Tag: Obasanjo

  • Obasanjo, Atiku and Bode George: Anundying lust after political relevance

    Obasanjo, Atiku and Bode George: Anundying lust after political relevance

    The unholy alliances between some politicians and judges are dangerous to our democracy. Millions of people will come out on the day of the election, queue, collect ballot papers, and cast their votes for their preferred candidates, results will be announced, and everybody will jubilate only for three, five, or seven judges to upturn the popular will of the people.

    “The best the judiciary must do in political cases is to adjudicate, and where there are discrepancies, order a rerun without giving victory to party A or B”.

    “It is wrong to remove the electorate’s power to elect political leaders and for the judiciary to tell us who the winners are. This is not good for Nigeria. This is not good for our electoral system. A compromised judiciary is dangerous” – That was Commodore Olabode George – turned his Lordship, Mr Justice Bode George, this past week, parodying his one- time Commander – in – Chief, General Olusegun Obasanjo, who had earlier lampooned the Nigerian judiciary in like manner, teaching the judiciary how to perform its constitutionally prescribed function of interpreting Nigerian Laws.

    Who will tell these people that Nigeria has long thrown away the military yoke under which they ruled Nigeria roughshod for decades?

    It will also be apposite to ask them whether they were both in Siberia when only  five days to the swearing in of  victorious candidates in Zamfara state after the 2019 general election, the supreme court sacked all the  APC candidates who had swept the polls,  resulting in the party losing seven house of rep seats, three senatorial seats,  24  Assembly seats as well as the governorship? Where can we find Obasanjo’s comments or those of Bode George on that occasion, condemning the judiciary?

     It will not be too much either, enquiring as to whether they were on military duty in the Congo when the Supreme court, in February, 2019 overturned a ruling of the Court of Appeal, and barred, all APC candidates from contesting elections  in Rivers State? Where, in the name of fairness did Bode George or Obasanjo address their Press conferences when, hours to his being sworn in as Bayelsa state governor in February 2020,  the Supreme court nullified the election of gentleman, David Lyon, for no fault of his, but in accordance with the law of the land?

    This is always the problem with haughty  politicians who believe themselves wiser than everybody else.

    Left to these men of yester years, it was not “3, 5 or 7 persons calling themselves judges” who ruled  on those occasions but a BATTALION of judges. Indeed, how many judges sat on the Supreme court panel that quashed Bode George’s jail term, one hundred?The earlier these people realise they are in the past the better, or is it now, after 24 years  of Tinubu’s successive, progressive government in Lagos state that Bode George will lead PDP to power? On what basis?

    Attentive Nigerians must have noticed how, of recent, these once powerful men have, one way or the other, been clogging our eardrums with their jeremiads over all manner of things.

    These men, who had said they would be in power for 60 years had been swept into political Siberia shortly after their party Chairman, the late  Prince Vincent Ogbulafor, made that public announcement to Nigerians and,ll being men of unaccountable power who saw elections as ‘do or die’, not many Nigerians doubted them.

    Their party, the PDP, which the U.S Council on Foreign Relations saw as not a political party, “judging by conventional Western tenets, but rather as merely an oil – loot sharing cartel since it has no distinctive political colouration or ideology”,  merely out  to rip Nigeria to shreds.

    And how did they do that?

    Below is how Sahara Reporters captured the expose by Mike Achimugu, an aide to former Vice President Atiku who brandished a video of the VP, saying the following

    :“What happened was when  Obasanjo and I  came into office, I advised the president against open corruption. “I told him to give me three people he trusts and I will prepare three companies in which they will be subscribers or rather, the directors, so that  any contract we award they will act like consultants, and they will be given a fee. That fee is what we shall use to fund the party.”

    “I now incorporated companies and put them as subscribers. One of the companies was Marine Float”.

    There is copious evidence, home and abroad, that these Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) companies were used in stealing tonnes of Nigerian money and ended up landing Nigeria where it is today, broken and broke.

    Apart from a U.S Congressional hearing finding Atiku “guilty of laundering over $40 million in suspicious funds into the United States between 2000 and 2008”, a Nigerian Senate investigating panel also agreed with the findings that Atiku “diverted $145m from Nigerian government accounts”.

    These people are now still lusting after power, and relevance, simply because none of them was punished for their malfeasance,  nor did the crooked Nigerian system saw to it that they were barred from, any longer, holding public office, or eligible to contest any future elections,⁰ as would have happened in any sane country. 

    Also, as reported by Tony Orilade in Sahara Reporters of  28 February, 2007 both President Olusegun Obasanjo and his deputy, Atiku Abubakar, were indicted by the Senate Ad-Hoc committee which investigated the controversial Petroleum Trust Development Fund (PTDF) which saw both men hauling fraud charges against each other.  

    The committee, specifically accused them of abuse of office and diversion of PTDF funds to purposes other than for which the funds were meant. But in spite of the indictment, the committee failed to recommend any punitive measures, preferring instead, that the Senate should decide on that.

    That was how Nigeria missed it to our eternal chagrin.

    On the contrary, however, Bode George’s excesses in power saw him get punished with a jail term; a sentence that was later quashed by the Supreme court in December, 2013, two days after former President Olusegun Obasanjo accused President Goodluck Jonathan of the same PDP, of condoning corruption.

    Had Nigeria taken appropriate measures then, these men would not be back now tormenting Nigeria with all of them calling judges, even Supreme court judges, names.

    Last Sunday on these pages, I sketched how thoroughly inconsolable Obasanjo had become that he completely wrote off liberal democracy, not only in Nigeria, but in the whole of Africa. He barely stopped short of imploring extra – democratic entities to take its place.

    Or what is his ‘African democracy’, if not the rule of the mob, and how exactly would that have satisfied his utmost desire for a Peter Obi presidency?

    Why, if he truly meant well for Nigeria, did he not use all his might to canvass a unicameral legislature for the country, seing that the present system, which he brought about, is not only wasteful but destructive in the long run.

    Had he done that, he would have felt sure he would leave behind a legacy worth the name, and no longer need any fight with the Nigerian judiciary or indulge in his enervating, one – sided war with President Tinubu, all in his long running desire to supplant Chief Obafemi Awolowo in Yoruba land – an outright impossibility.

    Atiku Abubakar cemented his love for power through becoming a perennial presidential candidate. Now after the 6th attempt, it has become a matter of the more you look, the less you see; even though he is currently proposing a fusion of all opposition parties which will, hopefully, adopt him for his 7th attempt. This lust, no doubt, has,  obviously turned to paranoia.

    When he is not doubling down on the government, he is petulantly dismissing the judiciary; the same judiciary he ran to when Tinubu lent him a place in the ACN as Obasanjo was trying to crush him.

    As for Bode George, not a few would wonder why he is still in town after all those promises of fleeing Nigeria if Tinubu became president. Or are we wrong in taking him for a gentleman officer?

    If  he is serious, at all  and not unduly haughty,  shouldn’t he ask himself why the likes of Musiliu Obanikoro, my good friend, Seye Ogunlewe and, last but not the least, Moshood Salvador, erstwhile PDP chairman, Lagos state, who defected to  APC with over 10,000 members, left him and his drowning PDP to team up with the same President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the APC?

    Nothing lasts for ever except the grace of God. These gentlemen should now take their knees off the neck of Nigeria.

  • Obasanjo, Jonathan, Sanwo-Olu, others hail Uzochukwu over luxury brand launch

    Obasanjo, Jonathan, Sanwo-Olu, others hail Uzochukwu over luxury brand launch

    African leaders and dignitaries from across the globe stormed the Lagos VI last Saturday for the grand opening of the most trended luxury brand ‘The Delborough Lagos’, as described by global tourists recently.

    Former Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan as well as Lagos State Governor, Babajide Olusola Sanwo-Olu, took the lead in separate remarks to  describe the young Dr Stanley Uzochukwu, who owns the luxury brand, as a true model to young Nigerians, in particular, and Africans at large.

    In his remarks during the commissioning on Saturday, Obasanjo said, “I don’t have anything to say other than to say, keep doing what you are doing. 

    “I heard the Governor of Lagos State saying that you’re working together. He is helping you and you are helping him and that’s what it should be – the private sector and public sector should work together for the development of the land. It shouldn’t be the other way round. 

    “God that has given you the ability, the resource, the enablement to put this up, will give you the ability and the enablement to build the one that is bigger and greater than this. Thank you very much.”

    On his part, former President Jonathan said: “Stanley came to see me when I was a president. When he interacted with me on his vision, I told him: young man, with this your vision, I want to make young Nigerians billionaires and you should be one of them. 

    Read Also: Osun mosque reopens three years after feud

    “Somehow, it’s like a vision and he carried on with it and today he invited me to be here to commission this luxury brand. 

    “Stanley, you have done well! I appreciate what you’re doing. You are a good example of what we want our young men and women to do. 

    “In short, the whole world today is controlled by very young people. The economy today is not the one that you have to use your muscle but your brain. 

    ‘So if you think positively, you can become the richest person in the world today. The multi billionaires today in the world are below 40 and 45 years old. 

    “Stanley here is comfortable, providing jobs for people. He can move freely without looking at his back to see if police and even SSS is following him. 

    “So we plead with our young boys; the brain you have, your level of intelligence you have that is making you to go through dubious ways to make money, that same brain and level of intelligence can make you make money positively and you will leave in decent society happily.

    “Please, I want young Nigerians to emulate Stanley Uzochukwu! We are here because he is clean and is doing well creating jobs for people but not bringing image problems to this country, he added.

    Gov. Sanwo-Olu also corroborated the former Presidents, saying, “When Stanley and I met, not only the connection becomes instant, but Stanley is a young man that’s well brought up. 

    “We have a conversation that I was truly impressed with him – his humane, his humbleness, his clarity and his set of what he wants to achieve is fundamental and I want to believe that, indeed, if we want to begin to talk of role models in our country, Stanley is, indeed, a clear example of a Nigerian role model than all of us; giving the array of Nigerians that are here and giving the array of Nigerian Senior Citizens that are here to witness this event.

    “You can see that they didn’t come because they just wanted to come and look at the beautiful brand, they came here because a young Nigerian is doing something that is unique, that’s great, that is elegant, that we all can identify with and it is a brand that we can all leave here and say that truly we are blessed in Nigeria.”

    Notable Nigerians at the inauguration ceremony include a formal Senate President and Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Senator Anyim Pius Anyim; the Emir of Kano, HRH, Dr Aminu Ado Bayero; Igwe of Onitsha Kingdom and the chairman of the The Delborough Board, HRM Igwe Alfred Nnaemeka Achebe; Chief (Dr) Mike Ozekhome (SAN); Prof Lilian Orogbo.

    Others were Olu of Warri,  His Majesty, Ogiame Atuwatse III, CFR, Senator Daisy Danjuma and other local and international dignitaries, too many to mention.

  • The Delborough Lagos’: Ex-President Obasanjo prays for Stanley Uzochukwu to build greater brands

    The Delborough Lagos’: Ex-President Obasanjo prays for Stanley Uzochukwu to build greater brands

    Ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo has prayed for ‘The Delborough Lagos’ owner, Dr. Stanley Uzochukwu (@stanleyuzochukwu), to build greater luxury brands.

    The African leader made the prayer during the official grand opening of the world best luxury brand in the hospitality industry on Saturday in Lagos.

    Obasanjo said: “I don’t have anything to say other than to say, keep doing what you are doing.

    “I heard the Governor of Lagos State saying that you’re working together. He is helping you and you are helping him and that’s what it should be – the private sector and public sector should work together for the development of the land. It shouldn’t be the other way round.

    Read Also: Ex-minister disagrees with Obasanjo over democracy not working for Africa comments

    “God that has given you the ability, the resource, the enablement to put this up, will give you the ability and the enablement to build the one that is bigger and greater than this. Thank you very much.”

    Notable Nigerians at the inauguration ceremony included Lagos State Governor, Babajide Olusola Sanwo-Olu; a formal Senate President and Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Senator Anyim Pius Anyim; the Emir of Kano, HRH, Dr Aminu Ado Bayero; Igwe of Onitsha Kingdom and the chairman of the The Delborough Board, HRM Igwe Alfred Nnaemeka Achebe.

    Others are Olu of Warri, His Majesty, Ogiame Atuwatse III, CFR; Chief (Dr) Mike Ozekhome (SAN); Prof Lilian Orogbo; Senator Daisy Danjuma and other local and international dignitaries, too many to mention.

    The Delborough Lagos is situated at Plot 1502 Bishop Aboyade Cole Close, Opposite Krispy Kreme, Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria.

  • Rethinking democracy: Why not

    Rethinking democracy: Why not

    It is in the very nature of intellectual tradition to explore new grounds, new ideas with a desire to discover and improve on knowledge. This entails regularly breaking down old ideas to allow new ideas; bigger and better ideas to grow in their place and flourish.

    Societal progress and development are inexorably tied to the capacities of humans to constantly interrogate their environment, ideas and precepts with a view to expanding the frontiers of knowledge for public good. That was the foray former president, Olusegun Obasanjo, delved into last week when he grilled western liberal democracy both as an ideological construct and development paradigm.

    In his presentation at a consultation on ‘Rethinking Western Liberal Democracy in Africa’, he faulted that ideology for not delivering good governance and development to Africa. Obasanjo chastised western democracy for not factoring in African history and its multi-cultural complexities and in its place, proposed what he called ‘Afro Democracy’.

    He is yet to come clear of the essential features of his model of Afro democracy. But he did not quite hide his dissatisfaction with the representative dimension of the western democratic model. It is a “government of a few people over all the people or population and that those few people are representatives of only some of the people and not fully representative of all the people invariably, the majority of the people are wittingly or unwittingly kept out”.

     He said those who brought the contraption are questioning its deliverability, its relevance today even as he challenged Nigerians to interrogate western democracy in the countries it originated and here as the inheritors of the concept.

    The issues raised are both challenging and profound. They spin around the philosophical and ideological questions embedded in the concept and practice of western democracy. His inquisition is of universal value even as he used Africa as a case study.

    But the presidency did not see his contribution from the above prism. Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Tinubu on information and strategy was quick to blame him for poorly copying that model during his tenure both as military head of state and civilian president.

    He held Obasanjo liable for jettisoning the less expensive parliamentary system which the British colonial masters bequeathed us in preference to the presidential system.  “Obasanjo also knows that he copied this presidential system wrongly. He copied the form and structure. But he didn’t copy the spirit of it”, Onanuga contended.

    Read Also; PHOTOS: Gov Sanwo-Olu hosts Oba Of Benin in Lagos

    The presidency may be within their rights to get Obasanjo share part of the blame for copying the American model of the presidential system. He is also unlikely to escape culpability for some of the observed imperfections of western democracy as practiced in this country.

    But all that can neither obfuscate nor whittle down the fundamental observations raised by the former president. Neither will they stand as justification for the many pitfalls of western democracy especially as practiced in Africa and Nigeria in particular. It is not all about the messenger but the heuristics of his message. Neither is it just a choice between the presidential and parliamentary systems, as Onanuga would wish to argue.

    Even then, our brand of presidential democracy has been found largely deficient for virtually concentrating the powers of life and death at the centre. That has been the basis for agitations for restructuring. But who really listens?

    Obasanjo spoke of ‘Afro Democracy’. He said western democracy has not been able to deliver good governance and development to Africa. And that cannot be faulted.  He also has serious reservations with representative democracy for shutting out a majority of the people. The evidence is not in doubt.

    These are the real issues to interrogate. How accommodative of the history and peculiarities of the African people is western democracy? Are there certain cultural, economic and developmental conditions under which western democracy flourishes that are lacking in our clime? What is the ‘spirit of democracy’ Onanuga alluded to and where do African countries stand on that matrix?

    Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba categorized political culture based on one’s level of political participation and came up with three variants-parochial, subject and participant. In the parochial political culture, people have little awareness of the central government and do not play any active role in governmental affairs. This is found largely in the underdeveloped countries of Africa and Asia.

    The participant category gives opportunity to all citizens to participate in politics. They are aware of their rights, ability to influence political workings and feel it is their duty to participate. The American system of democracy is associated with this variant. Almond and Verba identified the latter as the political culture best suited for democracy.

    What this entails is that the attitudinal support and orientation supportive of effective working of democracy will be found lacking in a clime where the predominant political culture is still parochial. It speaks of dissonance between the political system (democracy) and extant political culture (spirit).

    Sadly, that culture of democracy (spirit) has not been allowed to grow by our brand of democracy that is often skewed by self-serving leaders to function in its most aberrant form. Our variant shunts out a majority of the citizens from active roles in the way they are governed. It is characterized by the subversion of the rules of the game and impositions rendering free, fair and credible elections a near impossibility.

    Obasanjo spoke the minds of many when he questioned the representative nature of our democracy. Representative democracy as opposed to the direct democracy of the ancient Greek city states derived its justification from the large population of modern states. Because of the small size of the Greek City states, it was possible for people to gather in a square and directly determine how they were governed. But the sheer size of modern states precludes that. Hence, the concept of representative democracy that allows the people to freely elect those they trust to represent their affairs.

    The idea is that if people elect those they trust, their interests will be properly reflected in decision making. But how do our representatives actually emerge both at the party primaries and elections proper? How much of the will of the people is reflected in such political recruitment processes?

    That was perhaps, the point Obasanjo raised when he grilled the representative nature of representative democracy with a verdict that our democracy is not just working. Our democracy is not working for its serial failure to reflect the collective will of the people to elect their leaders. Those who capture state power do not derive their mandate from the people. They show scant obligation to good governance and development because the electorate has no way to hold them accountable. 

    Democracy will not thrive with the do-or-die politics in the country. It cannot grow and flourish where all manner of buccaneers are allowed to capture the instruments of state power which they deploy unwholesomely to perpetuate themselves in power. It will not endure in a system where politics is conceived as the quickest source of primitive wealth accumulation.

    As long as we are assailed by these systemic dysfunctions, rethinking democracy will continue a recurring decimal. There is nothing sacrosanct about democracy both as a human contraption and governance construct. It can only remain relevant as long as it continues to deliver on its promise.

    Of late, there have been challenges to the capacity of the American democracy to deliver on its promise. Former president, Donald Trump had after the last presidential election, questioned the fairness and integrity of the election, alleging among others, that tens of thousands of his votes were stolen and credited to Joe Biden. This exposes some of the weaknesses of western democracy and the imperative to interrogate that system.

    Systems atrophy if they no longer serve their need. We are witnesses to the sad fate of a dominant and competing development paradigm-Communism. In a bid to address some of its imperfections, Mikhail Gorbachev came up with the policy of Perestroika and Glasnost that eventually led to the breakdown of the former Soviet Union.

    Why not liberal democracy if it can no longer live up to its bidding? The rise of military rule in about four African countries reinforces the imperative for a re-examination of the suitability of the western development model to the African circumstance.

  • Ex-minister disagrees with Obasanjo over democracy not working for Africa comments

    Ex-minister disagrees with Obasanjo over democracy not working for Africa comments

    A former Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, Chief Nduese Essien has disagreed with ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo over his comments that democracy was not working for Africa.

    Essien, who spoke at the weekend with reporters in Uyo, said the presidential Western style democracy has not failed in Nigeria because it has not been practlsed according to the rules.

    He noted that what  is being practiced  in Nigeria since 1999 is not the presidential system of Western democracy, but a modified form of democracy by the operators of the system.

    He said: “Let me start by saying that this was an interesting assessment by former President Oiusegun Obasanjo, but he took it out of context with realities on ground. Western style democracy has not failed in Nigeria because we have not practlsed it according to the rules.

    “We inherited the parliamentary system from the Colonial masters and  that is a system of democratic government where the head of government derives their democratic legitimacy from the ability to command the support of the legislature.

    “This worked up to the independence supervised by the colonial masters. By 1966 the Military said it was marred by corruption so they discarded it. But by 1979 we adopted the Presidential system. That also worked for four years until the military struck again under the excuse of petty corruption.

     “By 1999 we resumed with the Presidential system which of course involves rigid adherence to the Separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. So in 1999 the system was delivered safely.

    Read Also: Tinubu assures NMU of infrastructural, other support

    “But the operators of the system decided to modify the separation and put all organs of government under the control of the Executive calling it ‘Guided Democracy’. The Executive embarked on deciding the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House and the leadership of the National Assembly.

    “So we reached a stage where the Executive decided to take full control of the National Assembly selecting the leadership of the Assembly. Thereafter they went on to choose and remove the leadership of the parties under the whims and caprices of the President.

    “Then next, the Judiciary fell into the hands of the Executive. Then the Electoral process fell into the hands of the Executive. So what we have practiced since 1999 is not the presidential system of Western democracy, but a modified form which I would agree with Obasanjo is the Afro democracy.

    “Let us not blame the Western democracy, let us blame ourselves for introducing our own version of democracy with unending modifications to bring every institution under the control of the head of government to ensure the next election is won. So let us find some other excuse for not doing well, and not be blaming  Western democracy.”

  • Hypocritical Obasanjo assaults our sensibilities again

    Hypocritical Obasanjo assaults our sensibilities again

    Democracy is not our problem, rather we have issues with those assigned to manage it. Any system that guarantees voting rights, regular and transparent elections, checks and balances in governance, independent judiciary and free press would ultimately deliver a better quality of life for the people, notwithstanding whether it originated from the North or South Pole”.

    “Any system can be used to deliver improved economic conditions for the people where there is vision. The monarchs of the UAE conjured today’s Dubai out of what used to be a desert in fifty years. Although they were despots, South Korea’s Park Chung Hee and Indonesia’s Suharto transformed their countries. What was Obasanjo’s enduring vision for Nigeria or Africa?” –

    An appropriate riposte to Obasanjo’s latest chimeric postulation, delivered by Festus Eriye – a man who was probably not yet in primary school when the military first thrust the megalomaniac on Black man’s greatest agglomeration; an opportunity the gods twice gifted him, but which he messed up grandly when he sought to transmute to a Life President – in his column: ‘There goes Obasanjo again!, The Nation,  Wednesday, 22 November, 2023.

    Obasanjo is now probably too far gone in duplicity, and chicanery, to profit from    Eriye’s seminal words.

    When former President Olusegun Obasanjo was busy writing his letter to Nigerian youths, selling the candidature of Peter Obi of the Labour party,  ahead the 2023 presidential election, nary did he remember to say a word of his new talismanic ‘Afro crazy’, because all he wanted was whose presidential ears he would be pulling behind the veil. That exactly is the problem with those who believe they are wiser than King Solomon.

    Iyabo, Obasanjo’s daughter, has warned us ahead when she wrote in a public letter to her father, which she promised would be her last communication with him, that whatever he cannot control, he attempts to destroy.

    Now that Bola Ahmed Tinubu – a man he loathes to his innards – is President, Western Liberal democracy has suddenly become anathema that Nigeria, nay Africa, must immediately jettison. What is left of  President Obasanjo if he cannot lecture us all on a daily basis is nothing.

    That was why, this past week, having temporarily abandoned his love of letter writing after Nigerians had, on 25 February, 2023 shown him what they think of his self – promoting letters, he bellowed the following at a two-day event organised by the Africa Progress Group, which was held at his  presidential library in Abeokuta, Ogun state:”The weakness and failure of liberal democracy as it is practised, its deliverability and its relevance today without reform as it is practised stem from its history, content, context and its practice”.”Once you move from all the people to representatives of the people, you start to encounter troubles and problems”.

    “For those who define it as the rule of the majority, should the minority be ignored, neglected and excluded?

    When exactly did Obasanjo know this; after Pitobi lost election?

    He went on:

    “In short, we have a system of government in which we have no hands to define and design and we continue with it, even when we know that it is not working for us.

    “Those who brought it to us are now questioning the rightness of their invention, its deliverability and its relevance today without reform.”

    Read Also: Obasanjo’s shameless sophistry

    Has Obasanjo ever doubted he was the greatest leader Nigeria ever had even though his second coming was supposedly under Liberal democracy even though he was at heart a dyed in the wool soldier, far worse than a liberal democrat; for as Professor Jide Osuntokun aptly put it in his column in our daily edition this past week:”the appearance of democracy from 1999 to the end of Buhari’s so – called democratic regime was a military mirage, not a democratic reality”. “Presidents like Obasanjo and Buhari remained essentially military men in democratic toga of agbada and babanriga, wielding almost total control of power and responsibility …”

    Under what circumstances can such a militician then claim to be a populist as Obasanjo is faking here?

    He is simply out to distract the Tinubu government because a man who tried all he could to ridicule Chief Obafemi Awolowo,  claiming that he (Obasanjo) got on a platter, what Awo couldn’t all his life, never one day thought that another Yoruba man could be President of Nigeria in his life time. That simply is the reason he will like to fight Tinubu to the death. But he will more than meet his match in Ashiwaju. That much I can promise him.

    I digress.

    Is he asking Nigerians, and Africans in general – since nothing  exites

     him more than parading as an African leader – to revert  to Athenian democracy of the fifth century B.C,  or to simply change their mode of governance as some men change their women?

    Yes, there  is, indeed, an internal challenge to liberal democracy—a challenge from populists who seek to drive a wedge between democracy and liberalism, but in vain will Obasanjo present to any thinking people as a lover of the masses as nothing in his history, or antecedents in public office, point to him as such.

    Nigerians already know how much value to attach to  this hair brained nonsense like his other past theories that add nothing to knowledge besides self promotion which were intended to portray him as different from President Muhammadu  Buhari, whose  “provincialism,  Fulanisation and Islamisation of Nigeria” – in Obasanjo’s garrulous words – he once sang panegyrics to.

    In his garrulity, speaking to Nigerians, nay Africans, in that selfsame speach, about adopting a new model of government, as if addressing a harem, he said without blinking an eyelid:“we are here to stop being FOOLISH and STUPID”.

    Is such crudity inevitable at a public event?

    But Obasanjo must just show that he is Africa’s ‘numero uno’ statesman, at liberty to mess us up, if he so chooses.

    Whatever good inheres in his latest proposal is completely vitiated by the fact that nothing he says, or  does, is driven by altruism. There are far too many examples of that to delay us listing them.

    So, rather than that sterile exercise, let me do a detour to his widely publicised letter to Nigerian youths by which he tried to, coyly, draw them into Peter Obi’s Labour party wasteland, ahead of the 25 February, 2023 Presidential election which I dealt with on these pages in the article:’2023 -President Obasanjo’s Decoys and Nigerian Youths’, of 15 January, 2023.

    Therein I wrote inter alia:

    “Obasanjo, who I suspect usually momentarily forgets about himself when writing about the presumed failings of others, became something of a teacher of morals in the letter, which he described as an appeal to Nigerians, especially the youth. Therein he painted a picture of Nigeria the country wasn’t under his presidency.

    He also attempted to give the impression that he left power of his own volition, forgetting that the National Assembly had to rescue Nigeria from his Life Presidency gambit through an ingenious Third Term project, for which reason he dubiously convoked a National Political Reform Conference, (NPRC) in 2005 but which was angrily voted down by a diligent National Assembly.

    It is apposite to state at the very beginning that Obasanjo has all the rights, human as well as legal, to endorse any presidential candidate of his choosing, but it is equally important that the Nigerian youths, to whom he specifically directed his appeal, should be adequately

     informed that this is a man of incomparable hubris; a very brilliant man, who can easily sell a poke for a pig, and who, having cancelled the teaching of History in Nigerian schools has , a priori, denied the same youths, the knowledge of the past which they sorely needed in determining the truth, or falsity, of his preachment.

    A past master in decoy, he had cleverly harangued the youths as follows:”My dear young men and women, you must come together and bring about a truly meaningful change in your lives. If you fail, you have no one else to blame. Your present and future are in your hands to make or to mar. The future of Nigeria is in the same manner in your hands and literally so. If for any reason you fail to redeem yourself and your country, you will have lost the opportunity for good, and you will have no one to blame but yourselves, and posterity will not forgive you. Get up, get together, get going and get us to where we should be. And you, the youth, it is your time and your turn. Eyin Lokan” (Your turn”).

    Happily, the Nigerian youth know hypocrisy, and lies, when they see them, conjoined.

    It is not surprising then that he has also recently taken on the judiciary, wondering as to how 3 persons, “calling themselves judges”, could overturn the votes of millions?

    Nothing  reveals a duplicitous Obasanjo more than that unfortunate statement, coming from a supposed statesman,  except that for him, it is absolutely in character.

    This is exactly what I mean about his sometimes suffering from momentary amnesia while criticising others. Otherwise, he would not have forgotten how many state governors he singularly used strong arm tactics to remove from office by deploying a minority of House members to accomplish, where the constitution prescribes two thirds majority.

    Is that a man Nigerians are now expected to take seriously, seeing that the campaign season is already over, and the Labour party man he wanted, so seriously, to FEHIN GBE PON – (that is, carry on his back to victory as he once did in Ekiti state) has already accepted the Supreme court verdict?

    What Nigerians should all join hands in doing is overlook his old age misdemeanours- they used to be far worse, even in morals – and pray that the good Lord grants him long enough life to make him experience a Pauline conversion before he breathes his last.

  • Obasanjo’s shameless sophistry

    Obasanjo’s shameless sophistry

    Former president Olusegun Obasanjo is keenly aware that he manages to attract significant attention every time he speaks or dissembles. Last Monday, for a few newspapers still hooked on his snake oil, he got the front pages and even took the headlines to boot. His talisman obviously still works. This time, however, his fixation is on Western liberal democracy which he considers, for Africans, a boondoggle. Shortly before the February 25 presidential poll, he was obsessed with railroading Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP) into office. When it looked like his candidate was faltering shortly after ballot counting began, the former president desperately advocated the abortion of the election. When no one would buy his miscarriage pill, he advocated popular revolt and actively instigated it. When that also failed, he flirted with one-term presidential tenure. That sure cure also gained little traction, forcing him last Monday into what he described as ‘high-level consultation’ at his presidential library complex in Abeokuta on the subject of “Rethinking Western Liberal Democracy in Africa”.

    Nothing will come out of the so-called consultation. Not only is the consultation not altruistic, it is desultory and whimsical. There is often no rigour or substance behind his actions or thoughts. The high-level consultation he is swooning over is essentially to satisfy his narrow political agenda. He was Nigeria’s military head of state between 1976 and 1979 during which he superintended the adaptation and adoption of the United State’s presidential system. Political plagiarism, as he confessed to have embraced, can be very problematic, especially when the presidential system in question is adapted without much thought for its undergirding principles, cultures and philosophies. Chief Obasanjo is not a deep thinker, and he compounded this failing by inspiring a mechanical adaptation of a complex, disciplined and novel system birthed by a college of brilliant and foresighted thinkers. Much worse, even the adaptation was largely eclectic and egotistic. His military government dictated a number of no-go areas, and then hewed out parts of the presidential system that should ennoble the federalist principles without which the system would either wobble or remain inoperable.

    On his second tour of duty as president between 1999 and 2007, he stood for election without his predecessor first promulgating a new constitution. And when he assumed office and perused the document, he waited till the tail end of his second term to attempt a rejigging of the constitution. The enormous powers conferred by that pretentious document greatly gratified his senses. He would brook no attenuation of its immense powers, until perhaps he could trade it for an abridged third term. The obvious fact known to most analysts is that Chief Obasanjo is no federalist. He scorns federalism, an idea completely antithetical to his entire being and worldview. As president, he ran roughshod over the states, destabilised, enthroned, dethroned, subverted, impeached, and intimidated state governors, some of whom barely escaped his tyrannical attempt to jail them. The courts did their best to stand up to him; but against the judiciary, he was excoriating and scurrilous. Now, the same Chief Obasanjo has experienced the epiphany of Western liberal democracy failings. Had his favourite Mr Obi won the poll – the manipulative LP candidate he erroneously believed he could pull by the ears in reprimand – would he be campaigning for a new system he amorphously dubs ‘Afro Democracy’?

    Chief Obasanjo emerged from the Nigerian civil war a controversial, undeserving and narcissistic hero. His books, all of them incapable of teaching anybody anything either by experience or by theory, are completely dedicated to massaging his brittle ego. There is nothing in those books that reflect on the subject of federalism or that took apart Western liberal democracy, whether parliamentary or presidential. He spent much of his adult life cozying up to Western countries, struggling to remain in their good books, despite the nationalisation of British Petroleum (BP) during apartheid days, and he is now spending his twilight years suffering from buyer’s remorse. He came out of the civil war a 33-year-old colonel, became general and head of state at 39, and was elected president at 62. Finding himself on public payroll for nearly all his adult life, he has become inured to hardship, and at old age has also become accustomed to a life of entitlement. It is tempting for such a man to despise or at least ignore the reflectiveness that produces better understanding of arcane subjects like democracy, Western or Eastern, one-party or multiparty.

    Read Also: Obasanjo and his ‘Afro-centred democracy’

    The problem is not his military background. In fact, two other military generals present striking and inspiring contrasts to Chief Obasanjo. France’s Charles de Gaulle, then a colonel, led the Free French Forces during World War II against Nazi Germany, and headed the provisional government in 1944 when the country was liberated. In 1946, he resigned because he disagreed with his colleagues about the workability of the constitution. Both the provisional government and the country distrusted his ideas for a new constitution, repudiated the changes he wanted to introduce, and even accusing of him being obsessed with power. It was not until 1958, when France faced existential threats from angry and rebellious generals that de Gaulle returned to office and gifted the country the Fifth Republic constitution written almost entirely by him. That constitution has endured till today, while the economic policy, the Dirigiste, which he foisted on the country in 1944, produced 30 years of unparalleled growth known as the Trente Glorieuses.

    The second example is from the East. Japan’s 1947 Constitution is described as the oldest unamended constitution in the world. It is a mere 5,000-word constitution drafted by American civilian officials under the supervision of Gen. Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964) during the United States/Allied powers occupation of Japan at the end of World War II. The constitution is a rework of the 1890 Meiji (Emperor Meiji, 1867-1912) Constitution which in turn drew inspiration from the British and Prussian models. Unlike Nigeria’s ponderous Constituent Assembly, two US senior military officers with law degrees drafted much of the constitution while a few Japanese scholars reportedly reviewed and modified it before promulgation. That constitution has stood the test of time. Gen MacArthur anchored the new constitution on three principles, to wit, “make the emperor accountable to the Japanese people, eliminate Japan’s ability to wage war, and create a parliamentary system akin to the British system, abolishing the inherited power of Japan’s aristocracy”. The debate before the drafting of the constitution was robust, its philosophical principles were unassailable, and sculpting it as a visionary document probably guaranteed its future and relevance.

    Chief Obasanjo is 86 years old. But neither in his youth nor middle age did he engage in the contemplation necessary to birth lasting projects, whether they are constitutions or other legacies. Do his failings preclude him from proposing amendments to the Nigerian constitution or even asking for a total overhaul? No, of course not. His relentless mischief must never preclude him from making contributions to public discourse, no matter how skeptical and cynical the country has become. And nothing must be allowed to abridge or discountenance his rights. The problem, however, is that there is nothing in the consultation he convoked last Monday in Abeokuta, or in his own prefatory remarks at the occasion, that show that Chief Obasanjo is remorseful for the poor leadership he gave Nigeria when he was twice gifted the chance. Had he been capable of deep and lofty ideas, regardless of his lack of principles, he might be given a hearing on his rage against liberal democracy. They have talked empty bombasts at his presidential library; but nothing beyond the talk will translate into anything noble or implementable now or in the future. His time is long past, vitiated by his appalling politics and his immense appetite to burnish his faltering image. Few will henceforth pay heed to his preferences, knowing him for who he is and what he wants, even if he gets increasingly more cantankerous for being sidelined by the new administration.

  • Obasanjo and his ‘Afro-centred democracy’

    Obasanjo and his ‘Afro-centred democracy’

    Olusegun Obasanjo, Egba chief and former President of Nigeria, has an axe to grind with what he has described as imported liberal democracy from the Western world.

    It is not working for Africa, he said, adding that it has ignored the history of the continent, its multi-cultural complexities and other peculiarities.

    The old soldier and tactician also posed as a political scholar branding his proposal as novel. He called for a largely vague ‘Afro-democracy’ which should be able to resolve, in his view, the unworkability of the foreign, distant and inexplicable legacy of the advanced countries that African naive supervisors of the transition programmes, including himself, copied as a viable system of government.

    Obasanjo’s grouse is that liberal democracy is expensive and difficult to manage. At a high-level consultation on Rethinking Western Liberal Democracy in Africa held at Green Resort Legacy of his Olusegun Obasanjo Presidential Library in Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital, the former President said Western democracy cannot foster good governance and development in Africa because it is not home-grown.

    According to him, the current system has become “government of a few people over all the people or population and these few people are representatives of only some of the people and not fully representatives of all the people. Invariably, the majority of the people are wittingly or unwittingly kept out”.

    More importantly, Obasanjo submitted that democracy in the United States only sustains “the rule of the majority” which tends to ignore, neglect and exclude the minority. His assessment is that liberal democracy only has a negative civilising influence on Africa.

    Obasanjo may be correct on one point: African countries have, over the years, been dependent on Western values and ideas, which may have stifled the development of local political initiatives. Consequently, this has painted Africa as the Dark Continent of Copycats.

    Modern technology is not a native of Africa. The continent has depended on Western aircraft, cars, medicines, computers and various ways of life. This addiction extends to the importation of the parliamentary system, which has paled into the legacy of the colonial interlopers, and presidential democracy, which Obasanjo introduced when he was military Head of State.

    However, there was no evidence to show that the old, traditional political system guaranteed more development in Africa. Some scholars have suggested that if it had not been truncated by Western invaders, maybe, the situation would have been different.

    Feudalism, a dominant social system in the Northern part of Nigeria, came under criticism. Land was held by nobles or aristocrats in exchange for labour or service by peasants who worshipped the masters for a little reward that kept them in servitude or bondage.

    Although the traditional society was used to monarchy, which has been in existence from time immemorial, the emerging class of nationalist fighters clashed with the system as colonialism asserted power and authority.

    Some natural rulers were perceived as despotic, tyrannical, dictatorial, barbaric, ritualistic, and corrupt. They were dismissed as agents of indirect rule foisted on the natives. The colonial masters hijacked power from these hapless traditional rulers and restored it to ordinary citizens. This appeared to be what the nationalist politicians symbolised. The House of Chiefs, which was established to accommodate the royal fathers, took the back seat, with members exercising ceremonial powers.

    Some saw parliamentary system as less evil, less expensive and more permissive and accommodating to the role of opposition in democracy. However, the First Republic operators of the system were problematic.

    As the stiff competition for power by antagonistic political leaders who manipulated ethnicity and religion drew the polity on edge, the military penetrated through the cracks on the wall.

    Many political leaders even lacked an understanding of the limitations to their powers under the parliamentary constitution. For example, tension rose when President Nnamidi Azikiwe was reluctant to ask Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa to form his government in 1964, after the federal parliamentary polls, until eminent jurists from the four zones intervened.

    Also, Zik, the ceremonial president, said he could not imagine working hollow with power-loaded Prime Minister Balewa.

    As the rigging of the 1965 regional elections led to violence, the military intervened. For the next 13 years, the military, which Obasanjo symbolised, loomed large. The atrocities of legitimate civilian authorities paled into insignificance. Soldiers of fortune pillaged the treasury. Some almost became richer than the country.

    In 1979, as Obasanjo started implementing the transition programme, he said the best may not emerge as president. Was that the fault of liberal democracy which ensured that the best candidate became the leader in the Western world?

    General Obasanjo accepted that the parliamentary system was not good and opted for the presidential democracy, based on the recommendations of the Constitution Review Committee and the Constituent Assembly. But the system soon caved in, no thanks to political upheavals, rigging and corruption. What is important is why it collapsed the second time in Nigeria while it blossomed in the advanced countries.

    Could the blame for the annulment of a free and fair election be heaped on the practice of liberal democracy? Was it not an affront by some African dictators who saw power as a status symbol instead of a means for service delivery?

    Read Also: Tinubu charges APC governors to remain servants to their people

    There appears to be no alternative to liberal democracy unless a country desires to retrace its steps into backwardness. It is representative in nature, if effectively practised, if sovereignty is upheld, if individual liberty is protected and the rule of law is allowed to prevail. It means that there should be an independent judiciary.

    Also, in contrast to the parliamentary system, presidential democracy emphasises the separation of powers and accompanying checks and balances.  In a heterogeneous society, political parties exist to compete for power on a level-playing field and a multi-party system is a natural element, although Nigeria’s experience tends to support the idea of a two-party system. At least, two persistent, viable political parties, or the pattern of two alliances, could as well be characteristic of liberal democracy in Nigeria.

    The question is: what did Obasanjo do to make it workable when he was president for eight years? How did his government obey court orders? What happened in Odi? Where is the report of the Abuja confab? Is it the fault of Western democracy that African leaders love to rig elections and seek to illegally extend their tenure? Is do-or-die a good legacy?

    The all-knowing hypocrite lives to expectation through his inexplicable explanations about what went wrong, although his demoralising, anti-democratic practices were a factor in political retrogression. If a man who had been privileged to rule, both as a soldier and civilian, for 11 years, failed woefully to reposition his country on the path of democracy, but now turns around, in his day dreaming, to canvass some sorts of bogus and blank Afrocentric democracy,  he is, without mincing words, a confusionist and a bundle of illogicality.

    The challenge for African leaders, instead of indulging in fantasy and shadow chasing, is to do soul-searching and embrace the reality that though political systems matter, the more important factors are the operators of the system.

    They should strive to build, nurture, protect, defend and strengthen the institutions of democracy in their respective countries. Their military should also bear in mind that coup is old-fashioned and tyrannical rule is outdated.

    The Parliament, being the representative organ, should come up with laws that will usher in reforms in aid of socio-economic and political development. Such reforms should halt the pattern of unitarianism and usher in federalism, empower the states to grow at their pace and give opportunity for healthy competition to component units.

    The president of a highly heterogeneous country should know that the best legacies he can bequeath are restoration of federalism, restructuring or power devolution and creation of an atmosphere for unity in diversity.

    Political parties should mirror the earlier ideological outlook, which the government they may midwife should reflect in their governance agenda. They should also be sensitive to their fundamental responsibility of political education for voters to make informed choices during elections.

    The government should promote public cause, being bound by the contract between it and diverse electorate. Its watchword should be accountability. Indeed, liberal democracy is not antithetical to transparency, accountability and good governance.

    People complain about the cost of governance because they do not see evidence of increased spending on developmental projects that herald a new lease of life. There is too much emphasis on  the growing recurrent expenditure than on capital expenditure. This threatens funding for developmental projects.

    For votes to count, the electoral commission should conduct free, fair and credible polls that will accord legitimacy to a democratic government.

    The civil society is currently battling an identity crisis. A strong civil society is indispensable to the cause of liberal democracy.

    Africa will do well when the accompaniments of liberal democracy function effectively and politicians really perceive power as a means of service and not an avenue for stealing and displaying crass arrogance.

  • Obasanjo and his Egbere cries 

    Obasanjo and his Egbere cries 

    The Yoruba are all scoff and contempt for the Egbere — some creature, neither man nor spirit, clutching its tiny mat, endlessly wailing and droning, without rime or reason. 

    The Egbere, as riveting creature, is vivid in Yoruba folklores.  But it could also be a metaphor for wailing over lost opportunities, but unwilling to admit avoidable failures.

    That persona fiercely leaps out of the latest drama of former President Olusegun Obasanjo and his latest fancy of “Afro-democracy”, whatever that gibberish means.

    Here is a fellow that contributed least to brewing this democracy.  Despite Obasanjo subverting it at every critical point — witness his role in Gen. Ibrahim Babangida’s annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election and the propping up of the feckless Ernest Shonekan as Interim Head of State to bury MKO Abiola’s mandate — Obasanjo has had more than his fair share of state pork since 1999.

    His Olusegun Obasanjo Presidential Library (OOPL), of rotten moral provenance, is clear proof of that skewed munificence.  Obasanjo, as the boy so over-fed he called his doting parents arrant fools, from the same complex he corralled from “democracy”, now  bawls “useless” Democracy must give way for his Afro-Democracy!  How rich! 

    Obasanjo bewails his many false steps.  But he hides his clear misdeeds behind some pseudo-piety.  If Nigerian democracy isn’t delivering dividends, it’s due to Obasanjo’s many wilful blunders, in those first eight foundation years — 1999-2007.

    Obasanjo, as president, brazenly subverted the rights of states: acting dumb as rogue assemblies, sponsored by rogue confederates, of a rogue president, sacked governors with their infamous “simple minority”, and kidnapped others to procure rogue resignations.  But for the courts, Nigeria would now have been an antediluvian country, chiselled from Obasanjo’s stone-age soul!

    Read Also: There goes Obasanjo again! 

    He seized Lagos council funds, hoping by that Lagos, under Governor Bola Tinubu, would collapse.   As the climax of his inglorious second term, he and his Vice President danced naked in the market, ripping off the grace of their high offices.  To climax it all, he plotted a third term that blew up in his face.  Yet, this man wears his fake piety as some tinsel and fake jewelry.

    In lamenting that democracy is not working in Nigeria — and Africa — he is docking himself as one of the past leaders — in Nigeria and Africa — that ensured just that.

    For instance, how can Obasanjo waste good money on “debt forgiveness”, instead of investing that huge cash in infrastructure, physical and social, that would have fired the economy, which could have repaid those debts without fuss?

    Besides, OOPL — from where he ran his mouth — is the most incriminating evidence against his person and rant.  How can Obasanjo corral so much to feed his personal greed and still rant from there that democracy has failed?

    This Owu fox should spare the rest of us his hypocritical rantings.  He should stop distracting those clearing up the mess he created, by his “Egbere” cries.· 

  • Obasanjo and failure of democracy in Nigeria

    Obasanjo and failure of democracy in Nigeria

    • By Alade Fawole

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo in a recent keynote speech in Abeokuta asserted with magisterial arrogance that Western liberal democracy has failed in Africa. First, I agree with him, as I have proved this point multiple times in my articles in this newspaper. Second, I lay the blame for the failure of democracy to perform in Nigeria at Obasanjo’s feet. He is chiefly responsible for corrupting and bending the democratic system in Nigeria out of shape for self-aggrandizement. I did this careful analysis as far back as July 2005 in an op-ed piece titled “In the Grip of an Imperial Presidency?” I wrote for The Westerner (now rested), two clear years before the end of his second presidential term. The following is excerpted from that article. Please read on:

    “While the imperial presidency took several decades to fully evolve in America, Nigeria’s own descent did not occur gradually; the plunge actually began right from the inception of the present civilian administration in 1999; it would seem to be embedded in the intent of those who cobbled together the 1999 constitution. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo is the first president and commander-in-chief in our newly minted post-military democracy to operate the new democratic constitution. He thus enjoys the unique advantage of shaping, and stamping his persona and authority on our new brand of post-military democratic politics, in much the same way that first US President, George Washington, was opportune to shape American democracy at its infancy. Incidentally, both George Washington and Olusegun Obasanjo share quite a few characteristics in common. They both enjoy the distinction of being retired army generals and war heroes who were given the mandates of their peoples to govern their respective countries. It was Washington who had the unique responsibility of implementing the newly written US constitution and translating the intents of its writers into reality for the people. He did this creditably, and the American people still have fond memories of him as an exemplar. In a similar manner, our own Chief Obasanjo was handed the arduous task of making the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria come alive, i.e. of translating it from being a mere paper document and a collation of grand intentions into a living and breathing document. And like George Washington, Obasanjo’s eight-year presidency will have a profound and lasting impact on our democracy for good or ill, and for many years to come.

    Unfortunately, it will seem that Chief Olusegun Obasanjo is not destined to be to Nigerians what George Washington was to Americans. In eight years, Obasanjo will have redefined the nature, character, texture and content of our democracy after his own fashion, and the legacy that he is likely to bequeath to his successors may not be particularly worthy of commendation. He is unlike George Washington who, believing that no single individual has monopoly of wisdom to govern, gracefully bowed out of power after two successful four-year terms. He took this action at a time he was still immensely popular among his country men and women, and when the US Constitution had not yet been amended to prescribe term limit for presidents. Obasanjo, on the other hand, did not seem perturbed that his acolytes and errand-boys in the political party, in the federal cabinet and legislature, attempted, and in the most obscene and arrogant manner to alter the constitution to elongate his tenure beyond the stipulated two terms, and at a time his popularity rating was the lowest of any civilian leader in Nigeria’s history. That brazen demonstration of indecent ambition to rule over Nigerians against their wish and in clear contravention of both the letter and spirit of the constitution has, in my view, set a bad precedent which we can only pray others would not emulate. It seems to me that Chief Obasanjo has not been particularly mindful of the unique historic opportunity that Providence has given him to set Nigeria on the road to proper and durable democracy. Surrounded by unscrupulous opportunists and political jobbers who worship at the altar of power for self-aggrandizement, President Obasanjo completely lost all sense of history and his place in it. He allowed himself to become a hostage to power and grandeur. It is clear that by the time he vacates Aso Presidential Villa in May 2007 after eight years at the helm of affairs, he would have done considerable disservice to liberal democracy as we know it. His tenure, in my view, will be remembered for being overly militaristic, commandist, personalist, arbitrary, condescending and arrogant.

    Read Also: There goes Obasanjo again! 

    How did I come to that conclusion? He bluntly refused to have a substantive petroleum minister in spite of all entreaties; he conducted foreign policy largely by himself, even though he had two ministers in the Foreign Affairs Ministry and a third one in charge of the Ministry of Cooperation and Integration in Africa; he constantly ridiculed the legislative arm of government; he showed little respect for state governments who he treats as mere senior prefects holding fort for him in the states; he is intolerant of opposition and criticism; he turned flagrant disobedience of court rulings to a form of art; he implemented national budgets passed by the National Assembly whimsically; fought corruption selectively, etc. 

    Under him, the Presidency not only became incontestably imperial but also imperious. The fault is partly inherent in the constitution, which gives too much power to the office, and partly in the occupant of the office, who simply appropriated more absolute powers to himself and exercised it absolutely. The 1999 constitution allows excessive powers to reside in the presidency; it is a product of the centralizing tendencies of military rule where the awesome powers of head of state, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and most senior army general, were combined in the same person without restriction. Under the present dispensation, the president alone controls the police, the armed forces, the security and intelligence organs; he alone determines how, when and for what purposes they would be deployed, and they answer only to him. Odi town in Bayelsa State and Zaki-Biam in Benue State were sacked on the orders of the president; the police and other security forces have been similarly employed at the behest of the president, especially against his perceived opponents. The constitution makes no provisions for democratic or popular control over the armed forces and security agencies. To compound the imperial character of the presidency, the constitution also allows the control over the nation’s resources to reside at the federal centre to the detriment of the federating units, thus giving the president unlimited financial leverage to assume immense powers. All these have made it possible for the presidency to subordinate both the National Assembly and the Judiciary to the whim of the executive, and to cynically pick and choose which court orders it would obey.”

    Obasanjo’s successors have been reading from his playbook, displaying arrogance and impunity, and playing god. Though the claim that democracy has failed in Africa is largely correct, but Obasanjo personally lacks the moral gravitas to be the one to make it, bearing in mind his huge contributions to this failure.

    • Prof Fawole writes from Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.