The Nation Newspaper

Tag: BUHARI

  • ‘Our neighbourhood without Buhari’

    ‘Our neighbourhood without Buhari’

    • Kaduna residents bemoan absence of deceased former President

    One month after the passing of former President Muhammadu Buhari in a London hospital, the quiet neighbourhood of Waziri Close, off Sultan Road in Ungwan Sarki, Kaduna, where he lived for decades, still struggles to adjust to his absence. From the street vendors who stopped seeing his motorcade, to longtime neighbours who once waved at him during evening strolls, the late President’s presence, and now his absence, remains deeply felt. ABDULGAFAR ALABELEWE captures the emotions and memories still lingering in the community.

    The air is thick with grief at Ungwan Sarki GRA, Kaduna. Not from the wails of a mourning crowd, but from the eerie stillness that cloaks Waziri Close, off Sultan Road, the residential stretch in the Kaduna neighbourhood, where Nigeria’s former President Muhammadu Buhari lived for many years, until his death.

    Since Buhari’s demise, the neighbourhood has worn a sombre look. The area now seems adrift, like a home missing its patriarch. There is no gainsaying the late president’s connection to Kaduna runs deep. After retiring from the Army following his tenure as Head of State (1983–1985), Buhari returned to Kaduna, which became the base of his political resurrection.

    It was from his Kaduna home and Jabi Road office that Buhari built the political network with which he contested several presidential elections, first under the APP, then ANPP, and later CPC, before eventually winning on the APC platform in 2015.

    Zubairu Shanuna, a former councillor in the community, stood near the closed gate of Buhari’s Kaduna home, his eyes fixed on nothing in particular. “We are all mortals,” he said slowly. “One after the other, we are all going to die at an appointed time. So, we pray to Allah to forgive him of his sins and grant him paradise.”

    The compound, often a quiet fortress, had seen trickles of visitors since the announcement. There were no grand processions, just people stopping by silently, unsure whether to grieve publicly or preserve the austere legacy of the man they once simply called Mai Gaskiya (the honest one).

    Outside a nearby provision shop on Sultan Road, Bello Idris rearranged loaves of bread on his wooden shelf. He paused when Buhari’s name was mentioned and said: “He was a God-fearing man,” he began. “I’m still in shock. Even those in opposition; I saw them expressing sadness. This shows you it is a great loss for the nation.”

    The shop owner said he often saw the former president’s convoy pass. “But he was never loud. When he was around, you just knew. We would tidy up the front of our shops better, out of respect. That’s the kind of presence he had.”

    For many in the neighbourhood, Buhari was more than a former Head of State or retired military general, he was a constant. A quiet figure who blended with the people, yet stood tall in his dignity.

    Muhammad Gwani, a middle-aged resident who has lived in the area for over 15 years, put it simply: “President Buhari’s death is a loss of a symbol. It has created a huge vacuum in Northern Nigeria and the country at large.”

    That vacuum, for the people of Kaduna, is both symbolic and tangible. The black SUVs, the periodic hum of sirens, the intermittent movement of high-profile visitors, those things may be quieter now. But the security presence remains intact.

    While the gates remain shut and activity within the compound minimal, security personnel have not been withdrawn. Armed guards still maintain their post, a sign of continued protocol and respect for a departed Head of State.

    “They are still here,” said Ibrahim Abubakar, a resident. “Not in a disruptive way, but you can feel that the house is still under full protection, and rightly so. It shows that even in death, his stature is not taken lightly.”

    Abubakar also shared his personal encounter. “Though I don’t live very close to Baba Buhari,” he said, “we used to pray together every Friday at Yahaya Road Juma’at Mosque. As expected, he always came with a security escort but would wave and greet everyone with that his signature smile. He would walk slowly, but smartly, to his car, and he always tried to stop the security from blocking people who wanted to greet him at close range.”

    That image of a down-to-earth, quiet, dignified, but approachable leader is what his neighbours remember the most. According to Malam Abdullahi, another neighbour who spoke from the edge of Sultan Lane, “He served Nigeria with unwavering dedication. First as a military leader in the 1980s, and then as a democratically elected president. Duty, dedication, unity, those defined his life.”

    Despite the criticisms Buhari faced in office, especially toward the end of his presidency, his neighbours in Kaduna speak more of his personal character than of national politics.

    “We judge him by how he lived among us,” said Malam Sani, a local teacher. “He was quiet, disciplined. He never brought attention to himself. That in itself is rare for a man who held so much power.”

    Read Also: Buhari as elected president: My verdict

    As the Kaduna residents reflect, there is also a sense of gratitude for the man they got to share a neighbourhood with.

    “We are proud he chose to live here,” said Mohammed Usman, another resident, who recalled how the former president would send foodstuffs and gifts to neighbouring homes. “He had this habit of giving. Quietly. Without fanfare. You’d just find a parcel sent to your house. It was his way of maintaining neighbourliness.”

    Beyond the tributes from residents, Buhari’s Kaduna home has also become the new base for mourning, especially for his family.

    His wife, Hajia Aisha Buhari, the only surviving spouse of the late President, returned to Kaduna shortly after his state burial in Daura, Katsina State, to observe the three-month mourning period, as prescribed by Islamic rites.

    Since her return, the Kaduna home has received a steady stream of condolence visitors from across the country, political allies, government functionaries, old friends, and ordinary Nigerians, all coming to pay their respects.

    Some neighbours expressed their affection by nailing large banners bearing Buhari’s photo to their fences, a quiet show of love and admiration for the man they simply called Baba Buhari.

    Although Buhari returned to his native Daura in Katsina State after completing his second term in 2023, he later came back to Kaduna earlier this year.

    Within weeks of his return, his Kaduna residence became a Mecca of sorts, especially for politicians from both the ruling APC and opposition parties.

    That period of renewed activity was short-lived, however, as his health deteriorated prompting his trip to London for medical treatment. He never returned alive.

    Now, in the wake of his demise, the buzz is gone from Ungwan Sarki, save he residents’ random footsteps, hushed conversations, and daily Qur’anic recitations.

    For the Kaduna neighbourhood, Buhari’s death is not just a national event, but a deeply personal one.

  • Mai Gaskiya: The life andtimes of Muhammadu Buhari (2)

    Mai Gaskiya: The life andtimes of Muhammadu Buhari (2)

    It is not in doubt that many of us had the impression of a Buhari as a leader driven by genuine concern for the nation’s welfare, one naturally reinforced by his lifestyle and personal conduct. Unlike many political figures who accumulated wealth and lived ostentatiously even under his watch, Buhari’s approach to life contrasted such and combined with his military background and reputation for integrity, created a unique political persona that resonated with millions of Nigerians who had grown weary of corruption and misgovernance.

    Sadly his war against corruption was much truncated with Nigerians not getting much the results they had been promised. First, certain persons in the Buhari administration tinkered with the administration’s resolve by using their office to shield or frustrate attempts to properly prosecute those with charges of corruption. Likewise, the courts rather than serve as grounds for obtaining justice  gave those charged adjournments, entertained frivolous appeals, and allowed one or two technicalities to determine cases with judgements that let off one too many persons who siphoned the nation’s resources.

    On insecurity, Buhari had talked tough whilst campaigning in 2015, on assumption of office the Boko Haram insurgency in the Northeast had reached alarming proportions, with the terrorist group controlling significant territory and creating a humanitarian crisis. The administration’s military strategy, combined with improved intelligence gathering and regional cooperation, succeeded in degrading Boko Haram’s capabilities significantly. While the group remained a threat throughout his tenure, the restoration of government authority over previously lost territories represented a meaningful achievement.

    However, Buhari’s presidency also witnessed the emergence of new security challenges, including escalating farmer-herder conflicts, banditry in the Northwest, and separatist agitations in the Southeast. These multifaceted security issues proved more complex than anticipated, revealing the limitations of purely military solutions to problems with deep socioeconomic roots. The administration’s response to these challenges was often criticized as inadequate or biased, highlighting the difficulty of governing a diverse nation with competing interests and historical grievances.

    Read Also: Buhari: Gambian President Adama Barrow pays condolence visit

    The economy served as Buhari’s most complex challenge. His administration inherited an economy heavily dependent on oil revenues and facing significant structural imbalances. The commitment to economic diversification, while conceptually sound, faced implementation challenges that limited its effectiveness. The administration’s emphasis on infrastructure development, particularly in transportation and power generation, represented genuine attempts to address fundamental constraints on economic growth.

    Also the introduction of social intervention programs, including conditional cash transfers and school feeding programs, demonstrated awareness of the need to address poverty and inequality directly. However, economic growth remained sluggish for much of his tenure, unemployment increased, and Nigeria experienced two recessions. Critics argued that some economic policies, particularly the administration’s approach to exchange rate management and trade restrictions, hindered rather than helped economic recovery.

    An honest assessment of Buhari’s life as an officer, military ruler, politician and civilian president must acknowledge that despite his good intentions for the Nigerian people he by virtue of being first a human had significant shortcomings. Again, the man was unjustly perceived as an ethnic and religious bigot and some of his actions lent credence to them such as his appointments in office as a civilian leader and some of his utterances, however to cast Muhammadu Buhari in such mould is to be unfair to a man who in the aftermath of the civil war treated his Biafran comrades at arms with the utmost form of dignity and this was at the height of the war, one who looked twice to the SouthEast region whilst shopping for running mates and one who gave every region a sense of belonging in his eight years.

    Buhari’s approach to civil liberties and press freedom as a military head of state contrasted deeply with his time as civilian president, though there were a few infringements the general on much occasions played by the rule book.

    Despite these challenges, Buhari’s presidency left a substantial infrastructure legacy that will benefit Nigeria for decades. The completion of major railway projects, including the Lagos-Ibadan and Abuja-Kaduna rail lines, represented significant achievements in transportation infrastructure. I cannot forget to mention the Second Niger Bridge and a number of interventions by the Buhari administration in the SouthEast region, this is a bridge that the Obasanjo, Yar Adua and Jonathan administrations had gyrated about for 16 years with little or nothing to show for it , a man unfairly trolled as a hater of the Igbo nation started and completed in eight years. Similarly, improvements in power generation capacity and the construction of roads and bridges across the country created a foundation for future economic growth.

    The administration’s focus on agriculture, while not achieving all its objectives, helped reduce Nigeria’s dependence on food imports and improved food security in several sectors. The Anchor Borrowers’ Programme and other agricultural initiatives demonstrated a recognition that economic diversification required deliberate policy interventions and sustained investment.

    What ultimately distinguished Buhari’s presidency was the consistency between his personal values and his public service. Throughout his tenure, there were no credible allegations of personal enrichment or corruption against him personally. This integrity, while sometimes accompanied by rigidity in policy implementation, established a standard of conduct that contrasted sharply with many of his predecessors.

    Future leaders can learn from both Buhari’s successes and failures. His anti-corruption efforts showed the importance of institutional reform, while his communication challenges highlighted the need for better public engagement. His infrastructure achievements demonstrated what focused government investment could accomplish, while his economic struggles revealed the importance of comprehensive policy coordination.

    The man who repeatedly sought the presidency out of genuine concern for Nigeria’s welfare, who maintained his integrity throughout his tenure, and who ultimately respected democratic norms by peacefully transferring power, leaves a legacy that transcends partisan politics. Muhammadu Buhari may not have solved all of Nigeria’s problems, but he approached them with sincerity and determination that future leaders would do well to emulate. His greatest contribution may ultimately be the demonstration that principled leadership, even with its limitations, remains possible in Nigerian politics.

  • Former President Buhari’s 12 million votes gone with him

    Former President Buhari’s 12 million votes gone with him

    From my experience as a political apparatchik, as a strategist, and as a Nigerian who has witnessed and been part of different phases of the political evolution of Nigeria and other Countries, the truth is that the 12 million votes of the late former President Muhammadu Buhari (May His Soul Rest in Peace) died with him. There are no more Buhari’s block votes to share. All the politicians who were hanging around late President Buhari were actually leeching on his political capital to win elections at the state and federal levels, and Buhari knew that. That is why President Buhari was not loyal to any of them.

     To contextualise this reality, in northern Nigeria, where the chunk of Buhari’s “12million votes” came from in 2003, 2007, 2011, and 2015, there was a political phenomenon called “SAK”. SAK is a colloquial Hausa word that means “uniformity”. The SAK concept started in the north, especially in Kano State. So, if Buhari was in a political party, politicians leaned on Buhari’s so-called “integrity” political capital to join him as “underdogs” to win the elections. For instance, Mallam Ibrahim Shekarau became governor of Kano State in 2003 riding on the SAK phenomenon, when General Muhammadu Buhari entered into Nigeria’s politics as a Presidential candidate on the platform of the then All Nigeria People’s Party (ANPP), state and national assembly members also emerged. Subsequently, politicians like Senator Umar Tanko Al-Makura became governor of Nasarawa State under the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) in 2011, Mallam Nasiru El-Rufai became the Governor of Kaduna in 2015 under the All Progressives Congress (APC), including Senators and members of the House of federal and state representatives. Prior to their emergence, most of those politicians did not have valuable/significant political capital. And most of them never made serious efforts to build political structures, and now former President Muhammadu Buhari is dead with his votes!

     Former President Buhari knew that those politicians were all leaning on him to achieve political relevance and prominence. That is why Buhari stated the mantra, “I am for everybody, I am for nobody”, during his inauguration as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 2015. Therefore, all those people that we are posturing about claiming political relevance will now have to earn their political relevance, going forward.

     Some Strategic Considerations

    Buhari’s demise has technically reset the voting pattern, which will only manifest during the 2027 elections. It is instructive to note that the Buhari factor was crucial to the APC winning the Presidential and Gubernatorial elections in 2015. In 2023, the Buhari factor, although highly eroded by 2023, still played a significant role in the APC’s victory. But his demise has now opened a new vista for the APC. The hatred of the APC by some citizens is not only due to the perception of poor governance, but also of the perception of a lack of “enough” dividend of democracy given that the core north (North West and North East) who gave President Tinubu and he APC enough numbers to win the Presidency and State governments in the region.

     However, the key performance deliverables of Governors at the States in the northern states are seen by most citizens as the job of Mr. President. Therefore, the non-performance of Governors (where applicable), if not properly communicated, will continue to rub negatively on the image of President Tinubu’s administration, as we approach the 2027 elections. Consequently, the handlers and political leaders holding key positions in the administration of President Bola Tinubu have the responsibility not just to deliver their mandates, but also to communicate clearly and effectively to their fellow citizens at the federal, state levels as well as at their constituencies. Moreover, the sense of entitlement and disdain with which some of the APC leaders behave at the local levels could backfire on the APC. Indeed, Mr. President is doing the best he can at his level, but a “tree does not make a forest”. The APC team should not allow complacency to creep into their psyche or seep into their ranks, because the opposition parties are in disarray. My caution is that it is early days yet to rest on your laurels and allow Mr. President to do all the work! To whom much is given, much is expected!

     Complacency and Simmering Internal Party Concerns

    In my view, the current biggest challenge for APC now is not the opposition political parties;  the biggest challenge that APC will have is the APC itself. That is the issue of managing success, and that is “complacency.” APC is simmering underneath because there is disenchantment and frustration among some of its members.

    Read Also: NEC approves fresh funding for NEMA, States to boost flood response

     Therefore, If the power of incumbency intoxicates the APC to the extent that they don’t take care of their own within the party structure, whether it is the CPC block, the ACN block, the ANPP block and others that feel that they have been abandoned, as we have seen them moving away or they grumble to us behind the scenes, they will play the game of opposition politics or sabotage under the radar; and the North are masters of playing that game. And that is what we call in places like Kano and other parts of the north in Hausa, “Wake da Shinkafa” (Rice and Beans) method, whereby we will vote for a Governor to emerge in a political party, but we are against the President during the Presidential election or vice-versa. Nothing should be left to chance.

    Situational Awareness and Delivery of Good Governance

    Essentially, situational awareness and the delivery of good governance in reality are critical success factors for the APC, i.e., dealing with insecurity, cost of governance, and dealing with the mandate as it were, beyond the political narratives. Because, like I said, the Buhari factor is gone, and most of the self-acclaimed or so-called political godsons of late Muhammadu Buhari, be them the ones that are with President Bola Tinubu today, or those that are currently gallivanting across political parties, do not have the political capital they are claiming to have. While some are selling dummies to President Tinubu so that they remain relevant, others who are malingering in other political parties are also selling dummies and living in a virtual reality, except for a few authentic political leaders. I am sure that President Bola Tinubu is aware of these dynamics, albeit not to the full extent, down to the grassroots in the north. I reckon that is why President Tinubu is making some political moves to reposition the APC. One of such moves is the removal of Dr. Abdullahi Umar Ganduje as the National Chairman of the APC and zoning the national chairmanship to North Central. This is a good development for the APC, because in my opinion, Dr. Abdullahi Umar Ganduje has since outlived his relevance as the national chairman of the APC.

     Hence, basically, the death of former President Muhammad Buhari has reset or will reset the voting pattern in the North in 2027.  It takes time and a lot of work, credibility, and other political assets to muster 12 million votes in 2027, given the level of voter apathy we have witnessed in 2015 in 2019, and 2023. However, I reckon that there would be more voters who would turn out in 2027 because Nigerians will see the reason why they really need to come out to vote and decide who leads them at the national and state levels.

     Focus on State Governors

    What I will say here is that the focus on the state level should be key for citizens to ensure the delivery of good governance in Nigeria going forward. 60% of our lack of performance or the progress of Nigeria can be directly aligned to the non-performance of our state governors.

     Professor Nentawe Yilwatda as the new APC National Chairman

    The emergence of Professor Nentawe Yilwatda as the National Chairman of the APC was the right strategic move by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The agitation of the North Central geopolitical zone with regard to the position of the National Chairmanship of the APC has been finally addressed by Mr. President. I commend Mr. President for this selection that brought about a “dark horse” at a time when there are a lot of contending powerful and relevant forces that Mr. President cannot ignore, e.g. Senator Umar Tanko Al-Makura, Senator Sani Musa, and others that are highly qualified aspirants, but whose selection could rock the already rocking boat of the Middle Belt APC. Thus, the emergence of Professor Yilwatda, not just as a “dark horse”, but also a Christian, is a deft move, and also partly addresses the Muslim-Muslim Presidential ticket issue that has remained a burning political issue. 

     Furthermore, selecting a national chairman from Plateau State, where the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) is reigning at the gubernatorial level, is another suave move to ensure that either before or during the 2027 election, Plateau State becomes an APC state. What remains to be seen is how Yulwata is going to apply strategy, political dexterity, and emotional intelligence to uniting the party and addressing the foundational issues of the power blocks that formed the APC in 2015, which I believe should not be treated with levity.

  • Buhari in the eyes of history

    Buhari in the eyes of history

    By Olabode Lucas

    History abounds with the records of how past world leaders were perceived after they had left political power or after their death. Political leaders like Winston Churchill of Great Britain, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy of the USA, De Gaulle of France, Mao Zedong (Chairman Mao) of China, Juan Peron of Argentina, Pandit Nehru of India, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and Nelson Mandela of South Africa are still remembered by their people and the rest of the world with reverence and admiration for what they did when they were in power.

    Post death adulations are not limited to political office holders alone. Personalities like Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, Jesse Owens, and Mohammed Ali who did not hold political posts, are still enjoying wide acclaim all over the world even though they have departed this planet earth.

    All the people mentioned above were mortals who had their shortcomings and foibles when they were alive. For example, many people in the USA referred to the ‘New Deal’ policy of President Roosevelt as ‘Raw Deal’ even though it got the Americans out of the Great Depression which started in 1929. In Great Britain, Churchill, despite his heroic stand against Hitler, bore the appellation of a war-monger for many years because of the disastrous Operation Dynamo which led to evacuation of allied troops from Dunkirk in June 1940. Juan Peron, despite his immense popularity in Argentina, was accused of providing safe haven for Nazi War criminals in Argentina after the Second World War.

    On the other hand, leaders like Adolf Hitler of Germany, Benito Mussolini of Italy, Joseph Stalin of the former USSR, Francois Duvalier (Papa Doc) of Haiti, Pol Pot of Khmer Rouge fame in Cambodia, Idi Amin of Uganda and Sani Abacha of Nigeria still have their names in infamy of history long after they have gone, because of the negative ways with which they impacted their countries and the world when they were in power. All these people had one thing in common when they were in power, their rules were draconian. Their actions in power led to loss of millions of lives, muzzling of fundamental rights of their people and economic ruination of their countries.

    Since independence in 1960, Nigeria had had many rulers both civilian and military. With the present political dispensation, Nigeria had had eight military and eight civilian Heads of State. Muhammadu Buhari who died on Sunday July 13 in a high brow London hospital featured both as a military and civilian Head of State. His first coming as a Head of State of Nigeria was from December 31, 1983 to August 27, 1985 and in his second coming, as civilian president is from May 29, 2015 t0 May 29, 2023. Thus, Buhari was in the saddle for a total of nine years and eight months, second only to Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, another military cum civilian Head of State in the length of total term served as a Head of State. Many Nigerians no doubt feel with cogent reasons that the late Muhammadu Buhari was the most controversial among Nigeria’s former Heads of State.

    Immediately the death of President Muhammadu Buhari was announced, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu left no stone unturned to give him a befitting burial. The President sent a powerful delegation led by the vice-president to bring his body back from London to the country. The late Buhari was given a well-choreographed state funeral which he refused to give to Shehu Shagari, his predecessor in office when he died.   The state funeral in his Daura hometown was attended by who-is-who in Nigerian political firmament including President Tinubu who received the body from London with all solemnity.

    Now that Buhari has gone to the great beyond, the question is how history will judge him long after the present euphoria surrounding his death. On the two occasions when the late Buhari came to power, Nigerians were really clamouring for change of government. In the first coming in December 1983, Nigerians wanted a change from the crisis and corruption-prone government of President Shagari who came to power again in the 1983 Presidential election that was heavily rigged by the NPN, the then governing party. The coup of December 31, 1983 that brought the then General Buhari to power was widely hailed by the majority of Nigerians who greeted themselves with a ‘happy new coup’ instead of the customary ‘happy new year’ greeting of the festive period. Buhari came to power then with a reputation of a disciplined and no-nonsense military officer who would not tolerate any corruption in the governance of Nigeria. He had as his deputy, another equally no-nonsense military officer in the person of Tunde Idiagbon. The duo introduced some measure of discipline in our way of life through the policy of War Against Indiscipline (WAI). This policy for some period curbed some of our anti-social behaviours, but unfortunately the Buhari military government became draconian. The government promulgated Decree 4 in 1984 and this decree emasculated press freedom, leading to the incarceration of two journalists, Tunde Thompson and Nduka Irabor.  The regime also used a retroactive law to send drug pushers to the gallows. Before long, Nigerians became disillusioned with the military regime. Even his government’s WAI policy was found not to be strictly adhered to by those in power and this became manifest to Nigerians when it was found that his second in command, Idiagbon took his teenage son to Mecca in defiance of the existing law in the country. 

    General Ibrahim Babaginda took the advantage of this general disillusionment to overthrow the draconian regime in August 1985. On getting to power, Babaginda threw overboard all the draconian retroactive decrees of the Buhari military administration.

    On balance, a detached observer would score Buhari low in his first coming as the Head of State of Nigeria. Apart from his WAI policy which was breached by government top officials, it is difficult to point to any tangible achievement of his military administration. Nigerians remember his military administration with fear and in which their fundamental human rights were eroded.

    Read Also: FG deepens neurological health infrastructure investments in Nigeria

    The second coming of Buhari as a civilian president came after he had made three attempts to come back to power. Without any doubt, his coming in 2015 gave most Nigerians hope of a better future. Most Nigerians this time around looked towards him as somebody who possessed all it took to salvage Nigeria from Jonathan’s administration, which was then overwhelmed by problems of insecurity, corruption, economic dislocation, nepotism and decaying infrastructure. In short, Nigerians felt that Buhari was the Messiah to take them to the promised land.

    Unfortunately, Nigerians were badly disappointed with the performance of Buhari during his eight years as the civilian president. The hope that Buhari as a former top military officer would put an end to insecurity was a mirage as insecurity escalated under his administration. There were upsurges in banditry, kidnapping and herders/farmers bloody clashes. His unfortunate admonition to the victims of ferocious herders to cooperate with their neighbours would forever be a blight on his administration. Under him, our economy deteriorated badly as never before and the country was virtually rendered bankrupt, through unbridled printing of trillions of Naira notes.

    On the positive side, during the Buhari administration between 2015 and 2023, there were some infrastructural developments in rail and road constructions. It is also to the eternal glory of Buhari that he laid to rest the issue of June 12, 1993 election. He recognised the late Chief M. K. O. Abiola as the authentic winner of the election and accorded him the highest honour in the land reserved for only Heads of State, the GCFR. In addition to this, he designated June 12, every year Democracy Day to be observed as a public holiday throughout Nigeria instead of May 29, previously designated.

    No leader in history can be regarded as totally bad without any redeeming feature. For a long time, opinions would be divided on the legacy of Buhari in Nigeria. There is no doubt that much was expected from him during his second after he had previously made three strenuous efforts to get the post. Nigerians expected him, therefore, to have prepared himself fully for the job, but unfortunately he was found vacant in the rudiments of governance. Buhari himself was humble enough to admit that he was not perfect as a leader and this must have prompted him at Salah day in April 2023 to ask Nigerians to forgive him of any wrong he might have committed while in office.

    •Prof Lucas writes from Old Bodija, Ibadan

  • Buhari’s leadership as Head of State: My verdict

    Buhari’s leadership as Head of State: My verdict

    By Ray Ekpu

    This assessment of the life and leadership of Muhammadu Buhari who died on July 13 will be in two parts. This first one will dwell on the roles he played in the nation before he became Nigeria’s elected president in 2015. Buhari who joined the Nigerian Army in 1961 had his military training in Nigeria, Britain, India and the United States. He was a six-footer, ramrod straight like a flag pole, and could easily have made an excellent basketballer if he chose to go along that route. He had a sexy tooth gap which gave pleasure to onlookers when he smiled or laughed.

    Buhari as a soldier commanded several army divisions as the General Officer, fought in the Nigerian Civil War that lasted from 1967 to 1970. He was also the military governor of the North Eastern State (now Borno, Bauchi, Yobe, Adamawa and Taraba.) He was also appointed Federal Commissioner of Petroleum Resources by the military government headed by Olusegun Obasanjo. All of these experiences must have made his military colleagues to consider him for the leadership of Nigeria when they deposed the civilian president, Shehu Shagari in the coup of December 31, 1983. He took charge of the country with a firm hand, attempting to instil discipline in Nigerians by introducing what he called War against Indiscipline (WAI). He acted savagely as a true military dictator and enacted the State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree 2 of 1984 with powers to detain persons considered to be security risks to the state without any charge or trial for up to three months. With this decree in force, he filled the detention centres with detainees who were not allowed to have their day in court because the jurisdiction of the courts on such matters had been ousted. Nigerians who bothered to go to court on such matters were told by the judges that their hands had been tied behind their backs.

    Another important element of his leadership was the enactment of laws with retroactive effect. Many people may have accepted that a military government was capable of enacting draconian laws but they did not anticipate that such laws would be backdated to punish people under laws that did not exist when the alleged offences were committed. One such example was that three young men who were accused of drug smuggling were condemned to death by a decree that was hastily enacted and backdated by the Buhari government. They were executed for an offence that did not carry a death penalty when the offence was committed. There was a national outcry against that decree and after the execution of the three men, no person was again executed under that decree. It died a natural death and that was a sad commentary on the cruelty of the Buhari government.

    When Yakubu Mohammed, Dele Giwa and I interviewed Buhari, the new Head of State in February 1984 for the Concord newspaper, he told us that he would tamper with the press. He said so repeatedly. We all got scared. He kept his promise by enacting an obnoxious decree called The Public Officers (Protection against false accusation) Decree 4 of 1984. Under that decree, two journalists of The Guardian newspaper, Tunde Thompson and Nduka Irabor were jailed for one year for publishing a story that was factual and true but which the Buhari government thought would adversely affect the government or its officials. Journalists and other Nigerians were aghast that they now had a government that was an enemy of the truth and was ready, willing and able to punish truth-telling. It was clear to journalists that their profession was at grave risk and they, the practitioners, were at grave danger too.

    There were protests on the jailing of the two journalists and when the time for them to be freed from prison was near, journalists planned to go to the prison premises and give them a rousing reception. A few days to their release date, the government smartly released them to avoid the huge reception that the journalists had planned for them. That action by the government had indicated that it was remorseful and no journalist was tried for any crimes under Decree 4 until Buhari was toppled.

     His government thought that the Shagari government was corrupt, was negligent of the economy and that was why they had to do a coup to remove that government but they soon found out that the governance of a huge country like Nigeria was not the equivalent of manning an army battalion. The government packed a number of people into detention for alleged corruption and economic crimes and introduced severe austerity measures that failed to deliver the immediate and refreshing results that Nigeria expected. So corruption was not resolved; the economy did not recover and Nigerians were wondering what Buhari had achieved.

    Read Also: Nigeria, others rally for united global action on food security at UN Summit

    And Buhari thought that a change of currency could do the trick. He asked that the Customs officials must scrupulously check all luggage brought into the country from abroad but one incident showed that Buhari was not as saintly as he had pretended to be. One traditional ruler related to one of his aides came into the country with 53 boxes and the Customs officials were not allowed to examine the contents of the boxes. Buhari did nothing about it. He simply looked the other way. That was evidence that the fierce looking dictator had a soft and partisan part in his body. The case of the 53 suitcases became a minus for a government that had posed as a disciplined and impartial administration. That incident also showed that the greater the power, the greater the abuse. He was not able to live down that incident.

    But it is obvious that a tyrant does not mind being hated so long as he is feared. Buhari continued to carry on as if the world started and stopped with him but he did not know that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for the good to do nothing. His colleagues in the Army were obviously embarrassed by his rigidity, inflexibility and his holier-than-thou attitude which tended to give the military government a bad name. They then decided to topple his government in August 1985 and gave the baton of leadership to General Ibrahim Babangida. They arrested and detained him for a few years. As soon as Babangida took over, he sought to appease the angry public by releasing many of the people who had been detained indefinitely without trial on the basis of Decree 2. The government also made some pleasant overtures to the press and wooed them while Buhari was cooling his feet in a detention centre somewhere.

    His overthrow was a damning commentary on his character and competence as assessed by his colleagues and affirmed by Nigerians because at his overthrow, there was singing, drumming and dancing all over the country. And when he contested the presidential election in 2003, Nigerians said No to him. He tried again in 2007 they repeated the rejection. And did so for the third time in 2011. And when he got repackaged in 2015 as a born again democrat, Nigerians apparently thought that he had turned a new leaf and decided to give him a Yes answer over an incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan. That success was either a vote for tenacity or an act of forgiveness.

  • Farooq Kperogi’s false claims on Buhari: A moral, legal reckoning

    Farooq Kperogi’s false claims on Buhari: A moral, legal reckoning

    By Bukola Oyeniyi

    Although Nigeria just witnessed a change of leadership and the passing of former President Muhammadu Buhari, one “columnist” has been busy peddling falsehoods and toxic commentary around these events. Dr. Farooq Kperogi – a professor of journalism turned social media provocateur – recently retracted a blatantly baseless claim about the Buhari family and offered a public apology. As one of the many Nigerians he maligned and insulted for challenging his story, I find his belated mea culpa insufficient. This public statement serves as a strong condemnation of Dr. Kperogi’s erstwhile positions on President Buhari’s death and the false information he spread about the collapse of Buhari’s marriage. It addresses both the moral outrage and potential legal ramifications of his actions.

    A Pattern of Sensational Misinformation

    Farooq Kperogi is no stranger to controversial claims. For years, he relished his role as one of Buhari’s “fiercest critics”, penning biting columns and social media posts. Even in debunking wild conspiracy theories, he often did so with a poisonous twist. A telling example came in 2018 at the height of the absurd “Jibril from Sudan” rumor (the claim that Buhari had died and been replaced by a body double). Kperogi ostensibly dismissed the tale as “implausible absurdity,” yet still seized the moment to ridicule Buhari on the world stage, agreeing with a student’s sneering quip that “while your president certainly isn’t a clone, he sure is a clown”. Such flippant disdain for the truth – mixing fact with personal invective – has become a hallmark of Kperogi’s commentary.

    Fast forward to 2025, and Kperogi’s penchant for sensationalism only grew worse. In the immediate aftermath of President Buhari’s death in July, Kperogi decided to weigh in on how Nigerians should react. He argued in one commentary that Nigerians were grappling with “whether it offends decency to celebrate his death… and whether Nigerians should forgive his betrayal of the country”, calling his own views “slightly unconventional”. Indeed, unconventional is an understatement. While Kperogi professed that he personally found no value in rejoicing at anyone’s demise – citing the inevitability of death to all – he also disturbingly rationalized the public celebration of Buhari’s death under certain conditions. He mused that had Buhari died while still inflicting “harsh policies” on the populace, “it would be justified… if people that were being crushed under the weight of his ineptitude and insouciance exulted”. In other words, he effectively endorsed the idea of dancing on a leader’s grave if the timing fit his narrative of comeuppance. Such a ghoulish stance offends basic decency.

    Even when Kperogi attempted to sound high-minded by urging restraint, he did so only selectively. Publicly, he admonished people “to resist the temptation to mock the dead,” noting that “we diminish ourselves when we rejoice in another’s demise”. He wrote that Buhari’s death evoked in him “an inexplicable sense of loss” despite their deep differences. Yet in the same breath, he took it upon himself to pronounce that Buhari’s legacy of “betrayal” was “both unforgivable and inerasable” by Nigerians – essentially decreeing that the late President’s “offenses to the Nigerian state” put him beyond any human forgiveness. This contradiction reveals Kperogi’s hypocrisy: he appealed for solemnity and compassion on one hand, but on the other hand he fanned the flames of animosity by insisting that Buhari was beyond redemption even in death. Such posturing was nothing more than vindictiveness dressed up as moral analysis.

    The False Divorce Claim: Irresponsible and Hurtful

    Kperogi’s worst transgression came on July 16, 2025, when he published a scandalous claim on his verified Facebook page that struck at the heart of Buhari’s family. With an air of absolute certainty, he declared that Nigeria’s former First Lady Aisha Buhari had been “divorced from the late President Muhammadu Buhari before his death.” According to Kperogi, this was not rumor but fact – information from an unimpeachable source, he insisted. He even alleged that Aisha had reverted to her maiden name (Aisha Halilu) well before President Buhari passed away. To bolster this story, Kperogi pointed to circumstantial “evidence” that, in hindsight, was both flimsy and intrusive: he noted that the First Lady hadn’t accompanied Buhari to his hometown Daura upon retirement, that Buhari lived alone in Kaduna afterward, and that when he fell ill, “she reportedly hesitated [to go to London to care for him] because she was no longer his wife.” She only went in his final days “after intense persuasion,” Kperogi wrote. He further insinuated that “during this period of mourning, she seems understandably conflicted about her role” – a snide suggestion that her grief was somehow less legitimate because of an alleged marital rift.

    These assertions were invasive, reckless, and deeply hurtful. Kperogi was broadcasting intimate allegations about a private marriage – something clearly beyond the realm of public interest – as if they were gospel truth. He did so without any official documentation, without a single on-record confirmation, and without giving Mrs. Buhari the basic courtesy of responding. In effect, he treated a sensitive family matter as fodder for Facebook gossip, at a time when the woman in question was freshly mourning her husband.

    Unsurprisingly, this salacious post went viral, spreading like wildfire across social media and even making its way into some online news outlets. And just as unsurprisingly, it drew sharp backlash. Many Nigerians immediately questioned the veracity of Kperogi’s claim – myself included. We asked: Where is the evidence? Why should we trust this single-source story? Rather than pause and reflect, Dr. Kperogi doubled down. Those of us who dared to challenge him were met not with reasoned explanation, but with derision and insults. He dismissed skeptics as ignorant or blind, effectively insulting our intelligence by implying we “didn’t pay close enough attention” to notice the things he claimed to see. It was an astonishing display of hubris. Instead of a responsible journalist’s healthy skepticism, Kperogi exhibited a propagandist’s certainty – and an egotist’s intolerance for dissent.

    Crucially, the people who actually knew the facts were quick to refute Kperogi’s story. Alhaji Sani Zorro, a former aide to Mrs. Buhari, reached out directly and publicly debunked the divorce claim, conveying the former First Lady’s strong denial. According to Zorro – and confirmed by Aisha’s own account – her marriage was intact until President Buhari’s final breath. She never divorced him. In fact, she was by his side in his last moments, and she fully retained her identity as his wife. She even stood grief-stricken at Buhari’s burial in Daura, receiving condolences from dignitaries – an image that utterly contradicts Kperogi’s insinuation that she had “reverted” to some detached role. The notion that her presence during his illness was “merely cosmetic,” as Kperogi offensively suggested, is patently false.

    Ethical Violations and Moral Outrage

    Kperogi’s conduct in this episode represents a gross violation of journalistic ethics and a breach of basic decency. As a self-proclaimed professor of journalism, he should know that the first obligation of journalism is truth and accuracy – “avoiding the dissemination of false information.” He also should know that “a journalist should respect the privacy of individuals and their families unless it affects public interest.” There was zero public interest served by exposing (or inventing) alleged marital strife between Aisha and her husband. It was salacious private gossip, plain and simple. By broadcasting it without proof, Kperogi violated both the accuracy and privacy tenets of his profession. In the NUJ Code of Ethics, journalists are warned explicitly to avoid sensationalism, libel, and unwarranted invasions of privacy. Kperogi trampled all of these principles.

    Even by his own admission, this was a profound lapse of judgment. In his apology, Kperogi confessed: “I shouldn’t have shared it publicly. Period. Doing so violated every moral and ethical principle I cherish and uphold.” Indeed it did. It is telling that he calls it “one of the worst and cruelest lapses of judgment I have ever committed” – a striking concession from someone who has built a career on being judgmental toward others. He acknowledged that the hurt caused by his disclosure far outweighed any supposed “truth” the information contained. That hurt was immense: Mrs. Buhari was reportedly deeply pained by the public airing of this falsehood, as would any widow who suddenly sees gossip mongers questioning the integrity of her marriage in her moment of grief. Kperogi admits he did “not intend to harm” her, but harm her he did.

    What makes this saga even more galling is the sheer hypocrisy on Kperogi’s part. This is a man who, just days prior, was preaching about empathy and “the importance of compassion in public discourse” upon Buhari’s passing. He urged that “today is not a moment for bitterness… but an occasion for solemn reflection, for empathy with his grieving family.” Yet Kperogi failed to extend even a shred of that empathy to the grieving widow herself. Instead of solemn reflection, he engaged in rash speculation. Instead of affording the family privacy and respect, he splashed their personal affairs on Facebook. It is a moral failing of the highest order that, while Aisha Buhari was still in mourning clothes, Kperogi chose to propagate a narrative that her marriage had broken down – a narrative she never wanted public, and which she vehemently denies.

    By doing so, Kperogi showed callous disregard for the dignity of the dead and the feelings of the living. As one legal commentator noted, “the death of a leader is a moment for dignity, prayer, and restraint – not unverified gossip or salacious speculation.” Kperogi’s actions violated those cultural and ethical sensibilities, effectively politicizing a personal tragedy and undermining the cohesion of the Buhari family at the worst possible time. Even if not punishable by law, this behavior breaches the sacred trust that should exist between a public commentator and the public. It is simply indecent.

    Arrogance and Insults in Lieu of Accountability

    From a moral standpoint, it is not just the lie itself that offends, but the arrogance with which Kperogi carried it. When confronted with questions and contrary facts, a responsible scholar or journalist would show humility – or at least caution – in the face of possible error. Kperogi did the opposite: he dug in. He treated the absence of evidence as evidence in itself, essentially telling the world, “Trust me, I know this to be true, and if you don’t see it, you’re blind.” Such smug certainty is the enemy of truth. It also revealed a startling contempt for his audience. Those of us who pointed out holes in his story were not engaged or rebutted civilly; we were ridiculed and summarily dismissed. Kperogi heaped scorn and personal insults on anyone who challenged him – a tactic that is as unprofessional as it is unbecoming.

    This kind of bullying behavior betrayed Kperogi’s lack of good faith. It suggested that his goal was never to enlighten, but to impose a narrative at all costs – even at the cost of his credibility and our civility. By lashing out at critics instead of answering their legitimate concerns, he lost any moral high ground he might have claimed as a truth-teller. In hindsight, his combative posture hints that he might have sensed his story was built on shaky ground, yet pride and ego wouldn’t let him concede. He preferred to suppress dissent through intimidation. This is utterly unacceptable. No intellectual – and certainly no professor – should conduct discourse in that manner. It is a violation of the principle of fairness and impartiality, which calls on journalists to “provide a right of reply to individuals who are the subject of critical reporting.” Kperogi afforded Aisha no such right of reply, and he spat on the feedback offered by others. In doing so, he showed “academic irresponsibility,” abusing his platform for what can only be described as character assassination.

    To Dr. Kperogi, I say this: an apology to Aisha Buhari was the least you could do. But beyond Aisha, you also owe apologies to the many Nigerians you maligned when they rightly questioned you. Your Facebook post did not just hurt the former First Lady; it insulted the intelligence of the public and the integrity of discourse. The “needless and deeply regrettable hurt” you caused, by your own admission, extends to all who care about truth in our public sphere. Those insults you hurled in defense of a lie – they will not be forgotten. True accountability would require you to acknowledge that we, the people who called you out, were right to be skeptical, and that you were wrong to be so caustically dismissive.

    Legal Implications: Falsehood Is Not Without Consequence

    Beyond the glaring ethical issues, Kperogi’s conduct may well have legal repercussions – a point he would be wise to heed. In Nigeria, reputation is protected by law, even for public figures and even in death to some extent. Spreading a false story that the former First Lady was secretly divorced touches on defamation, privacy, and possibly other torts. Let us be clear: defamation occurs when someone publishes a false statement to a third party that harms another’s reputation. By broadcasting that “Aisha and Buhari had divorced” – a claim which was never confirmed and now appears false – Kperogi absolutely met the first two elements of defamation (falsehood, publication) and very likely the third. This accusation painted Mrs. Buhari in a negative light, implying she misrepresented her status and perhaps suggesting disloyalty or personal failure. Right-thinking members of society could indeed think less of her if they believed she abandoned her husband or lied about her marriage. In fact, accusing Aisha Buhari of misrepresenting her relationship with her husband “may amount to defamation by implication (innuendo)”, as one legal analysis noted, causing “reputational injury to her and the Buhari family.”

    It’s true that under common law, one cannot defame the dead – but Aisha Buhari is very much alive, and her own reputation is at stake. Nigerian law (as well as Islamic law applicable in the North) recognizes the rights of a spouse and family not to have their honor unjustly tarnished. If a false claim like this causes people to scorn or ridicule her, it is actionable. Let’s not forget, Mrs. Buhari has shown willingness in the past to defend her reputation through the courts – for instance, she once sued a sitting governor for defamatory statements, underscoring that she does not take such attacks lightly. Kperogi could very well have been facing a lawsuit for libel or slander here.

    Another angle is the tort of injurious falsehood. This is similar to defamation but focuses on false statements made maliciously that cause damage to a person’s interests (particularly economic or relational interests). By alleging that Aisha “was no longer Buhari’s wife” and implying she had to be begged to care for him while he was dying, Kperogi’s post clearly had the tendency to cause public contempt for her. It painted her as someone who might have deserted her ailing husband – a damaging insinuation that could hurt her public image and opportunities. If proven that he made these claims with reckless disregard for the truth (which he effectively admitted), that edges into malice. Under the law, a malicious falsehood that impugns someone’s title or status (in this case her status as legitimate wife and widow) is grounds for a civil action. In plain terms, he wronged her in a way that the law recognizes and can remedy.

    Moreover, given the context, we should consider the cultural and religious gravity of Kperogi’s lie. President Buhari and Aisha were Muslims married under Islamic law. In Islam (and under Shari’ah as observed in Northern Nigeria), falsely accusing a woman of improper marital conduct or claiming she is divorced without evidence is extremely serious – it can be deemed “qadhf” (false accusation), which is considered sinful and in some cases criminal. Importantly, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove a divorce in such matters. Kperogi had no proof whatsoever. His public claim violated not only civil norms but potentially religious ones, amounting to a form of slander in the community’s eyes. This deepens the offense because he was not just commenting on a political figure; he was trampling on personal status issues governed by both law and faith.

    Read Also: BAT Nigeria mulls export reforms, showcases sustainability milestones at CEO Forum

    Kperogi should also remember that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Nigeria’s legal system (including our cybercrime laws and Penal Code) does provide for penalties against spreading false information that harms others. As the Western Post aptly put it, “platform holders have a duty to verify facts, especially when speaking on sensitive private matters like death, divorce, or legacy.” When that duty is flouted, there may be legal reckoning. If Mrs. Buhari had chosen to sue, Kperogi could have faced a rigorous court battle to defend his actions – a battle he would likely lose, given that truth is the primary defense in defamation and he had none to offer. In the end, he saved himself from this by retracting the claim and apologizing. But the fact remains: what he did was potentially libelous. As the saying goes, no one is above the law – “not even columnists with global platforms like Kperogi.”

    Conclusion: A Call for Accountability and Integrity

    Farooq Kperogi’s handling of this episode has been a masterclass in irresponsibility, and it must be condemned in the strongest terms to discourage such behavior in our public discourse. He spread a hurtful falsehood about a family at their lowest moment, defended it with unprofessional ferocity, and only backtracked when the weight of evidence (and public anger) left him no choice. While his apology to Mrs. Buhari was necessary and appropriate, it does not erase the damage done – to the Buhari family, to those he insulted, and to the standards of journalism he professes to uphold.

    From a moral perspective, Kperogi’s actions were shameful. They violated the basic human decency we owe to one another, especially in times of grief. No pundit or professor should ever forget their humanity in pursuit of a scoop or a “well-sourced” story. Kperogi did, and in doing so he lost a great deal of respect and credibility. He chose gossip over compassion, ego over truth, and malice over humility. That is a stain on his integrity that an apology alone cannot wash away.

    From a legal perspective, his actions were playing with fire. The “reckless commentary” he engaged in carried “legal danger” – exposing him to potential defamation claims and other liabilities. He would do well to remember that in the eyes of the law, reputations are not fair game for casual speculation. There are consequences for spreading lies, and he narrowly avoided learning about them in court. This incident should serve as a warning to all commentators: rumor-mongering can get you sued, and being a scholar or social media celebrity will not shield you from accountability.

    Moving forward, I urge Dr. Kperogi to reflect deeply on the ethical duties of his platform. He owes not just Aisha Buhari, but the public at large, a commitment to do better. If he truly “cherishes and upholds” moral and ethical principles as he claimed in his apology, let him demonstrate that by exercising caution, compassion, and professionalism in all future commentary. Let him also extend apologies to the individuals he insulted along the way – because a truly contrite person makes amends not only to the powerful figure they wronged, but also to the ordinary people whose only “crime” was speaking truth to him.

    Finally, to my fellow Nigerians: let this episode strengthen our resolve to hold public figures accountable. Misinformation is a cancer in our society, and it is especially pernicious when spread by those who should know better. We must continue to challenge false claims and demand evidence, no matter who is making the claim. Whether it’s a WhatsApp rumor or a professor’s Facebook post, a lie is a lie, and it must be confronted. Farooq Kperogi’s falsehoods have been exposed and retracted, but the lesson lingers: Integrity matters. Truth matters. And those who abuse their influence to peddle lies and insult our collective intelligence must be called out, without fear or favor.

    In the end, “commentary is not immunity,” as one observer noted. Freedom of expression carries responsibility. Dr. Kperogi has learned this the hard way. May this be the last time he – or anyone in our commentariat – wilfully violates the sacred trust of the public. Nigeria deserves better from its intellectuals and journalists. And when they fall short, we will not hesitate to condemn it in unambiguous terms.

    Sources:

    •Sahara Reporters – “Aisha Buhari Was Divorced From Late President Buhari Before His Death – Farooq Kperogi”

    •TVC News – “Kperogi Retracts Buhari Divorce Claim, Apologises To Aisha Buhari”

    •Politics Digest – “Why I Won’t Celebrate President Buhari’s Death — Farooq Kperogi”

    •Farooq Kperogi (Notes From Atlanta) – “Celebrating Buhari’s Death Vs Forgiving Him”

    •Farooq Kperogi (Notes From Atlanta) – “Apology to Aisha Buhari”

    •Western Post – “Farooq Kperogi, divorce allegations, and the Aisha Buhari controversy: The legal danger of reckless commentary”

    •Farooq Kperogi (Notes From Atlanta, 2018) – “Buhari: Not a Clone but a Clown”

    •Oyeniyi  is an Associate Professor at the Missouri State University. He can be reached by email at BukolaOyeniyi@missouristate.edu

  • In search of foreign healers

    In search of foreign healers

    When the immediate past civilian president of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, and a former military ruler of the country, Abdulsalami Abubakar, were both hospitalised at the same London facility, at the same period, it was a perfect picture of the imperfections of the country’s medical system. 

    Buhari’s death from an undisclosed illness at the elite private hospital known as The London Clinic, on July 13, predictably raised further questions about Nigerian leaders and their penchant for medical tourism. He was 82. 

    After his death, Abubakar, 83, was reported saying he was “in the same hospital together with Buhari but I have been discharged.” He was military head of state from 1998 to 1999.   

    Seeking healthcare in foreign lands is not peculiar to this category of Nigerians. Indeed, it can be described as a “disease” afflicting many Nigerians who can afford to go abroad for medical purposes.

    When political leaders, particularly those at high levels in the political hierarchy, routinely seek medical attention abroad, it suggests that they failed to improve their country’s medical system.  Buhari was reported to have spent at least 225 days abroad for medical purposes during his eight-year period in office.

    His reported medical tourism to the UK as president included six days in February 2016, 10 days in June 2016, 50 days from January 2017, 104 days from May 2017, four days in May 2018, 15 days in March 2021, 12 days in March 2022, two weeks from October 31 to November 13, 2022.  

    It was a historic triumph for Buhari, a retired army general and former military head of state, when he was democratically elected President of Nigeria in 2015 after three unsuccessful attempts in 2003, 2007, and 2011.   He achieved the feat following a significant merger of opposition parties leading to the formation of the All Progressives Congress (APC), his party when he won the presidential election. He had trumped the incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) – an unprecedented accomplishment in the country’s democratic history. 

    Interestingly, he first ruled Nigeria following a military coup that toppled Shehu Shagari’s civilian democratic government, in December 1983.  This was just four years after the country returned to democracy in 1979, after 13 years of military rule. This military intervention involving Buhari ushered in another long period of military dictatorship that ended in 1999. He was removed in a palace coup led by Ibrahim Babangida in August 1985.

    Buhari’s two-term presidency as a converted democrat, from 2015 to 2023, had promised a three-pronged attack on corruption, insecurity, and poor infrastructure. His decision to enter civilian politics may well have been inspired by a sense of personal unfulfillment and a need to demonstrate that he could lead the country to a better place, considering that a coup had abruptly ended his first regime. However, his entry and self-projection as a reformed autocrat attracted criticism and rejection in some quarters.

     His personal integrity was widely considered unassailable. Given his military background, he was expected to significantly improve security in the country. However, his administration proved to be long on promise and short on delivery. Under him, the anti-corruption fight failed to live up to expectation; and the country’s security crisis, fuelled by terrorism and banditry, outlived his presidential tenure.  But he made some impact in infrastructure, particularly roads and railways.

    Importantly, he inaugurated a 14-bed Presidential (VIP) Wing of the State House Clinic, in the Presidential Villa, on May 19, 2023, just before he left office. His administration had launched the N21bn project in November 2021.  Designed to reduce the need for medical travel abroad, it was described as a specialised Intensive Care Centre to cater for the President, Vice President, their immediate families and VIPs. Against this background, it is ironic that Buhari died while seeking healthcare abroad.

    Speaking on his death, the President of the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), Prof. Bala Audu, was reported saying, “When public officials entrusted with strengthening our health sector consistently opt for foreign hospitals, it raises serious concerns. It shows a lack of faith in the very system they are supposed to be building and sustaining.”

     A former spokesman for Buhari, Femi Adesina, who defended his foreign medical trips, argued after his death, “If he had said I’d do my medicals in Nigeria just for show off or something, he could have long been dead.”

    Read Also: TOSIN ADARABIOYO: ‘Coming to Nigeria for first ‘time feels heavenly’

    The implication that Nigerian medical practitioners are incompetent is “a false and dangerous narrative,” the President of the Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors (NARD), Dr Tope Osundara, asserted.  Audu described the argument as “deeply offensive,” and noted that the issue “has never been about competence.” According to him, Nigerian doctors and nurses “are among the best in the world.”  The real problem, he stated, “is the lack of adequate infrastructure and equipment, particularly in public hospitals.”

    Remarkably, under the Buhari administration, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo made the headlines in July 2022 after undergoing orthopaedic surgery locally – at the Duchess International Hospital, Ikeja, Lagos.  It was reported that some “government and private practice doctors” had advised him to consider having the operation abroad, but he had insisted on a Nigerian hospital and Nigerian medical experts. The success of the operation not only confirmed his faith in the hospital; it also corroborated the facility’s image as a centre of medical excellence.   

    After his treatment, Osinbajo had described the hospital as “world-class, both in the quality of its medical personnel and its management,” adding that “it is living up to its mission to reverse medical tourism by delivering the highest standards of care using the most advanced technology and treatments to give the fastest, most convenient access to the best medical expertise available anywhere in the world.”

    However, it must be noted that the hospital is a private hospital. Osinbajo’s surgery experience there gives the impression that its status as a private hospital was an important contributory factor.

    Are there public hospitals in the country that boast similar standards? The answer to the question may well be negative.  The Federal Government’s insignificant budget for the health sector over the years is mainly responsible for that.

    Notably, under the Remuneration of Former Presidents and Heads of State (and Other Ancillary Matters) Act, the Federal Government is to provide for the medical expenses of former presidents and their immediate families, covering treatment within the country and abroad.

    If this is the case, it behoves the occupant of the office to ensure that there are standard facilities locally that can handle their medical needs, and those of their compatriots, instead of relying on high-cost medical tourism.  Sadly, Buhari’s death underlined the reality that expensive healthcare abroad does not necessarily guarantee life.

    Medical tourism continues at the highest levels of government in the country. This is a damning proof of its underdeveloped healthcare system and underscores lack of confidence in it.   

  • Buhari’s demise and implications for national politics

    Buhari’s demise and implications for national politics

    By Mogaji Seye Oladejo

    The passing of former President Muhammadu Buhari marks the end of a defining political chapter in Nigeria’s history. A man of paradoxes—soldier and democrat, nationalist and centralist, austere yet polarizing—Buhari’s death leaves a complex legacy that will continue to shape Nigeria’s national politics for years to come.

    As tributes pour in from across the globe, Nigeria stands at a reflective crossroads. The former president’s influence, both symbolic and strategic, was felt in every corner of the country. His exit from the stage—this time permanently—raises critical questions about the future of power, political alignment, and regional dynamics in Africa’s most populous democracy.

    A force departs

    Muhammadu Buhari was not just a two-time leader; he was a political institution. Rising to power as a military head of state in 1983 and returning as a civilian president in 2015, his career spanned nearly four decades of national transformation. His appeal in the North, particularly among the masses, was unrivaled. His rhetoric of integrity and anti-corruption resonated in a country hungry for honest leadership.

    With his demise, a stabilizing figure in northern politics is gone. Buhari served as a rallying point for the conservative northern elite and a symbol of identity for many in the region. His absence is likely to cause a leadership scramble, as influential figures seek to inherit his political capital and maintain northern dominance in national discourse.

    A party without its patriarch

    Buhari’s death strikes at the heart of the All Progressives Congress (APC), a party he helped build and lead to power in 2015. Though no longer president, his voice and moral authority still carried weight in internal party affairs. He was a bridge between factions, particularly between the technocratic West and the conservative North.

    Read Also: Nigeria’s foreign policy thrust boosts its global credibility – Ojukwu

    Now, the APC faces a critical test. Without Buhari’s unifying presence, internal cracks may widen. Already fraught with ideological disunity and regional competition, the party must redefine its post-Buhari identity. Will it consolidate around President Bola Tinubu’s leadership, or splinter into competing interest blocs?

    Reshaping regional power dynamics

    Buhari’s tenure as president reasserted northern political dominance, often at the cost of perceived marginalization in the South—especially in the Southeast and South-South. His death could reconfigure this balance. With the North momentarily lacking a commanding figure of Buhari’s stature, southern politicians may find new space to assert influence and renew calls for restructuring, equity, and decentralization.

    The long-standing conversation around true federalism, resource control, and state police may gain traction in the absence of Buhari’s centralist approach. His strong opposition to constitutional restructuring was a key roadblock to change. That roadblock is now gone.

    New room to breathe

    Under Buhari, the opposition struggled to mount a strong challenge, partly due to his enduring popularity in key regions. His moral standing, cultivated over decades, gave the APC an advantage even when its governance record was mixed. With his death, the aura of the APC as a “moral corrective” to past administrations may be tested.

    Opposition parties like the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Labour Party, and newer third forces could seize this moment to rebuild and reconnect with citizens disillusioned by the old order. The opportunity for a reset in Nigeria’s political narrative is real—if the opposition is willing to evolve and offer a clear alternative.

    Generational shift and aational memory

    Buhari’s demise may also accelerate a generational transition in Nigerian politics. Many of the country’s most influential leaders still belong to the independence and military eras. As figures like Buhari pass on, the stage is being cleared for a new class of leaders—digital natives, reformists, and technocrats with different priorities and worldviews.

    How this generation chooses to remember Buhari will shape how it governs. Will his nationalism inspire a renewed sense of public service and discipline? Or will his centralism and controversial handling of dissent serve as cautionary tales?

    Closing a political era

    The death of Muhammadu Buhari is more than the end of a life—it is the end of an era. His story is deeply intertwined with Nigeria’s post-independence evolution: the coups, the civil war, the fragile democracy, the search for national identity. He was often a stabilizer in times of chaos, yet his leadership was not without its contradictions.

    As Nigeria looks forward, it must also look back—at what Buhari stood for, at what he changed, and at what remains unfinished. His death offers a moment for sober reflection: on power, leadership, and the long road toward a more just and inclusive Nigeria.

    The national political space he once shaped is now open for reinvention. Who steps into it, and how, will define Nigeria’s next chapter.

    • Oladejo wrote from Lagos

  • Senators, Reps laud Buhari’s patriotism at tributes session

    Senators, Reps laud Buhari’s patriotism at tributes session

    • Red Chamber hails befitting state funeral
    • He left indelible mark, says House

    The Senate and House of Representatives yesterday showered praises on the late President Muhammadu Buhari for his patriotism, selfless service, and other contributions to nation-building.

    The Senate praised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration for organising a befitting state funeral for the former President, while the House said he left an indelible mark.

    Both chambers observed a minute’s silence in his honour and thanked the Federal Government for naming the University of Maiduguri after him.

    The resolutions of the Senate followed the consideration and adoption of a motion, titled: “Demise of General Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR, Former President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” moved by the Red Chamber during plenary.

    The motion was sponsored by Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele (Ekiti Central).

    In their contributions, the senators extolled the sterling qualities and exemplary lifestyle of the late President.

    Senate President Godswill said: “We are here in this Chamber in a solidarity session for President Muhammadu Buhari.

    Read Also: Reps honour Buhari with valedictory session, says ex-president left indelible mark

    “What we are doing today in Nigeria is beyond our understanding. We began by adjourning the National Assembly for one week, particularly the Senate, in his honour.

    “He served Nigeria. He awakened Nigeria. Nigeria was a part of him. From his youth to his adulthood, he dedicated his life to this country.

    “So, upon his demise, we immediately suspended National Assembly activities for one week in his honor. We even postponed the constitutional sitting of the Northwest Zone to enable our colleagues to participate in the various ceremonies.

    “Today, we use this opportunity to commend the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, for setting the right tone in honouring a leader who served the country well.

    “The entire country is proud of what this administration has done in paying respects to Buhari.”

    Led by Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, the House of Representatives noted that the late President Buhari left an indelible mark on Nigeria’s legislative and democratic landscape.

    Abbas said: “We pause to honour the memory of a statesman who left an indelible mark on Nigeria’s legislative and democratic landscape, President Muhammadu Buhari. His passing at the age of 82 marks the close of a significant chapter in our nation’s history.

    “As we reflect on his life, we do so with solemn gratitude for his service, particularly his contributions to the strengthening of this institution and the laws that will guide Nigeria for generations…”

    A former Deputy Speaker, Ahmed Idris Wase, recalled how the former President prevailed on him to drop his ambition of becoming the Speaker of the House in 2019 in support of Femi Gbajabiamila.

    He said Buhari explained to him that he liked the way Gbajabiamila, as leader of the House between 2015 and 2019, led critical debates on the activities of government, hence his support.

    Ahmed Jaha (APC, Borno) also recalled how the late President rescued about 19 of the 22 local government areas in Borno State from the grip of Boko Haram and created the North East Development Commission to address development challenges in the region.

  • Buhari (1942-2025): Tears not enough

    Buhari (1942-2025): Tears not enough

    • By Issa Aremu

    On Tuesday, July 15, former President, Muhammadu Buhari, was buried at 82 according to Islamic rites. The clarion ritual humbles the living; stones or wood are placed at the bottom of the grave, with the remains of the dead laid on top, their right side facing the Qibla.

    “If he had said I’d do my medicals in Nigeria just for show off or something, he could have long been dead” according to Femi Adesina, former spokesperson to late President Buhari! That unquotable quote of Femi notwithstanding, death defies doctors in Nigeria or abroad! The Arabs put it succinctly: “Death is the black camel that kneels before every door”.

     As a progressive activist who joined other democratic forces to confront military dictatorships (Buhari/ Idiagbon inclusive) in the 80s, the “essential Buhari” to me is what Professor Ibrahim Gambari (one time Buhari’s foreign minister and latter day chief of staff) called “converted democrat”. There is a consensus that the bagful of condolences by a multitude of mourners further underscored the globally impactful life of the leadership of late President Buhari.

    Which then raises the question: why posthumous tears for our leaders when they almost agonised alone, almost vilified while in office, while alive?

    I agree with the “Mourner-in-Chief,” President Bola Ahmed Tinubu that the former President Buhari “stood firm through the most turbulent times, leading with quiet strength, profound integrity, and an unshakable belief in Nigeria’s potential”. It was time for a changed narrative of Africa from the unhelpful and smeared exaggerated failings of the continent’s leaders to conscious,  intentionally balanced recognition and promotion of their landmark, enduring legacies when the leaders are alive.

    Nelson Mandela was the first democratically elected president of South Africa in a fully representative multi-racial democratic election. He was the country’s first African head of state, having spent 27 years in prison fighting against apartheid (almost a century-long brutal crime against humanity). The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) commendably declared July 18 every year as Nelson Ma ndela International Day (NMID) in  2010, while Madiba was alive. He died two years after, December 5, 2013 . Infact, it was Mandela who, while alive, suggested how he wanted his birthday celebrated. No global citizen has been so deservedly honoured! And he was an African!

    Fifteen years running,  NMID has become a global platform inspiring people annually to celebrate Mandela’s legacy by giving back to their communities for 67 minutes – one minute for each year he spent fighting for justice, his preferred “birthday party timeline ”. Nigeria and indeed Africa should follow in the footsteps of the United Nations. Set aside days to celebrate the impact of accomplished notable African leaders (state and non-state alike!) in the task of nation-building, dating back to the resistance against trans-Atlantic slavery, colonialism, apartheid, racism and the current neo- liberal policy dictatorships of multilateral agencies of varying hues.

    The African nationalists would make a union affiliated to the African Union (assuming the heavenly branch of AU exists); Nnamdi Azikiwe, Herbert Macaulay, Obafemi Awolowo,  Kwame Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyatta, Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti of Nigeria and Margaret Ekpo, Winnie Mandela, Ruth First, Nelson Mandela, Robert Mugabe, Patrice Lumumba, Julius Nyerere, Sam Nujoma, Hastings Banda, George Padmore, Amílcar Cabral, Samora Moisés Mache, António Agostinho Neto, Léopold Sédar Senghor, ad infinitum.

    Read Also: NAFDAC confiscates 88,560 litres of bomb making acids in Kano

    The Eurocentric received wisdom that assumes no good leaders come from Africa must give way to the documented accomplishments of leaders like Buhari. I appreciate the statesmanship of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for leading the unprecedented posthumous celebration of the accomplishments of the late President Buhari, hitherto under-appreciated and even almost ignored while alive. The point cannot be overstated; the late President Buhari symbolised selflessness, sacrifices and incorruptibility in public service like Nelson Mandela. Or better put, Nelson Mandela was inspired by a score of Nigeria’s leaders who, in solidarity, with enormous sacrifices and integrity, damned the apartheid regime and their Western backers,  audaciously backed the liberation struggle that eventually made Mandela walk out of prison in 1990.

    The generation of the great Nigerian leaders included late Nnamdi Azikwe, Michael Imoudu, Wahab Goodluck, Dapo Fatogun, Maitama Sule, Ibrahim Gambari, Hassan Sunmonu, Pascal Bafyau, S O Z Ijorfor, Tafawa Balewa, Ahmadu Bello, Obafemi Awolowo, Aminu Kano, Balarabe Musa, Alao Aka Bashorun, Bala Usman, Abubakar Rimi, MKO Abiola, Shehu Shagari, Ibrahim Babangida and of course Buhari, among others. 

    I agree with President Tinubu that “ through the most turbulent times, Buhari led “ with quiet strength, profound integrity, and an unshakable belief in Nigeria’s potential”. He navigated the storms of economic recessions and disruptions caused by Covid-19 pandemic,  improved 2019 Minimum Wage Act from N18,000to N30,000, ensured public job retention, non-retrenchment of public service jobs and safeguarded private sector jobs despite the challenges of COVID, approved  National Salaries, Income and Wages Commission 20 per-cent pay increase for police officers,  committed to lift 100 million out of poverty in 10 years, respected social dialogue, as tool for resolution of work-related disputes. 

    I praise President Tinubu for consolidating on the progressive traditions of the APC led Buhari- progressive labour policies in the last two years with renewed Hope Agenda that has also further raised minimum wage to unprecedented all time high level of N70,000,  N758bn bond to settle long standing pension liabilities in history , further retained public jobs despite public revenue challenge and created hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect decent jobs in record two years.

    On Tuesday, July 23, 2019, leadership of the textile workers’ union with yours comradely, as the General Secretary, paid a courtesy call on President Buhari at the Presidential Villa. There he formally unveiled the new comprehensive Cotton, Textile and Garment (CTG) policy, a product of extensive consultations with all stakeholders in the textile and garment value chain. He was committed to Nigeria’s reindustrialisation.  Buhari was the first to be conferred with the life membership of the textile workers’ union. While alive!

    Reflecting on  Buhari amounts to a celebration of progressive politics in this democratic dispensation. After late President Musa Yar’Adua, Buhari ideologically defined Nigerian politics to the left of the centre in the current democratic dispensation, the trajectory President Tinubu is traversing via Renewed Hope Agenda; a trillion-dollar economy, audacity of reforms inclusive of progressive taxation, unconditional cash transfers to the poor, inclusion of youths and people living with disabilities, affirmative inclusion of women in governance (no fewer than 32 women served as ministers, Head of Service of the Federation, special advisers and assistants, as well as heads of departments and agencies under Buhari administration)!

    The recent novel Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) by President Tinubu, which caters for tuition fees and monthly upkeep allowances for successful applicants in public higher educational institutions in Nigeria, repayable after their National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), is a progressive policy game changer that opens the doors of higher education to the children of the poor. Mandela once observed that “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” The high point of the tenure of the late  6th democratically elected President Buhari was the historic official proclamation of June 12 as Nigeria’s real democracy Day in 2019. That singular historic, courageous and just decision by President Buhari’s leadership conclusively and commendably put a welcome closure to the tragedy of the annulment of the 1993 popular election won by the late Abiola. Tinubu has rightly further recognised Abiola as a duly democratically elected President of the Republic.

    Contrary to the cliche and dogma that the problem of Nigeria is leadership, the problem is indeed the non-appreciation of the visible achievements of the leaders while alive. Tears are understandable for Buhari. But tears are not enough! We dare to appreciate and celebrate leaders we freely choose while they are alive! And we dare to even elevate and deepen their progressive politics and policy legacy. May God make his grave spacious for eternal rest!

    •Comrade Aremu, mni, is Director General, Michael Imoudu National Institute for Labour Studies ( MINILS), Ilorin, Kwara State