personality? Was he a victim of the inherent weakness of the political structures of the Nigerian State? No matter what our conclusions are, Chief Matthew Okikiolu Aremu Olusegun Obasanjo will remain a constant in the equation of Nigerian history. If for nothing else, it is not often that we encounter a man who had the singular fortune of leading a forty-seven year old nation twice in a total of eleven years.
Hope Eghagha (PhD)
Associate Professor
English Department
University of Lagos.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });