OTHERS' VIEWS

OTHERS' VIEWS

All animals are not equal. If you doubt it, attempt to replicate General Ibrahim Babangida’s actions and inactions over the years – and see where you’ll end up.

 

First shoot your way into power. Confront civil society with both an iron fist and a toothy smile. Be a military Janus – on one side Santa Claus, on the other Belgium’s Leopold II. Then, seeing the prodigious talent and charisma Providence has bestowed on you, lock yourself up in a social laboratory and, like the scientist Frankenstein, create a new serpentine democracy which crawls a little to the right and a little to the left, eventually threatening to swallow you.

 

The June 12 monster! In what book is it written that a date could swallow an emperor? Run! As a cat with so many lives, you call it a day and retire into comfort. Didn’t God Himself rest on the seventh day?

Your coterie of eulogists and beneficiaries add salt to the society’s injury: They canonise you. “Saint Ibrahim invented the new Nigeria! It’s just unfortunate that negative forces did not allow him to conclude the good work he had started”. In the pantheon of Nigeria’s carpetbaggers who watered the tree of autocracy with the blood of fellow citizens, they say, “Saint Ibrahim is better than the other goggle-wearing gnome. We can confirm that Ibrahim doesn’t eat infants.”

In your hibernation, you continue to enjoy the status of a major shareholder in Naija Turn-By-Turn Plc. Your castle is a Mecca to which every political pilgrim journeys. And then, 32 years after the crime of June 12, you re-emerge to take responsibility for everything that happened under your watch. Except that it still wasn’t your fault but the machination of that goggled one!

Forgivable?

So, you knew all these years that MKO Abiola was the winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential election and you waited for 32 years, after social strife, a near civil war, death of thousands of fellow citizens, destruction of careers, social polarisation and – tellingly – the death of the goggled one you fingered?

Now who is going to defend Afajápemó (he who owns dogs that hunt down rabbits for him)?

I believe in forgiveness. But a penitent person at confession shouldn’t be dribbling the priest. If a sinner says, “It was my hand, not me, that slapped the complainant”, who shall we hold responsible? Can forgiveness be possible or efficacious unless the compunction is heartfelt?

And in this case, what is the equivalent of restitution? Resurrection of the president-elect whose mandate was embezzled by a few gangsters? Saying sorry to the Abiola family and the relatives of Gen. Yar’Adua, Chief Alfred Rewane, Alhaja Suliat Adedeji, Bagauda Kaltho and thousands of others sent to their untimely graves between 1993 and 1998? Repairing, through some social alchemy, the bridges of ethnic amity destroyed by the whole saga? Recall of military officers who lost their commission because they chose to stand by the truth?

I confess that I do not have the answers. Perhaps, this poet does:

Grab a plate and throw it on the floor.

Okay, done!!

Did it break?

Yes it did.

Now say sorry to it.

Sorry!

Did it go back to how it was before?

Sometimes, sorry can’t fix everything.

Some broken lives cannot be the same again.

Broken Lives

And, thanks to the unnamed compatriot who Nigerianised the verse after Babangida launched his much-awaited book, “A Journey In Service” (thanks for sharing, Prof. Akin Onigbinde).

The lives you tore with your blatant lies, wrong accusations, negative criticisms and Gossips of hatred for no just reason might not be the same again.

Mind how you treat people.

The Life you didn’t Create.

Don’t be the one to destroy it.

…Apologies alone, and then a haulage of over N30 billion to Minna?

For a Library of Infamy?

How fair? How just?

Indeed, all animals are not equal. In normal life, a capo doesn’t return to the crime scene to hug the klieg lights and rake in billions of naira. If you’re not in their exclusive club, don’t delude yourself. Lesson: Some men are above the law. Sad. But true. Onlookers can only throw bricks or flowers.

Human rights lawyer Dele Farotimi, in a lamentation titled, “MKO on my mind” published on his X handle reacted thus:

“To die for a people devoid of memory, is to be killed over and over, again and again. In a place inhabited by the conscious, IBB would not dare to show his face in public. But in the crime scene that doubles as our country, having been succeeded by even more villainous ruiners, Badamasi is installed in the seat of the statesman.”

Peaceful repose to Abiola, his wife Kudirat and all those who were cut down during the June 12 struggle. It is because of their collective sacrifices that the rest of us are still able to face the challenges of nation building together today. But let no one urinate on their graves.

Pa Edwin Clark Exits

It was as if the two most vocal grand old men of Nigerian politics conspired to take their departure flights to eternity within the same week. The death of Pa Edwin Clark shortly after that of his bosom friend and fellow political gladiator, Pa Ayo Adebanjo, sent shock waves round the country. If the Lord had tarried awhile, Clark would have clocked 100 years on May 25, 2027.

Clark devoted his life to the struggle of the people of the Niger Delta and the cause of his Ijaw ethnic nationality. Although he fiercely manned his corner and disparaged all those milking his native land at the expense of the environment, he was at heart a pan-Nigerian nationalist. His political consciousness had been sharpened in the 50s when he joined the Zikist movement and built a persona etched in solid courage.

If Chief Clark had not existed, the dehumanising situation in the Niger Delta would have invented him because his people were in a dire need of his kind of leadership when he showed up combining his skill as a lawyer with his experiences as a civil servant and local activist.

He always believed that he was a child of destiny: “I remember that after primary education, I wanted to go to Government College Ughelli as far back as 1945. When I went for the interview, I was told that I was too old and was advised to go to the Government Teachers Training College, Abraka. When I got there, they said I was too young!”

But the three Clark brothers made a success of their different callings — one as a civil servant, later permanent secretary and Minister of Foreign Affairs. Another became a world famous professor of English while he, a lawyer, went on to serve as a state commissioner and later as a federal minister.

With the demise of Chief Clark, the challenge ahead of the people of the Niger Delta region is how to replace the trusted warhorse with another accomplished activist who would take the struggle of his people as his life’s work. The fact that Clark’s life will always be used as the benchmark of leadership will not make finding his replacement any easier.

Federal Government’s 2025 budget continued its fascinating journey last week. On 18th February, the National Assembly rescinded the budget that it had passed just five days earlier but was yet to be transmitted for presidential assent. It was a minor adjustment. To correct ‘some errors’, the legislators simply (and swiftly) re-assigned N500 billion from capital expenditure to recurrent expenditure. The other broad categories remain the same, and the size of the budget stays at N54.99 trillion, they said.

The adjustment is historic nonetheless. A rescinded budget has not been part of our lexicon in more than 25 years of this republic. So, this is another milestone recorded by the 2025 budget in its storied journey. A clean copy of the budget has not been sighted, and the approved appropriation bill is yet to be signed by the president. My sense is that we may not have seen the last of the twists and turns of this peculiar budget.

After my last week intervention on the 2025 budget process, someone sent me a copy of the House of Representatives’ supplementary order paper which contains the highlights of the approved budget. The 15-page document provides answers to a few of the questions that I posed last week. But most of the puzzles remain. Maybe the full budget (which typically runs into more than 2000 pages) will provide further illumination. However, the highlights throw up fresh questions of their own.

Let’s start with where some clarity has been provided. I had wondered how the legislators managed to reduce the provision for debt service to N14.32 trillion from N16.33 trillion initially proposed by the executive. As shown in the order paper, the legislators approved N7.19 trillion for domestic debt, N6.75 trillion for foreign debt and N377.30 billion for the sinking fund, whereas the president had proposed N8.20 trillion for domestic debt, N7.69 trillion for foreign debt and N430.27 billion for the sinking fund. A comparison of the two sets of figures shows how the legislators were able to reduce debt service by N2 trillion. But it is still not clear if they did this unilaterally or in consultation with the executive. Also, there is still the need to understand the basis of such a significant reduction, and if this will have immediate or future repercussions or not. Are we pushing some due obligations down the line or was the initial debt service estimate bloated?

I had also asked how the legislators were able to prune statutory transfers to N3.65 trillion from the N4.44 trillion proposed by the president. Statutory transfers are meant to be somewhat protected—some of them are fixed percentages of certain revenue handles. The order paper shows that the legislators increased and reduced some of the proposed sums under statutory transfers and are still able to slash almost N800 billion or about 18% off the original proposal. In a way, this is the surgical approach that the legislators should be taking to appropriation. But cutting the fat is not an occupation they fancy much.

The National Assembly did not increase or reduce its own statutory transfer of N344.85 billion. Or so it appears. But there is a N170 billion under capital supplementation for service wide vote for the National Assembly. So, there is about a 50% increase in the budget of the National Assembly without an obvious increase. You have to go several rows down to see where it is neatly nestled. By the way, this service wide vote was not part of the original proposal by the president. A legitimate question is how come legislators now need service wide votes? All expenditures by the National Assembly should be handled from its statutory transfer, except for some key capital projects that fall within the remit of the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA).

It is noteworthy that the legislators kept untouched the statutory transfers to the Basic Health Care Provision Fund (N298 billion), the National Human Rights Commission (N8 billion) and the Public Complaints Commission (N14 billion). That is good. But they reduced the statutory transfers for NASENI from N298 billion to N248 billion and for UBEC from N596 billion to N496 billion. However, they increased the transfers to National Judicial Council from N341 billion to N521 billion and for INEC from N40 billion to N140 billion. I am sure they have good explanations for these adjustments, but it will be good to know the basis of their decisions, including alignment with statutory percentages of certain revenue handles.

The most interesting part, for me, is that they took a scalpel to the statutory transfers for all the zonal development commissions. They did the reduction in this order: Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) from N776.53 billion to N626.53 billion; North East Development Commission (NEDC) from N290.99 billion to N240.99 billion; North West Development Commission (NWDC) from N585.93 billion to N145.61 billion; the South West Development Commission (SWDC) from N498.40 billion to N140 billion; and the South East Development Commission from N341.27 billion to N140 billion. Equal opportunity reduction, in a sense, though it will be good to know if the reductions are in alignment with expected fall in the attached revenues.

But it gets more interesting. The legislators allocated statutory transfers to two development commissions that were not in the original proposal by the executive. This brings to seven the number of zonal development commissions provided for in the 2025 budget. The North Central Development Commission (NCDC) and the South South Development Commission (SSDC) got N140 billion apiece.

Please note that the NCDC bill was signed into law by President Bola Tinubu on 4th February 2025. The president presented the budget proposal on 18th December 2024, which rightly had no provision for NCDC. The president sent a letter to the National Assembly on 5th February 2025, where he proposed additional revenue and expenditure of N4.53 trillion. This was a day after he signed the NCDC bill. It is doubtful that he included NCDC in the breakdown. It is possible NCDC was included in that list or it is possible that the legislators exercised their initiative or in consultation with the executive. In any case, this will be another record: a commission receiving budgetary allocation barely a week after the signing of its bill.  

But that is not as record-breaking as the case of the SSDC. It is not clear how the SSDC is significantly different from NDDC (apart from that its coverage will be strictly for the South South zone, and not for all oil producing states, as NDDC covers Abia, Imo and Ondo that are from other zones). But that is not the point. As at today, SSDC is not a legal entity. The SSDC bill has not been signed into law. I think I understand the political consideration at play: development commissions have become the latest ploy for sharing the rapidly shrinking nation cake. So, everyone wants their slice of the cake before we get to the last crumb.

But it is quite odd that the National Assembly will make appropriation for an entity that does not exist in law yet. Is this anticipatory appropriation and is it allowed and what is the danger inherent in taking this kind of liberty? A neater approach would have been for the executive to be encouraged to bring a supplementary budget after the SSDC bill is signed into law. We are normalising many abnormalities, from the executive undertaking major projects without appropriation and with no questions asked by those with the powers of the purse to the legislators themselves making appropriation for an entity whose existence is not yet legally consummated. The persistent mockery being made of the budget process is simply astounding.

Another odd entry revealed in the order paper is the provision of N400 billion for light rail projects in four states: N150 billion to Kano State; N100 billion to Kaduna State; N100 billion to Ogun State; and N50 billion to Lagos State. Light rails are within cities and are thus state projects. There are strategically important federal rail lines crying for modernisation and expansion. Those should be the priority and the focus of the Federal Government. Yes, an argument can be made for the need for FG to support the development of critical infrastructure in key states, and this can include urban rail projects. But this should start with a clear and well-articulated policy framework that provides the rationale, the format, the eligibility criteria and the process for such an intervention.

Such a major policy decision should not just show up in the budget. For now, the allocation for light rail appears like a political settlement scheme or a belated attempt at regional balancing. They were not in the initial budget proposal by the president. Most likely, the Federal Government decided to support light rail in four states after the hoopla generated by the N146.14 billion included in the proposed budget of the Ministry of Transport as the counterpart funding by MOFI to the Lagos Greenline Metro Rail project.

But even the attempt at balancing falls flat. There is no prior document that articulates why the Federal Government can provide such a support, the criteria for selecting qualifying states, how states can apply to be considered, and if this will go round all the states or just a number of states per zone. On account of the haphazard approach, the discussion, even in the parliament, has moved from the propriety of a federal ministry providing funding to a state project to the slippery slope of deliberate neglect/marginalisation of certain zones by the Federal Government. This is unfortunate and could have been avoided if this had been more thoughtfully considered.

There are few other things peeking out. Even after the legislators rescinded the 2025 budget on Tuesday, capital expenditure still has the highest allocation. The N23.44 trillion allocated to capital is 42.63% of the budget. This is not just the highest amount but the highest percentage of the budget allocated to capital expenditure since 1999. Ordinarily, this should be celebrated, but certain things do not add up. There appears to be a deliberate attempt to big up the capital component of the budget. There are many items under capital supplementation that it will take a real stretch to capture as capital, except you are using the loose definition of working capital.

Some of these items include allocations to student loan scheme, consumer credit fund, refund to TETFUND, transfer to HYPPADEC (another development commission), national poverty reduction with growth strategy etc. It is noteworthy that capital supplementation (a recent and growing category in our budgets) got a 131% boost. The president proposed a total of N3.18 trillion as capital supplementation when he laid the budget before the parliamentarians on 18th December 2024 and the legislators approved N6.37 trillion for the same category on 13th February 2025. There are many items under capital that should invite greater scrutiny but which the legislators left untouched, including allocations to a hospital for NIA (N238.05 billion), for a building for FIRS (N50 billion) and for the take-off grant of a school of governance at NIPSS (N887.75 million).

Then, there is the issue of budget deficit. The math here is simply not ‘math-ing,’ as the younger ones sayThe president mentioned a deficit of N13.08 trillion in his budget speech. The proposed budget on the website of the Budget Office of the Federation puts the budget deficit and the aggregate financing items at N13.39 trillion. The order paper containing the highlights of the approved budget maintains the deficit and the aggregate financing items at N13.39 trillion. But the National Assembly publicly announced a budget deficit of N13.08 trillion.

Apart from two different amounts featuring for the same items in different documents/pronouncements, I suspect the deficit is understated. And here, I am not talking of the eventual deficit in case ambitious revenue projection underperforms. The total revenue that can be publicly identified amounts to N40.88 trillion (the N36.35 trillion in the proposed budget—which included revenue of GOEs— and the N4.53 trillion additional revenue, which I am yet to see in the highlights in the order paper). If the total expenditure is N54.99 trillion and the total revenue is N40.88 trillion, then the deficit should be N14.11 trillion. So, there is a N1.03 trillion hanging somewhere. It is possible the full budget will clear the air, or this may be another error to be corrected or rescinded.

But the really intriguing part is that the National Assembly stated categorically (even when it doesn’t have to) that the N13.08 trillion deficit represents 1.52% of GDP. This contradicts the position in President Tinubu’s speech when he presented the budget proposal. “A total of N13.08 trillion, or 3.89% of GDP, will make up the budget deficit,” the president said on 18th December 2025. It is important to underscore that the president and the parliament are keeping to the same amount as the budget deficit for 2025: N13.08 trillion. So, it is still a mystery how the National Assembly arrived at a deficit-to-GDP of 1.52% but the president put the same at 3.89% of GDP.

As I stated last week, N13.08 trillion can only be 1.52% of GDP if Nigeria’s GDP has grown to N860 trillion. This will be a major leap, even with rebasing. The last full-year GDP figure published by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) is for 2023, and Nigeria’s nominal GDP was N234 trillion. In its October 2024 World Economic Outlook Database, IMF estimates Nigeria’s nominal GDP as N302 trillion in 2024 and as N351 trillion for 2025. If we use IMF’s estimate for 2025, our deficit-to-GDP will be 3.73%. So, it will be good to know where and how the National Assembly derived deficit-to-GDP at 1.52%, which it trumpeted as being within acceptable limit (a major claim, as the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2007 stipulates 3% as the cap for Deficit-to-GDP).

If the legislators have been briefed by NBS on the rebased GDP, it is important to question the propriety and the haste by legislators to use data not yet publicly released by the national statistical agency. If the problem is that they mixed up their numbers, we have cause to worry about what else they are mixing up. But it seems to me they know what they are doing: there are games within a game going on here. Such indiscretions and political games chip away the credibility of official data. And that is such a terrible thing.  

Even after three decades of his untidy retreat to his Minna hometown, Babangida never forget the ‘public’ debts he owed to Nigerians. He owed Nigerian history an expose on his turbulent leadership . He owed the Nigerian populace an insight into his personal enigma and enduring charisma. He also owed us a personal perspective on the worrisome things that happened under his watch. Above all things, Babangida owed a personal recompense and reconciliation with Nigeria on the political headache of the June 12 1983 elections.

Through the public outing of his long awaited memoir-A Journey in Service-Babangida has settled nearly all his outstanding liabilities to his fellow citizens. In addition to previously unknown details of ‘what happened’ , he has finally come to a personal resolution of and reconciliation with the outcome of the contentious June 12 election. Abiola won. His election was annulled by Abacha’s hidden hands of limitless power ambition.  Nigeria survived. Above all, he (IBB) has survived into ripening old age to look back and tell the story himself. Professional trouble makers and history manglers have been deprived of an opportunity to end the Babangida story in malignant tales.

Three decades is long enough time for a man to exhale after leading a sweltering marathon in Nigeria’s turbulent power waters. It is time enough for actors and spectators to have calmed down and taken a respite . Anger would have turned into resignation. Vengeful partisans would have handed the entire matter over to God in a nation where the divine has the final say in all matters political . 

The man of power himself should have reflected on the roads he couldn’t travel and the paths that he and even the angels dreaded to try.

Babangida led us through troubling times and a treacherous landscape of existential problems. The times were hard and the options daunting in every direction. Our treasury was nearly empty as almost all leaders had turned dealers and fled with our common treasure. Our economic dance had no name. Nor could we look money lenders in the face and say: ‘please help a prodigal nation.’ 

We resolved by public acclaim after nationwide debates to retreat inwards in search of homegrown solutions. Harrowing reform was the name of the only option left. IBB showed us a new path, a hard road never before traveled. A free market economy of  citizens chained under martial rule! Capitalism without capital and without freedom , rebuilding an economy under a retreating state and a frightened citizenry, 

Babangida has spent three decades and more as one of us. He has watched history roll along. He may have lived through his errors and watched others ride the waves of his triumphs. His ultimate nemesis, Buhari , has come and gone, renaming his major pitfall- June 12- into a historical milestone of political advantage. The nation has learnt new names, new dance steps under new leaders. Wobbly as it is, Nigeria has survived as a democracy.

Despite the passage of time, however, something about Babangida has remained constant. His personal allure, the instant electricity of his name, the countless myths about the kind, gentle and smiling general at once capable of incredible compassion and unequaled humanity but readily credited with unthinkable atrocities. The Machiavellian Prince that left the throne but still elicits love but also compels chilling fear. 

Above all, Babangida’s personal attraction and a certain public acknowledgment of his political genius has remained in tact. Politicians seeking national acknowledgment seek him. Those wanting to command access to power levers look for him. Those seeking recognition as political notables pay him homage. Those in want of the magic of political wisdom have made pilgrimage to his Minna home.

His Minna retirement home has remained something of a favourite destination  for political pilgrims. Younger political gladiators in search of relevance, older political animals seeking to test their own relevance, regional leaders seeking a national acclaim and audience have gone to seek his blessing. He has remained something of a political oracle and universal counselor.

IBB’S tenure and time with us have remained alive for these years. People did not give up hoping  for the story of those days from the man himself. The reasons behind the persistence of demands for a Babangida memoir are many. 

The questions that have lingered are mostly about matters unusual that happened in the Babangida days : abnormal ways of dying; difficult ways of surviving and living; coups and runouts of coups and counter coups; impossible rules of governance. And yet, the man at the center of it all was constant, smiling, infinitely humane but stern as the professional warrior he was trained to be. 

Rulership under him etched new rules and explored unfamiliar paths. It became a dance, a drama of hard choices: a man in full military gear that insisted strangely on being called ‘president’ without resigning his military commission; the msn who in the storm of the Cold War insisted that Nigeria should go:  ‘a little to the right and a little to the left’, a man who enabled elected governors to rule under a martial president; a military ruler who allowed an elected legislature to thrive under ultimate garrison decrees. A master of multiple speak and the wisdom of Delphic ancestry: ‘ we do not know those who will succeed us but we know those who will NOT succeed us’!

The public outing of Babangida’s memoirs – A Journey in Service- is deserving of the national splash we have seen. Everything about IBB is news, sensation and headline. This is for good reason. In the growing pantheon of our former leaders, Babangida elicits the greatest anxiety and much deserved excitement . No memoir of a former leader has been and is likely to be so long awaited. 

Why the anxious wait? The man’s actions in power deserve no less. He was an original author of the impossible. An army general who seized power, suspended the constitution but insists on being called President and genuinely in love with presidential democracy. A practicing Moslem who insisted that the ideal Nigerian family size should be a couple with four children. A dictator who ruled by decrees but committed himself to a rigorous democratic reform process. To rule by decree and allow elected local governments, state governors and an elected National Assembly. 

The Babangida memoir is therefore a comprehensive answer to many lingering national questions but rendered as a  string of varied personal stories of an individual life turned into national history

There are multiple stories in this master tale. The primary personal narrative is about his early life. It is story of a young lad who was orphaned at 14 and for whom school was a surrogate home. It is the story of proceeding to high school in Bida where he became classmates with people with whom his later life and career became intertwined. Gado Nasko, Sani Bello, Sani Sami, Mamman Vatsa, Mohammed Magoro , Garba Duba and others. It is the story of a boy who was good in sports and also had obvious natural leadership qualities. He was greeted by the envy of some peers and the obedience of many mates. These lives became more intertwined as most of these young boys later opted for careers in the military. They were inspired by among others young Capt Yakubu Gowon. They went ahead to head different areas of Nigeria’s military establishment.

The other story is that of his career path in the military, his involvement in the series of military coups that altered the history and course of the nation. His instinct for coups was so ingrained that many observers have said that his ultimate exit from power in 1983 was perhaps a self-inflicted coup .

The major tragic chapter of the IBB story is his combat experience in the civil war. His battlefield injury in

Uzuakoli and subsequent recovery ended in A decision to get married. Easily the most touching aspect of his war story is the breach with colleagues who fought on the Biafran side.

There are sub stories in this narrative that raise the temperature of the story to near tragic catastrophic dimensions. His bare handed encounter to disarm Col. Dimka after the assassination of Murtala Muhammed. There was also his narrow escape and survival following the Orkar coup. These aspects of the IBB story come close to fictional suspense crime stories. 

The major story of public interest is Babangida and the drama of power incumbency. In this crucial part, the many unanswered questions come into view. he touching accounts of the death of Dele Giwa, the trial and execution of Mamman Vatsa, the dreadful night of the  Orkar coup and the unfortunate crash of the military C-130 aircraft all come together as instances of the bad things that could happen in a season of power.

Babangida renders his account with the consummate ease of a master story teller. The difficult accounts of state action and the unattractive business of policy are made  to be readable. He animates the landscape of the story with anecdotes and recollections of the human angle of  difficult national decisions. In this memoir, there is hardly any name calling, hardly any contentious arguments. The audience is drawn into serious national issues by the allure of a very human story.

In the end, A Journey in Service becomes a shared experience between a national audience and the author as a heroic figure in a national experience of epic proportions.

As soon as I laid my hands on Gen Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida’s autobiography, ‘A Journey in Service’, there were only two things I was eager to read: the June 12 annulment story and the murder of Dele Giwa, one of the finest journalists out of Nigeria. There were many landmarks that defined the IBB era — he was military president from 1985 to 1993, during which a lot of good, bad and ugly things happened in the economy and polity — but the June 12 annulment and Giwa’s murder were life-defining topics he had never spoken frankly and extensively about, so you can appreciate my curiosity. Within minutes, I had flipped to the relevant pages and devoured them.

Long before Babangida’s version of history, I had a fairly formed narrative on June 12. Some pieces were based on what I read in newspapers and magazines after the presidential election was annulled in 1993 — a mishap that led to a devastating political crisis lasting for five years, worsened under the jackboots of Gen Sani Abacha and his henchmen. Strikes, fuel shortages, riots and economic paralysis stifled the nation. The bloodshed was chilling. As a living witness, I do not wish that we experience anything like that again. It was utterly horrible. It aggravated ethnic and regional tensions, pushed us to the precipice and injured our nation-building trajectory. Nigeria practically came to a standstill.

My initial theory around June 12 was that IBB did not want to leave power. Having overthrown Gen Muhammadu Buhari in August 1985, he had styled himself as “president”, departing from the title of “head of state” that previous military rulers used. The suspicion then was that he wanted to transmute to a civilian president, so he knew what he was doing. As he continued to juggle the transition programme, banning and unbanning politicians and creating political parties that were like government agencies, the suspicion grew stronger that he was working to an answer. When he annulled the presidential primaries in 1992, everything pointed in one direction: “hidden agenda”.

The annulment of an otherwise peaceful and credible June 12 election in 1993 was the final confirmation, for me, that Babangida had a sinister plan up his sleeve. Events preceding the election appeared to have been orchestrated to keep him in power. There were the religious riots and tensions up north. The sentencing of Gen Zamani Lekwot and 15 other Christians from Kaduna state to death for their alleged roles in the Zangon Kataf religious crisis of March 1992 was interpreted as an engineering of political instability to create the perfect excuse to hang on to power. Nigerians also faced a crippling fuel crisis, so I believed we were being deliberately frustrated and weakened.

Ironically, I was not a fan of Bashorun MKO Abiola. As someone who was brought up by a grandmother who had been a staunch supporter of Chief Obafemi Awolowo from the 1950s, I was conditioned to see Abiola as a traitor for not being in the same party with the sage in the second republic. Also, I was a lover of Fela’s music, so I had internalised his “International Thief Thief (ITT)” song against Abiola. To worsen matters, Abiola picked a fellow Muslim as his running mate. For me, a Muslim/Muslim ticket was a no-no. I was not into religionism; rather, I always favour balancing in a diverse society. By default, I started supporting Alhaji Bashir Tofa, who had a Christian running mate.

But my mindset was demolished days to the election when I got into a debate with a Muslim friend who asked me how, on God’s green earth, I would prefer Tofa to Abiola in terms of capacity and competence after watching the presidential debate, particularly with the unearthing of an old article by Tofa calling Christians “infidels”. I looked stupid and petty. I regained my senses, perished my misgivings about the Muslim/Muslim ticket, and began to root for Abiola. Alas, I could not vote because I was registered in Lagos while I was undergoing my youth service in Ogbomoso, Oyo state. On election day, I was in Ilorin, Kwara state, chilling with my cousins. We were all rooting for Abiola.

When the election was annulled, another theory started making the round that the north did not want a southerner as president, and this further exacerbated ethnic tensions. For a long time, I believed the theory — propagated mostly by Yoruba leaders — until I sat down to look at the results again, state by state. I realised Abiola won in nine of the 16 northern states at the time. Mind you, Abiola won in core northern states such as Kano (Tofa’s home base), Jigawa, Borno, Yobe and Kaduna, and got significant chunks in Kebbi, Katsina, Niger and Bauchi. So, how could any reasonable person conclude that the north did not want a southerner? I thereafter terminated that line of reasoning.

When I listened to some principal actors years later, I slightly modified my position by concluding that the military did not want to let go of power — even if Babangida himself was, by chance, sincere about the transition. But I kept asking: why did he not retire Abacha when he was stepping aside in 1993? Was it not part of an overall scheme to compensate Abacha for foiling the Orkar coup of 1990 and saving him? Abacha’s stature in the military had grown exponentially after he helped foil the Orkar coup and thereafter gave a national broadcast. IBB owed him one. Leaving him behind was to allow him to topple the interim government and do his own turn as head of state, I reasoned.

Many of the actors have since given their accounts, most of which still left me asking more questions. I earnestly yearned for IBB, the chief actor himself, to tell his own version. Thankfully, he has finally published his autobiography — three decades after the nation-crippling crisis. He admitted that Chief Arthur Nzeribe, convener of the Association to Better Nigeria (ABN) which secured the court order to stop the election, was well known to him. However, he said he did not support the group which was campaigning for an extension of military rule by four years. He said he was surprised when the injunction was issued despite a decree ousting the jurisdiction of the courts in election matters.

That injunction was issued by Justice Bassey Ikpeme of the federal high court, Abuja, two days to the election. You see, our judiciary has always been a problem. It did not start today. But another high court in Lagos ruled that the election should go on. The intriguing fact here is that Ikpeme, who was a new judge, had previously worked in the law chambers of Mr Clement Akpamgbo, Babangida’s attorney-general and minister of justice. IBB said he was surprised when Akpamgbo insisted at an emergency security council meeting that Ikpeme’s order should be obeyed. Abacha, Lt-Gen Joshua Dogonyaro and some service chiefs also supported Akpamgbo’s position, according to Babangida.

Prof Humphrey Nwosu, then chairman of the National Electoral Commission (NEC), insisted he had enough powers to go ahead with the election, Babangida said. He was supported by Lt-Gen Salihu Ibrahim, then chief of army staff. Babangida said he gave Nwosu the go-ahead to conduct the election, which he has finally admitted was free and fair. But he said he was in Katsina on a condolence visit to the Yar’Aduas on June 23 when he heard, like other Nigerians, that the election had been annulled. He said he was told that another judge, Justice Dahiru Saleh, had issued an injunction annulling the election. But Babangida completely in the dark? Sorry, I don’t believe that.

“A report filtered to me that the June 12 elections had been annulled,” Babangida wrote. “Even more bizarre was the extent of the annulment because it terminated all court proceedings regarding the June 12 elections, repealed all the decrees governing the Transition and even suspended NEC! Equally weird was the shabby way the statement was couched and made. Admiral Aikhomu’s press secretary, Nduka Irabor, had read out a terse, poorly worded statement from a scrap of paper, which bore neither the presidential seal nor the official letterhead of the government, annulling the June 12 presidential elections.” But Babangida officially announced the annulment on TV the next day.

In his autobiography, Babangida blamed the annulment on fifth columnists, saying the forces were led by Abacha. He wrote: “I would later find out that the ‘forces’ led by General Sani Abacha annulled the elections. There and then, I knew I was caught between ‘a devil and the deep blue sea’!!” So why did he not retire Abacha when he decided to step aside in August 1993? IBB gave the impression that he was helpless as the military had been polarised and Abacha had an army of loyalists. He even hinted that Abacha’s faction was planning to overthrow and kill him. I recall IBB saying in 1993 that “I am not only in office, I am also in power”. It sounded strange and desperate to me then — and now.

Still, I will not dismiss the entirety of Babangida’s story. I recall that after Abacha became head of state, he retired the “IBB Boys”: Dogonyaro, Brig-Gens David Mark, Anthony Ukpo, John Shagaya, Halilu Akilu and Tunde Ogbeha, among others. There was an obvious friction. Dr Nowa Omoigui, the respected military historian who died in 2021, wrote extensively on the mutual caginess between IBB and Abacha after the Orkar coup. It is, however, instructive that IBB reportedly started referring to Abacha as “Khalifa” (“successor”) after the foiled coup. IBB later removed and retired Lt-Gen Domkat Bali as chairman, joint chiefs of staff, and replaced him with Abacha, who doubled as army chief.

Curiously, Babangida did not blame any living person in his entire annulment story. Some of those who took part in the annulment are still alive. There are too many missing persons in the picture. IBB only named dead military officers such as Abacha and Dogonyaro — who cannot defend themselves. Admiral Augustus Aikhomu, Babangida’s former second-in-command, is also not alive to tell us the story behind THAT statement issued by his media aide. Akpamgbo died in 2006. We can’t ask him why he supported the out-of-order injunction issued by his former employee. Meanwhile, why didn’t IBB fire Akpamgbo, a “bloody civilian”, for supporting the implementation of the illegal court orders?

Overall, I am unable to accept IBB’s fascinating but tenuous narrative that he was powerless. With this book, I have another theory: if indeed it was Abacha that engineered the annulment, IBB was clearly not opposed to it. Towards the end of his regime, Babangida might have become weakened among sections of the military hierarchy, but he knew he owed Abacha one and would not stand in the way of his ally’s ambition. In the final analysis, we remain entitled to our scepticism about IBB’s story — just as it is hard to accept his claim that Giwa was killed by fifth columnists to discredit his regime. No. It looked very much like an assassination typically and clinically executed by the state.

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…

ADIEU CLARK, ADEBANJO

What are the odds that two accomplished elder statesmen of similar persuasion would die at an identical age one day after the other? That is weird. Chief Ayo Adebanjo, 96, and Chief Edwin Clark, 97, both died last week having lived highly fulfilled lives. Both fought vigorously for their beliefs — which were mostly regional — and robustly spoke their minds fearlessly for decades. Ironically, Adebanjo, unlike Clark, was a politician who never held any public office. Clark was a commissioner and senator. Years ago, Adebanjo and I used to talk regularly but our views on national issues hardly aligned. Nonetheless, I had nothing but utmost respect for him and his comrade, Clark. Legends.

WILD, WILD LAGOS

Talking about politicians not wanting democracy to work, I am appalled by the unending drama in the Lagos house of assembly. Rt Hon Mudashiru Obasa was removed as speaker on January 13, 2025 and replaced with Rt Hon Mojisola Meranda, but he has refused to accept that the party is over. He has declared his removal (after almost 10 years in office) as illegal. One thing he has not done so far is to point to the section of the law that makes his removal unlawful. He can approach a court of law to assert his rights. The heating up of the polity is totally unnecessary and I hope the combatants will soon come to their senses. Obasa will not be the first speaker to be removed in Africa. Irritating.

ROYAL MESS

When we were kids, we used to sing songs about not crowning a thief as king and not appointing liars as chiefs. We all seem to agree today that our values have depreciated. Increasingly in Yoruba land, you are more likely to be made a king if you are a fraudster or a hardened criminal. Oba Joseph Oloyede, a monarch in Osun state, had not been seen for nearly a year until it was reported that the FBI had arrested him for alleged conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering. That aside, whoever wrote these lines in Sahara Reporters deserves an award and a pay rise: “Joseph Oloyede, the Apetu of Ipetumodu, who was reported missing in March 2024, has been found in FBI custody.” Amazing.

NO COMMENT

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan (PDP) caused a stir last week when she vehemently rejected the new seating position allocated to her in the red chamber. She lashed out at Senate President Godswill Akpabio, defying the gavel — contrary to parliamentary practices. Akpabio was once in that position, ironically, and reacted the same way. In a radio interview, Akpoti-Uduaghan said she was fighting because of the klieg lights: “Changing my seat was just a chance of silencing or alienating me from being seen. Sitting position is important. The nearer you sit positions you near the camera and gives you an added advantage to be called upon to contribute to debates,” she said. Wonderful.

A man cancels a free and fair election. When crisis ensues, he panics and steps aside, foisting a one-legged contraption on the country. Soon, his co-conspirators are fed up with the pretence. They sweep away the props and seize power. And a plague feasts on the nation 

A man cancels the freest and fairest election his county has seen. He knows the consequences will be calamitous. He cancels it and allows his country to slide into the most brutal dictatorship it has ever known. The brute is his best friend. All who stand stubbornly in the way are mowed down and buried. Kudirat. Rewane. Onagoruwa Jr. Etc. Some escape the bullets and live with fractured minds. Ibru, Adesanya etc. Those who are fearful of dying or of the opposition being decapitated run into exile to live like refugees. The country is treated as a leper for seven whole years. 

A man anulls a credible election and puts his country on the precipice. Riots break out. Poor folks run back to their villages. The land convulses. A strike squad is formed. Mustapha and Omenka settle on the country. Press freedom flees. Journalists become pet dogs; otherwise, they become bushmeat. People are thrown into dungeons for wincing. Death squads roam while torture squads sit in the basements, bending minds.  

A man cancels free and fair elections. His friends seize the government and throw the winner of the election into a dungeon. His sin is that he refused to forsake his mandate. They keep him there. The world cries for his freedom. Mandela curses the oppressors. Traditional rulers go to bow and lick the feet of the junta. They keep the winner of the election in the dungeon till he dies. Till he dies. 

Before Judas sold Jesus he was the treasurer of the ministry. He was part of the good works of that cohort. He was stealing from the purse but perhaps not enough to cripple the group. On the outside, he was chief amongst the miracle workers whom Jesus led. After Judas sold Jesus, no one said Judas bought food for me when I was hungry. Or Judas helped my wife to slaughter a goat. Or Judas introduced innovations into treasury management. Judas had committed a destiny-defining crime. His only reward would be infinite opprobrium. No caveats. Demons understood the conclusive enormity of his greed and treachery and besieged him. Judas didn’t seek a gathering to tender vacuous apologies or build a library. 

Despite fates like Judas’ every man deserves a second chance. Man is fallible. Nobody is a saint. And time wipes away the pain of transgressions. We are enjoined to forgive. But as a country, we must keep records. Grant amnesties but keep records. Grant amnesties but don’t become amnesic. We can understand Authrur Eze. But Tinubu now says he owes it all to the man who annulled June 12. Dangote says the man who annulled June 12 and destroyed the Abioola mandate is the father of the private sector. Some state governors might say without him, they would have had no states to govern. The gods must be amused. 

We have become incurable worshipers of our leaders. At every major gathering, one former Nigerian leader will be eulogised. He will be called a great man

Because these gatherings aren’t infrequent, all former leaders have been extolled to high heavens

So Balewa, Zik and Awo were all great. Gowon and Murtala were great. Obasanjo was wonderful 

Shagari was fabulous. He died poor. IBB is now outstanding. Abacha, they also say was great and humane. Obasanjo, during his second coming, was a messiah. Yar’adua was marvellous. Jonathan was fantastic. Buhari, the incorruptible, was impeccable. Now Tinubu is loved more than hot Agege bread by many. 

So why exactly is Nigeria poor? Why have our contemporaries like Indonesia and Singapore left us being? We have given our past leaders the highest honours. But our best youths fleeing the country. The names of our leaders hang on national monuments and we bow before them. But we have become bankrupt in China. We have abundant natural resources. We have overflowing human capital. So why are we the poverty capital of the world? We live by the river, but we wash our hands with spittle.

Babangida and his friend Abacha ruled for a combined 13 years. Gowon ruled for 9 years. Obasanjo did 11 years. Buhari did about 10. We celebrate these people every day. We call them heroes. We can excuse Obasanjo who transitioned to civil democratic rule and returned to pay off our debts. But how can this country gather to celebrate Babangida, who cancelled a credible election and triggered a chain reaction that led to the death of many people and the looting of the national treasury? We agree we have been decimated by chronic bad leadership yet we venerate all our leaders. 

If the aim of a presidential library is partly to Immortalize a president and document history, then a library for Babangida will only serve to immortalize the perfidy he committed. Babangida should have let sleeping dogs lie. He is a Maradona. He ought to know not to stir the hornet’s nest. Sitting and watching some of victims , one after the other, to shower him with encomium, in that dubious sanctification ritual called a book launch, might be his ultimate step over, but hasn’t he roused some sleeping dogs? 

I love books. I think memoirs by our past leaders, especially if confessional, will help the country. So Babangida  could have quietly documented his memoir and released it without fanfare. In absolute penitence. Without the nauseating speeches. Without the donations. Without the grandiose dream of a presidential library. Without bruising sensibilities. 

The question Nigerians must answer is this. Is it forgetfulness or folly? Who did this to us? Sorry, Mama Kudirat. Sorry. 

 

Since Afenifere leader Pa Ayo Adebanjo passed away on February 14 at 96, many have praised his significant contributions to Nigeria as a frontline nationalist, a key role player in the politics of the first and second republics, and an uncompromising devotee of the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo.

Active in the First Republic Action Group, the Second Republic Unity Party of Nigeria, and Alliance for Democracy from 1999, Baba Adebanjo fought tirelessly for democracy. He consistently advocated for true federalism and the country’s political and economic restructuring based on the 1963 Republican Constitution.

 

Pa Adebanjo was also a well-known activist who stood for equity, truth, and justice. He fought against all forms of injustice and oppression including military dictatorship.
In this respect, I recall his relationship with President Bola Tinubu.

When Asiwaju Tinubu, then a founding chieftain of the defunct AD, decided to run for Lagos governorship, Pa Adebanjo fully supported him, championing transparency in the process that produced him as the candidate of his party. Despite the initial opposition within the party, Baba Adebanjo and other young party members opted for open party primaries, helping Tinubu to emerge as the candidate. Tinubu went on to win the governorship election and was inaugurated on May 29, 1999.

 

Grateful for the support, Asiwaju maintained a strong relationship with Baba Adebanjo. Even when their political paths diverged, Tinubu held Baba in high regard. The President said this much in his incisive tribute to Pa Adebanjo, which I quote in part thus:
“In moments of national crisis, Baba’s courage shone brightest. When democracy hung in the balance after the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, he joined the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) as one of the leading voices against military dictatorship, helping to galvanise a movement that became the bedrock of our collective struggle to reclaim democratic governance.

“His unwavering commitment to truth and justice extended to my journey as a governorship candidate in 1999. Baba Adebanjo’s steadfast support was instrumental in my election as Governor of Lagos State under the platform of the Alliance for Democracy.

“Though our political paths diverged in later years, my respect and admiration for him never wavered. Until his death, I shared a deep personal bond with Baba Adebanjo; he was like a father figure.”

 

Many in Tinubu’s position might have taken issue with Baba, who sometimes openly criticised him. But not Asíwájú. As an Omoluabi—a person of good character—Tinubu respects elders and institutions, giving honour where it’s due.

How do I know President Tinubu highly regarded Baba Adebanjo? As a journalist and editor, I was well-known to Baba Adebanjo. I interacted with and interviewed him on many occasions during my active years in journalism. So when I became Asiwaju’s Media Adviser, I became the envoy of sorts, the message-bearer for both. Baba Adebanjo would telephone me, saying, “Rahman, Rahman, so fun Oga e pe mo fe ri. To ba wu yin ke wa, to ba wu yin ke ma wa. Tie na la fe so fun,” meaning “Tell your Principal I would like to see him. If he likes, let him honour my invitation. It’s to his benefit if he comes.”

We visited Baba at his residence in Lekki, Lagos, several times. On other occasions, Baba called at Bourdillon, the Ikoyi residence of Asiwaju, along with his entourage.

There is, however, a hilarious and instructive story about the two, which speaks to the admiration and high regard President Tinubu had for Baba, which essentially is the focus of this article. It was during the 90th birthday of Baba Adebanjo, sometime in April 2018. I remember vividly that that particular birthday fell on a Sunday. But a birthday colloquium came up on a Thursday, three days before the actual birthday. We had lodged in our dairy for Asiwaju, the birthday lecture, as well as other activities and events lined up to celebrate the distinguished elder statesman. While focusing on the birthday date, I forgot the preceding Thursday event at Landmark Event Centre in Victoria Island, Lagos. Luckily for me, around 9am that Thursday, the traditional ruler of Oke-Ila in Osun State, Oba Dokun Abolarin, telephoned me, saying he was in Lagos and asking if Asiwaju was coming for the birthday lecture. Knowing I had failed to alert Asiwaju about the lecture the previous night, I smelled trouble.

 

I immediately raced to Bourdillion in Ikoyi. When I went upstairs to see Asiwaju, he was reading newspapers, oblivious of any early morning engagement that day, particularly that of Baba Adebanjo. I informed him about the event and apologised that I had my mind set on the birthday date on Sunday. The lecture was slated for 10 am, and time was already 10 am. Asiwaju, livid, sprung to his feet. By this time, my colleague Ademola Oshodi had joined me in Asiwaju’s room. Without any prompting, we prostrated and apologised again.

Those close to President Tinubu know he is a very proficient politician in Yoruba as he is in English, complete with street lingo. Still seething in anger, Asiwaju said in Yoruba, “Hen hen, idobale yin yen ni emi ma te’ bati. Ma de ibi lecture, won a ma so pe mo moo mo pe de ni ki nba le da ijoko won ru,” meaning, “So it’s this your prostrating that will now count. I will get to the event now, and they will allege that I deliberately came late so I can cause a stir and disrupt the lecture.”

Somehow, Asiwaju quickly prepared to attend despite our tight schedule as we were meant to travel to Abuja that same day. We got to the occasion around noon after the program had been on for about two hours. One important personality I could not readily remember was on the podium.
Though we arrived late, Tinubu’s presence stirred excitement, and he delivered a heartfelt speech.

As President Tinubu predicted, his arrival caused a big stir and a temporary halt in the programme. As we made to leave, another commotion that did not subside even after our departure ensued. I suspect Asíwájú’s departure might have signaled the virtual end of the program.

 

That was not the end of the story, though. A couple of days later, I heard Uncle Jimi Disu, a known Asiwaju critic, on his regular programme then on Classic FM, talking about Baba Adebanjo’s birthday lecture, alleging that Asíwájú ‘sauntered’ into the programme uninvited and disrupted the birthday lecture of the nonagenarian. I could not believe my ears. I went on that program afterward to debunk what he said. I narrated what happened, that Asiwaju had tremendous respect for Baba and that he would have avoided the kind of situation that played out if I had briefed him of the timing of the programme.

This incident underscores the critical role of aides in supporting leaders to function effectively. Aides must guide them accurately, as their actions and inactions can significantly impact leadership outcomes. An oversight on my part unintentionally fueled what would have resulted in animus between Baba Adebanjo and Tinubu.

 

Rahman is Senior Special Assistant to President Tinubu on Media, Publicity and Special Duties.

 

Nigeria’s democracy is built on laws, fairness, and respect for institutions. It is not meant to be a game of power, manipulation, or interference. As the Osun State local government election approaches on February 22, 2025, there is one simple truth that cannot be ignored—this election must hold. No hidden agenda, no security excuse, no sudden warnings of violence should be used to stop the people of Osun from exercising their democratic right.

The Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Kayode Egbetokun, and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi, you know the truth. You know that democracy cannot be bargained away. You know that Osun State has the constitutional right to conduct this election, just as Rivers State did in October 2024. You know that your responsibility is to protect, not obstruct.

Do not repeat the mistakes of history. Do not allow yourselves to be used. The Nigerian people see everything. They are watching, waiting, hoping that, for once, power will be used to strengthen democracy, not weaken it.

 

This is not just about an election—it is about the soul of Nigeria. The question that lingers in the minds of Nigerians is whether institutions exist to serve the people or to protect the interests of those in power. The duty of the IGP and AGF is not to serve the ambitions of any political figure or party, but to uphold the law, defend democracy, and preserve national unity.

Adeleke’s Stand for Democracy—This is What Leadership Looks Like

Governor Ademola Adeleke has spoken. He has stood firm, just as Governor Siminalayi Fubara did in Rivers State. He has declared that the election will proceed as planned. But this is not just his decision—it is the law.

 

The Osun State High Court has ruled that the election must go on. The court has ordered security agencies to provide protection, not excuses. It has given a clear verdict:

The Osun State Independent Electoral Commission (OSIEC) is the only legal authority to conduct local elections.

The IGP, AGF, and security agencies are obligated to protect voters, not suppress the process.

 

There is no justification for withdrawal of security personnel or the use of fear to manipulate the situation.

There is no room for delay, no excuse for disruption, no hidden loophole to stop what must happen.

This election is not just about local government officials. It is about trust. It is about whether Nigerians can believe in their institutions. It is about whether the law means something or nothing at all.

 

The Cry of Democracy—Do Not Silence It Again

Nigeria is crying for democracy. Its people are tired—tired of manipulations, tired of interference, tired of power games that destroy the very foundation of governance.

The world has seen it too many times—elections obstructed, delayed, tampered with in the name of “security concerns.” But the people know the truth. And IGP, AGF—you know the truth too.

 

If there is a security concern, then deploy security to protect voters. If there is a threat, neutralize it—but do not use it as an excuse to stop democracy. If there is violence, punish the perpetrators, not the voters.

Nigerians are not fooled anymore. They know the difference between genuine security concerns and politically motivated interference. They have watched elections unfold under worse conditions in this country, and yet, those elections were not stopped.

So why Osun? Why now? Why, after the court has spoken?

 

Learn from Rivers—Democracy Cannot Be Defeated

The Rivers State local government election in October 2024 should be a lesson to all. The police pulled security, shut down the electoral commission, and tried to halt the process. But Governor Fubara stood firm. The people stood firm. And democracy stood firm

Despite every obstacle thrown in its way, the election was held. The people voted. The courts upheld it. And those who tried to interfere were left exposed.

 

Do not let history repeat itself in Osun. Do not drag the nation through another battle between political influence and the rule of law. Nigeria is better than this. We should be better than this.

IGP, AGF—Your Actions Will Be Remembered

The weight of history is on your shoulders. The people of Nigeria will not forget what you do now.

 

If you allow this election to proceed peacefully, you will be remembered as leaders who stood for democracy, who upheld the rule of law, who protected the people’s right to vote.

If you interfere, you will be remembered as those who chose power over justice, as those who betrayed democracy at a moment when it needed protection the most

The choice is yours.

 

This is Not About Politics—This is About Nigeria

This writer, a psychologist, sides with no one but stands for Nigeria, democracy, and the rule of law. The duty of leaders and institutions is not to serve political interests but to protect the sanctity of democracy and obey judicial rulings.

The Osun State local government elections must be handled in accordance with legal precedents, with full respect for the constitutional mandate of the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission (OSIEC). Security agencies and federal authorities must ensure that democracy is practiced, not manipulated, and that the rights of Nigerians to choose their leaders are upheld without interference.

 

The law must be followed, institutions must function independently, and the democratic process must not be sacrificed for political power. Nigeria belongs to its people, not to those who wish to control it for their own gain.

History is a merciless judge. It remembers those who stood for justice and those who bowed to pressure. It records those who strengthened democracy and those who tried to break it.

If the IGP and AGF allow themselves to be used, if they permit interference where the law has already spoken, their names will be written in the same pages as those who tried to undermine the will of the people. But if they stand firm, if they obey the law and do their duty, they will be remembered as defenders of democracy, not tools of political oppression.

 

A Final Call—Let Osun’s Election Happen

This is bigger than one state. This is bigger than one election. This is about Nigeria itself—about whether we are truly a democracy or just pretending to be one.

The federal government, security agencies, and all stakeholders must work together to ensure that the election is conducted peacefully, fairly, and without manipulation.

 

The world is watching. Nigerians are watching. History is recording every move.

Let Osun vote. Let democracy breathe. Let the people decide.

IGP, AGF—you know the truth. You really do.

The Nigerian Senate, an institution expected to epitomize decorum and democratic principles, has once again been thrown into the spotlight for the wrong reasons. At the center of this latest drama are two familiar names: Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. Their repeated clashes raise an important question: what exactly is it between Akpabio and Natasha?

The most recent incident unfolded in the Senate chamber when Senator Natasha refused to move to a newly assigned seat without prior consultation. This seemingly administrative decision quickly escalated into a heated exchange, culminating in Akpabio ordering the sergeant-at-arms to walk her out of the plenary session. This is not the first time that Natasha and Akpabio have locked horns, and given the trajectory of their confrontations, it is unlikely to be the last.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is not one to shy away from a fight, especially when she perceives an injustice. As a vocal member of the opposition (PDP), she has been unwavering in her demand for fair treatment and democratic transparency. On the other hand, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, a former governor and a veteran of Nigerian politics, is known for his authoritative leadership style. His tenure in the Senate has not been devoid of controversy, and he has often been accused of high-handedness.

 

Their first major public clash came months ago when Senator Natasha accused Akpabio of deliberately sidelining her in Senate proceedings, particularly in matters concerning bill presentations. She claimed that despite meeting all requirements, she was continuously denied the opportunity to present bills for a second reading. These allegations, though unproven, add to the growing perception that Akpabio may be deliberately stifling her contributions to national discourse.

It is difficult to ignore the gender dimension in this saga. The Nigerian political space remains overwhelmingly patriarchal, with women often facing undue resistance in leadership positions. Senator Natasha, despite her political experience and advocacy background, has had to fight harder than her male counterparts to gain her footing in the Senate. Is Akpabio’s attitude towards her an extension of this long-standing institutional bias, or is there a deeper personal and political vendetta at play?

Senator Natasha’s resistance to being pushed around is commendable, but it has also put her at the center of controversy. In a country where women who stand their ground are often labeled as “troublesome” or “disruptive,” her defiance is perceived differently by various factions. To some, she is an uncompromising warrior for justice, while to others, she is an agitator disrupting the Senate’s order.

 

Beyond personality clashes, political interests cannot be ignored. The Nigerian Senate, much like every other political institution in the country, is deeply influenced by party affiliations, regional interests, and personal ambitions. Akpabio, a stalwart of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), has a vested interest in maintaining the dominance of his party’s agenda. Natasha, being an opposition senator from the PDP, naturally finds herself at odds with him.

It is important to note that Senate Presidents, by the virtue of their position, wield enormous influence over legislative proceedings. They decide what bills get priority, who speaks, and, in extreme cases, who stays or leaves the chamber. If Akpabio is indeed using his position to muzzle opposition voices, then this is not just about Natasha; it is about the broader state of Nigeria’s democracy.

The recent decision to move Senator Natasha’s seat may seem trivial at first glance, but in political spaces, symbolic actions often carry significant weight. In many parliaments worldwide, seat arrangements are meticulously planned to reflect power dynamics and alliances. Was Natasha’s seat moved randomly, or was it a subtle power play aimed at diminishing her influence? The lack of prior communication suggests a deliberate attempt to undermine her position.

 

Her resistance to this move, therefore, is not just about personal comfort but about the principle of consultation and respect. If senators can be randomly displaced without explanation, what stops the leadership from making other arbitrary decisions that stifle dissenting voices?

At a time when Nigerians are grappling with pressing national issues, ranging from economic hardship to insecurity, one would expect the Senate to focus on delivering legislative solutions rather than engaging in internal power struggles. Yet, the chamber appears to be turning into an arena for political gladiators, with the real losers being the Nigerian people.

If the leadership of the Senate is seen as oppressive or biased, it erodes public trust in the institution. Nigerians deserve a Senate that represents all voices, not one that operates as an extension of the ruling party’s interests. Akpabio, as the leader of the chamber, must rise above personal and political differences and ensure fairness in all dealings. On the other hand, Senator Natasha must also find a balance between assertiveness and strategic engagement to avoid being constantly perceived as a disruptor.

 

The ongoing tension between Akpabio and Natasha must be addressed before it further degenerates. There are a few possible solutions, and this can be attained through clearer communication. In fact, if changes are to be made regarding seating arrangements or legislative procedures, affected senators must be informed beforehand. Transparency can help prevent unnecessary confrontations.

In a similar vein, the Senate should establish stronger mechanisms to address disputes among members. A body that mediates conflicts before they escalate on the floor would be beneficial.

Also, while political affiliations are inevitable, lawmakers must prioritize national interest over party politics. Akpabio must show that he is a leader for all senators, not just APC members.

 

Again, if Senator Natasha’s claims of being denied the opportunity to present bills are true, then this must be rectified immediately. Every senator deserves a fair chance to contribute to national policymaking.

The repeated clashes between Akpabio and Natasha are a symptom of deeper issues within Nigeria’s legislative system. Whether driven by political rivalry, gender bias, or personal animosity, these tensions must be addressed to ensure the Senate remains a credible institution. If democracy is to thrive, then all voices, especially those in the opposition, must be given a fair platform.

So, again, we ask: what is it between Akpabio and Natasha? Only time will tell. But one thing is clear, Nigerians are watching.

Surely, the parties in the ongoing impeachment crisis rocking the Lagos State House of Assembly (LSHA) ought to have known that such an utterly avoidable internal implosion would make them vulnerable to vicious attacks by those who envy and deplore the fact that their party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), in its various mutations at different times since 1999 as AD, AC, ACD, ACN and now APC, had maintained near one-party electoral dominance of the country’s economic nerve centre over the last two and a half decades. In a widely circulated piece on online platforms, for instance, one Dr Afolabi Gbajumo, after a lengthy dissection of the crisis from his own perspective accused both factions in the current LSHA imbroglio and even the executive of unbridled corruption, illicit accumulation of wealth and venality without the slightest scintilla of evidence.

True, Lagos is not yet anywhere near where it should be in developmental terms as it is still a work in progress as all human communities always are. But it would take the height of intellectual dishonesty not to admit the glaring fact that compared to where she was pre-1999, the megacity state has made remarkable progress on all fronts leaving virtually every other state in the country far behind. Today, she is not only the sixth largest economy in Africa, Lagos is gradually emerging in the ranks of leading megacities of But this is the kind of unfair onslaught that disputants in the LSHA open their party to and it is unfortunate that they are digging in deeper in their trenches in what can only be an ultimately self-destructive internecine warfare. However, what are the issues?

With no less than two-thirds of the members of the LSHA controlled by the APC undertaking his impeachment on January 13, 2025, when he was away on vacation to the US, it is logical to argue that the erstwhile Speaker of the House, Hon. Mudashiru Obasa, had lost not only legal but also moral legitimacy. And there is no doubt that the members of the LSHA are constitutionally empowered to elect and remove their principal officers through stipulated rules and procedures. And the vote of confidence passed on the newly elected Speaker, Mrs Mojisola Meranda, by a majority of members before the House adjourned sine die suggests that the legislators are indeed fed up with Obasa whom they have accused of arrogant, insensitive and corrupt leadership.

The problem is that in politics, things are often not as they seem to be. For example, on 11th November, 2024, members of the LSHA passed a vote of confidence on the allegedly corrupt, insensitive and arrogant Mudashiru Obasa as Speaker of the House. As the This Day Newspaper reported the story, “The vote of confidence on the Speaker coincided with his 52nd birthday as the lawmakers eulogized him for uplifting the country’s democracy through laws that impact positively on the people. Majority Leader, Noheem Adams said during plenary presided over by Deputy Speaker, Mojisola Lasbat Meranda, that his motion, seconded by Hon. Sa’ad Olumoh (Ajeromi Ifelodun. 1), followed a wide consultation”. What then had changed between this time and the ‘impeachment’ of Obasa on January 13 this year?

Again, since Obasa had lost the confidence of the vast majority of his colleagues and it is even claimed that civil servants in the LSHA bureaucracy boisterously celebrated his removal, why was he impeached when he was out of the country on vacation? Since he was so reportedly overwhelmingly unpopular, could he have done anything to stop his removal if he was present? Wouldn’t that have denuded the process of his impeachment of its seeming surreptitious and conspiratorial secretiveness and accorded it more legitimacy? After all, this is not the first time that a Speaker of the LSHA would be removed in this dispensation. Hon Waheed Jokotola Pelumi was the Speaker of the LSHA between June 2, 2003 and December 29, 2005. Pelumi was removed from office by his colleagues and replaced by Hon. Adeyemi Ikuforiji who remained in office from December 29, 2005, till the end of the life of the 7th Assembly in 2015. Pelumi was not removed from office in his absence and the governor at the time, now President Bola Tinubu did not oppose the change of leadership which reinforced his democratic credentials.

It is ironic that those who mobilized a massive security presence in the Assembly premises to facilitate the removal of Obasa cried foul that officials of the DSS had invaded the Assembly premises to prevent the Speaker, Hon. (Mrs Miranda) from accessing her office and allegedly to facilitate the resumption of Obasa who had dismissed his impeachment as defective and not following due process. The DSS has since made public a letter signed by the Deputy Clerk of the House, Mr A.T.B. Ottun, to prevent alleged plans by Obasa to forcefully resume in his office on February 18, 2025. Reports widely disseminated on social media that a cache of sophisticated arms were suddenly discovered in Obasa ‘s office weeks after Mrs Meranda had supposedly been making use of the same office does little to help the credibility of the anti-Obasa elements. It gives the impression of a desperation to de-market and instigate public opinion against the embattled Agege legislator.

During Adeyemi Ikuforiji’s tenure as Speaker, he led the House in offering robust checks and balances to the executive during the tenure of the highly cerebral Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN). But this the easy going but inwardly steely lawmaker from Epe did without ever insulting the governor or demeaning his office. Thus, that Obasa kept Governor Sanwo-Olu and his entourage waiting for nearly four hours before the commencement of the presentation of the state’s 2025 budget estimates and without any apologies for this slight is inexplicable.

Rather, his needlessly combative speech on that occasion was the height of arrogance which has been widely condemned by the public. Had members of the Assembly limited themselves to Obasa ‘s arrogance and insensitivity which was publicly on display in his treatment of Sanwo-Olu, in the allegations that led to his impeachment, it would be hardly possible to fault their action. But they also leveled grave allegations of financial misdemeanor and recklessness against him which in my view necessitates that he be given the opportunity to defend himself before being sanctioned in accordance with the principle of fair hearing. Since he was not given the chance to defend himself before his impeachment, could this be likened to shaving his head in his absence (apologies to MKO Abiola)?

True to his calm and difficult to ruffle demeanor and simple, unassuming carriage, Sanwo-Olu responded with philosophical serenity and enigmatic taciturnity, to what was perceived as an unwarranted slight on his person and office by Obasa. But then, we must look beyond Obasa ‘s annoying abrasiveness and a disposition to easy combustibility, which makes the prospect of his ever occupying the position of governor as he is rumored to desire, frightening.

 
 

It will be recalled that in August, 2023, the LSHA under Obasa ‘s leadership, had rejected 17 of the 39 names Sanwo-Olu had forwarded to the legislature for clearance to be appointed as commissioners in his cabinet. In an unnecessarily bad-tempered speech on the floor of the House during that episode, Obasa had decried the fact that the nominees were grossly unrepresentative of the diverse local government constituencies in the state while also not reflecting the requisite Christian-Muslim balance that had always been taken into account in constituting the State Executive Council.

As the late Oba Olatunji Hazmat, a Frontline Lagos and national progressive political leader of uncommon perspicacity stated in his gripping book, ‘Reflections of A Public Man’, “Lagos may be the greatest cosmopolitan city in Nigeria, but just like the nation itself, it can not march forward even in the matters of the least consideration of governance without accommodating the diverse interests, biases and native proclivities that shape and girdle her formative character…For fairness and wide judgement, the governor, the mayor or any other official of the state must consult others, must bring diverse interests into focus and attention in the choice of cabinet members, in the composition of parastatals and other allied governmental bodies”.

But beyond this, Obasa raised the pertinent point of the undue dichotomy between so called technocrats and politicians in governance in Lagos State and what he perceived as the unfair favouritism given to the former in filling cabinet and non-cabinet positions particularly under the Sanwo-Olu administration. In its report on the face- off between the House and the governor on the matter, the Premium Times of August 29, 2023, wrote that “But some party loyalists said the main reason some nominees who are technocrats were rejected was because they were not known in their constituencies and had no electoral value. Michael Uju, a public affairs analyst, said the disqualification was political. “Unfortunately, there is the sense that most of those rejected by the House are the technocrats among them who are not so much into party politics,” he said.

Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s administration as Premier of the Western Region in the First Republic is still the reference point in qualitative developmental governance in Nigeria. Its achievements were gargantuan and path-breaking. In his autobiography, the great Awo commented on his Cabinet thus, “Second, my team of Ministers was unexcelled. It was a team of which any head of government anywhere in the world would be proud. It was a well-knit, highly disciplined and fanatically loyal team. Each of them knew his subject well”. None of these men would be regarded as technocrats or even intellectuals in today’s lingo. They were educated men and professionals in diverse fields but to be appointed into public office in the Action Group (AG) at the time, you had to have a very strong linkage with your grassroots communities. This was made more imperative by the parliamentary system of the First Republic which required that those to be appointed as Cabinet members first had to win elections into the legislature as elected representatives of their constituencies. Even though he could have couched his argument in less inelegant and confrontational language, Obasa had made the point that he was concerned about the grassroots vibrancy of the APC in the state. This is certainly a pertinent concern even if it is true that his real motive was his assumed governorship ambition in 2027.

The truth of the matter is that although successive APC administrations in Lagos State have performed relatively remarkably well in infrastructure development, social services delivery and security among others – the primary purpose of government – the electoral performance of the party has declined with each election since 2011 and one reason for this is the ever growing alienation and distance between the government and the grassroots. In the 2007 governorship election, Fashola of the AC scored 593,300 votes to 394,956 for Senator Muslim Obanikoro of the PDP. In 2011, BRF scored a record 1,509, 113 votes to win reelection while Shamsideen Adegboye of the PDP recorded 300,450 votes. In 2015, Mr Akinwumi Ambode of the APC had 811,994 votes while Mr Jimi Agbaje of the PDP had 659,788 votes. As for 2019, Mr Babajide Sanwo-Olu of the APC won 739,445  votes to 206, 141 votes scored by Jimi Agbaje of the PDP.

In the 2023 governorship election, Sanwo-Olu won reelection with 762,134 votes to 312,329 votes scored by Gbadebo (Chinedu) Rhodes-Vivour of the Labour Party (LP). To secure his victory after the APC had unprecedentedly lost the earlier presidential election in Lagos to Peter Obi’s LP by nearly 10,000 votes, the party had to scramble frantically to mobilize primordial sentiments to ensure Sanwo-Olu’s reelection.

 Had the governorship election come first, would Sanwo-Olu have become history in Lagos State? The answer is anyone’s guess. A school of thought believes that the electorally dysfunctional overly elitist outlook and disposition of governance in Lagos State has heightened under Sanwo-Olu and this is dangerous as the crucial 2027 elections approach, an election in which the triumph of the APC will depend on the degree to which it has regained its organic linkage with the grassroots. This is probably the point Obasa was making but his petulant mode of delivery distorted and undermined his message.

What then is to be done about the seeming impasse as regards the position of Speaker of the LSHA? The right of the members to elect their principal officers cannot be contested but this must be in line with their extant rules, due process and the guidelines of the party. The enthusiastic support given to Hon. Mrs Meranda so far indicates that she enjoys considerable goodwill with her colleagues as well as the bureaucracy in the LSHA. But some voices in the party contend that the next Speaker should come from either Lagos West where Obasa comes from or Lagos East if legislators from Lagos West are not interested in the Speakership position as it is claimed.

Both Mrs Meranda and the governor are from Lagos Central and this contradicts the party’s zoning formula. The aggrieved members no longer want Obasa as Speaker and they have successfully removed him at least until the courts adjudicate in the matter. But they cannot at the same time unilaterally jettison the party’s power sharing formula. Honourable Mrs Meranda has demonstrated her value and the high esteem in which her colleagues hold her which must be a function of her personal attributes despite her having been Obasa’s deputy. But she may have to stoop to party supremacy today to conquer a future that is politically exceedingly bright for her.

 

The gathering in Abuja on Thursday for the launch of General Ibrahim Babangida’s book was unarguably the most concentrated assemblage of high level political and business leaders in Nigeria in recent times.

Present at the gathering were all five living past presidents and heads of state of Nigeria, though understandably, with the qualified presence of General Muhammadu Buhari who was represented by a proxy. All three former vice-presidents of the Fourth Republic were present. In fact, IBB is perhaps the only one who could have brought Atiku Abubakar and President Bola Tinubu together under the same roof for four hours. I was also astounded by the picture of President Tinubu and President Olusegun Obasanjo.

The richest men in Nigeria, many of whom made their wealth from concessions and other lifts facilitated by Babangida and his successors were also there to hail their mentor. 

 

Who noticed the loud sneer on Atiku as President Tinubu was about to deliver his address when the band struck the refrain in Tinubu’s personal anthem, “On your mandate, on your mandate we shall stand”. Having already stood up as protocol demanded, Atiku was literally cursing the ground on which he stood as the Nigerian Army band struck “On your mandate.”

God forbid something untoward, such as a bomb had been dropped at that venue it would have been reported in the establishment press as the most unfortunate incident in the history of Nigeria.

But thank God it passed off smoothly and we are alive to discuss the revelations from the autobiography of Nigeria’s second longest ruling ruler in a stretch, General Ibrahim Babangida.

No doubt, Babangida just like Gowon, another enduring ruler had time and space to entrench their names with several legacies. For Babangida, the direction of the Nigerian economy towards capitalist adventurism was about the most positive imprint of his administration that endures till date. The Structural Adjustment Programme, SAP which he cunningly implemented without the International Monetary Fund, IMF loan showcased his economic vision.

He was undoubtedly the man who saw tomorrow and with his economic policies enhanced the Nigerian private sector to a dominant role that many other private sector actors in the rest of Africa cannot but envy.

On the political side, IBB also enounced some of the most fundamental solutions to the malevolent shades of politics in Nigeria. His two-party system was about the most radical answer to the ethnicism and other vices that had negated the game of politics in Nigeria.

Under that dispensation we had two Bendel men, Chief Tony Anenih and Chief Tom Ikimi emerge as national chairmen of the two national parties in Nigeria. The emergence of two men from the minority ethnic group in a state that was not Yoruba, Hausa or Igbo showed that the minority could aspire for reckoning under the system he enunciated.

However, with his open eyes the same IBB nicknamed Maradona, dribbled himself into a dead end when he annulled the freest and fairest presidential election in the history of Nigeria.

That decision from the man his foes and even friends call the evil genius was about the most catastrophic decision ever made in the history of Nigeria outside the civil war.

Till last Thursday, he had repeatedly stated that he annulled the June 12 election in the best interest of the nation. But almost everybody knew that it was in his own interest to perpetuate himself in power.

However, coming out last Thursday to say that he erred and made a mistake was disingenuous. It was the typical IBB trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the nation. But this time he only fooled those gathered with him who gave him applause.

He admitted that he committed a crime against the nation by his willful decision to sabotage the mandate of the nation. He seriously diminished himself with his confession. He should have kept his regret.

At what time did he realise that he made a mistake? This is because until very recently he had been singing the chorus of self-justification. However, apparently realizing that no one believed him and that his legacy would go in the wrong side of history he apparently made the move to mollify a wounded citizenry.

With all the institutions that Babangida erected, Nigeria should have been well advanced in democratic and economic infrastructure had he not made the decision to annul the election. Not only were Chief MKO Abiola and his wife killed because of that decision, hundreds of lives were lost directly and tens of thousands if not more, indirectly. 

It is an act of delusion for Babangida and his hangers on to think that history or time will erase the great evil that was done, his regret notwithstanding. He simply should have kept quiet. And it is a reflection of the deep moral morass that he inspired that all those men who gathered at the book launch gave him an applause for the evil he did. Saddening that not one of them could stand up to tell him that he did wrong. That is the reason why some still insist that with the present political actors that the Hope that Nigerians envisaged with MKO is still far off.

Even more, the cheer is an incentive for those in various levels of authority today doing evil that there may be no consequences for what they do.