Olusegun Obasanjo is one of the most influential Nigerians alive or dead. As a soldier, dictator, national leader and a permanent actor in our political process, Obasanjo is an important part of Nigeria’s post-independence historical trajectory. His role through it all has been quite dramatic, often akin to a fiction more than reality.
Within his constituency of sycophants, he was once touted as the “founder” of modern Nigeria, especially during the orchestrated campaign for his self-succession in 2007. But let the truth be said, irrespective where we locate the generis of “modern Nigeria”, Obasanjo has been a crucial actor in shaping Nigeria’s fortune or misfortune. If modern Nigeria as it stands today is an enviable polity, Obasanjo has a legitimate entitlement to the credit. If it is not, he sure has a good measure of ownership for the rot. And it is not.
The recent release of Obasanjo’s political memoirs and the ongoing controversy it has generated provoke some reflection on Obasanjo, the man. The more one tries to grapple with him, the less one comprehends. His account of his exploits during the Nigerian civil war in My Command (1981) generated a lot of controversies that have since given rise to counter narratives. Similar responses may come in the wake of My Watch. His early contemporaries and later day associates have dissimilar accounts of his enigmatic status.
Most agree on his shrewdness and craftiness through which he managed dramatic political circumstances of his career. Some call him brave, others call him cunning and cowardly, leaving critical observers to make up their mind. Whatever he is called, no one can deny that Obasanjo does not shy away from controversy. He actually hugs it whenever it can be found. He is also not afraid of his critics, unless those he deliberately chose to ignore for strategic reasons.
The late afrobeat music maestro, Fela Anikulapo-Kuti, was one of them. The same appears to be the case with the respected cleric, Tunde Bakare. Obasanjo, it was who recommended a juju approach to ending the apartheid system in South Africa. And it was not a joke; he gave the theory some opening for intellectual traction.That is Obasanjo, the African traditionalist, with the courage of his own conviction.
After successfully handing over power to President Shehu Shagari in 1979, Obasanjo, the dictator, became Obasanjo, the international statesman. His voluntary relinquishing of power as a military dictator to a democratic order seduced the world. As a good opportunist, Obasanjo capitalised on that goodwill, and worked hard to embellish and polish his image. He became a sought-after international statesman and troubleshooter across Africa and the globe. He still is. The highpoint of his profile as an international statesman was his desire to become the Secretary General of the United Nations.
The prospect of Obasanjo being world’s number one diplomat had many holding their breath. For a guy with undisguised hatred for the media and a known short fuse, the stakes could not be higher. Fate, however, could not send Obasanjo to New York. It is hard to conjecture what could have been. But Obasanjo remained engaged in Nigeria’s political life, from Shagari’s presidency to Buhari/Idiagbon and Babangida dictatorships. He was one to scold Babangida with the famous remark that SAP must have a human face. He always had direct access and influence within the corridors of power. His running with the late Gen. Sani Abacha made him the guest of the hangman. In part, that experience transformed Obasanjo into a philosopher and theologian of sorts, as glimpsed from his treatise, This Animal Called Man (1998). But like the biblical Joseph, Obasanjo left the prison for the palace in 1999, this time as Nigeria’s democratically elected president.
Some argue that the electorate did not have much to do with that transition. They merely stamped a fait accompli plotted by Obasanjo’s retired military comrades: Abdulsalam; Abubakar, Ibrahim Babangida, Theophilus Danjuma and others. Obasanjo’s second coming was an unprecedented development. When the agitation for revalidation of the annulled June 12, 1993 presidential election won by M.K.O. Abiola needed a boost, Obasanjo added a chill. He told us that Abiola was not the messiah we needed.
Yet, Obasanjo became the greatest beneficiary of Nigeria’s democratic struggle as symbolised in Abiola’s selfless sacrifice. Instead of making June 12 our Democracy Day, he chose May 29, the day he ascended into power and preferred to not recognise Abiola’s legacy. The exceptionally lucky Obasanjo spent the maximum of his democratic mandate: two terms of eight years allowed under the constitution. Within that period, he restructured Nigeria’s politically addicted military. He presided over the selling off or transfers of Nigeria’s huge pubic assets under the corruption-ridden privatisation process.
Despite huge funds dedicated to the power sector, the country remained in the dark. Impunity reigned supreme, as an elected governor of Anambra State was abducted by those Achebe called renegades. Obasanjo signed off on the military decimation of Odi community in Bayelsa State. Sharia law was introduced in different parts of the country but Obasanjo ignored the option of a constitutional challenge, a development that has since partly emboldened Islamic fundamentalism in the country. Nigeria lost a chunk of its territory to Cameroon when it could have eschewed subjecting itself to the International Court of Justice. Election and electioneering were declared do-or-die affairs. Executive-legislative relationship was toxic.
The Presidency was a theatre of in-fighting between Obasanjo and Atiku Abubakar, his Vice-President. Then, the campaign for Obasanjo’s third term preoccupied the business of governance. After its abortion, the whole drama culminated in a hurried recruitment of Umaru Yar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan, an unlikely pair onto the Presidency. Obasanjo would have us all believe that he could be exonerated from the current state of affairs in Nigeria. That is exceptionalism! Like two different individuals with radically different backgrounds, clearly, Obasanjo and Jonathan have run two different presidencies. But given Obasanjo’s role in the making of the Jonathan Presidency, his membership of the ruling party, he could have vicarious exposure for the failure or success of the Jonathan administration.