It was to be expected that an interview with former President Ibrahim Babangida, particularly to pillory him on his record in office, would generate various comments, except that the positive sides were so understated (if stated at all), such that IBB short-changed himself. There were two sides to the positive aspect. The first side was that his latest interview must have disappointed, paralyzed or demented those who, all along, pronounced the former President dead several times. IBB’s appearance in that interview put paid to the illusions of all those who were mistaking their desire to be reality. On display throughout the interview were the man’s soundness of mind, coherence, correct mental faculty and fluent language.
The second positive side was the record of his administration arising from the calibre of his cabinet, about unrivalled in Nigeria’s history. The list was compelling. Prince Bola Ajibola, Professor Olikoye Ransome-Kuti, Dr. Idika Kalu, Dr. Chu Okongwu, Professor Ojetunji Aboyade, Professor Ikenna Nzimiro, Chief Olu Falae, General Alani Akinrinade, General Domkat Bali, General Ike Nwachukwu, Professor Emoevoen, Professor Gordian Ezekwe, Chief Michael Omolayole, Professor Jubril Aminu, Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, Grace Alele (the first and only female vice-chancellor in Nigeria till date), Brigadier-General John Sagaya, Brigadier Tanko Ayuba and many others, all of them with high integrity throughout their service and well preserved at the time of exit. Even the late Professor Tam David West, at a stage accused of corruption, was completely cleared and acquitted by an appeal tribunal. Note the diversity and respectability.
Most important was the spectacular success of the much-maligned Structural Adjustment Policy (SAP) introduced in 1986, which no government before then had the guts to introduce, or since then to reverse or abolish. Impossible. SAP created opportunity for spreading radio and television stations to all parts of Nigeria by more than 90 per cent, to compete with federal and state governments and erstwhile monopolists of that industry. SAP opened up the aviation industry to every willing and capable investor to compete with Nigeria Airways, which had only one aeroplane for all its local and two international routes at that time, London and New York. Repeat, only one plane, compared. SAP introduced the comfort of flying from any part of Nigeria from anywhere and returning within hours. At least, two world-rated banks in Nigeria today, Guaranty Trust Bank and Zenith, are products of SAP, following the thorough clean-up of the financial sector in 1986. There are many other invisible areas of reforms in Nigeria, brought about by SAP.
There are, however, political reforms that took place in Nigeria, especially pre-IBB days, which came in for mention in the said interview. For example, he said, “We already agreed or settled on one country or this type of country.”
That is challenged. We never agreed. Those who agreed were Commander-in-Chief Olusegun Obasanjo and his military officers, General Theo Danjuma, General Akinrinade, General Wushishi, Admiral Ndubuisi Kanu and others of that rank in all the services. There was no way all Nigerians mutually agreed. Even if it was conceded that some people must document all constitutional proposals on our behalf, we might have sought people’s votes in local elections to be given the chance to represent them at a constituent assembly. Instead, Nigerian military officers selected their well-known friends and crafted them into a Constitution Drafting Committee. There is a major difference between Constitution Drafting Committee and Constituent Assembly.
Furthermore, former Commander-in-Chief Obasanjo already made up his mind in his address to the Constitution Drafting Committee about changing Nigeria from parliamentary to presidential system of government. Did we ask for presidential system of government? Were we ever allowed to make our choice of government? Rather, the presidential system was imposed. Nigerians were not such morons. To ditch the presidential system and return to parliamentary system is part of the restructuring Nigerians are demanding and yet are being arrogantly rebuffed.
Unfortunately, throughout the history of all civil or even military political conflicts in any nation (and there had been many, especially in Europe), whatever is agreed as a potential document to regulate the working and/or living together as a people is mandatorily subjected to a referendum in which those concerned are allowed to ratify or reject the document (like the 1979 constitution). In any case, is Obasanjo’s passion for One Nigeria a valid reason for circumventing a dire need for restructuring Nigeria? The same Obasanjo is alive and on record of saying that there are plans to Islamise and Fulanise Nigeria, under the current Constitution. This is a serious allegation bothering fellow citizens. According to IBB, Obasanjo is passionate about One Nigeria, Yet Obasanjo went public that he does not want a Nigeria at any price.
That was the same Obasanjo who imposed the 1979 Constitution on Nigerians. It all shows that agreeing today does not foreclose circumstances compelling you to change tomorrow. That is the dynamics of life. Neither is that trait limited to Obasanjo. Britain is an example. Nigerians assassinated leaders less than 60 years ago in the search for a workable political system. Britain also murdered kings centuries ago and tried to remain one country by force of arms but lost the Irish republic in an uprising in 1918 and is still fighting to hold on to Northern Ireland. Yet, in its determination to remain one, special attention is paid in United Kingdom to the political desire of surrounding restless NATIONS in the British enclave. Was there anything like Scottish parliament 50 years ago? No. Was there Welsh parliament 50 years ago? No. But Britain granted autonomy to those two nations to ensure Britain remains one. England also conceded to Scotland the right to control its North Sea Oil resources. Those are concessions Britain granted and has ensured keeping the United Kingdom in peace and unity. There is, therefore, nothing rigid about constitution or even the life we live.
United Kingdom halted gradual disintegration because, after more than 500 years of existence, the vast country continues to restructure its constitution to meet demands of its various peoples. Ignoring, blocking or even delaying people’s political demands is recipe for disaster.
The very fact of not subjecting any proposed constitution to referendum renders the document subject of review, if not nullity. Sections of the country will ratify the document and another section will reject it. It is a fact of political life. Incidentally, citing the threat of military coup as why the 1993 presidential election was cancelled was merely circumstantial. A very dangerous role, which accelerated and sustained the cancellation of the 1993 presidential election was played by Yoruba elements who, over the years, were politically opposed to Chief MKO Abiola. Their main grudge was that Chief Abiola blocked Chief Awolowo’s political aspiration. In making that allegation, Yoruba elements should have been prepared to be exposed of their duplicity, moreso as they turned round, pleading to be quoted by Nigerian Television Authority (NTA), as calling for de-annulment of the cancelled election when in fact they were inciting government not to de-annul the election.
Egba Council of Chiefs, as told by Chief Toye Coker at Abeokuta Ogun State, met and gave their support to Chief Shonekan’s Interim National Government, pending the determination of Chief Abiola’s case (which was challenging the validity of cancellation of his election). Did the military induce Egba Council of Chiefs to engage in the shameful double-dealing (which eventually completely sabotaged the ongoing public protest in parts of the country) against the annulment of the election?
The part played by the Yoruba in the annulment of the 1993 presidential election should not be exempt from the history of the sad event.
Then there is the issue of disqualifying Nigerians above the age of 70 from contesting presidential elections in future. This is an old design we tried before and it never worked, as it was eventually abandoned. Age should not be a crime and should be determined by the Nigerian Constitution. At present, there is no law under the Constitution limiting the upper age of candidates for the presidency. Accordingly, the Constitution will have to be amended to that effect. The process of amending the Nigerian Constitution is in itself an almost impossible task. Any proposed ban should be imposed by voters or a party’s nomination process or voters generally in a presidential election. Anything less would be usurpation of voters’ rights by un-elected and unauthorized elite.
What is more, in 2018, 92-year-old former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed came from retirement and led the opposition to defeat an incumbent Prime Minister, whose party had ruled the country for over 60 years, uninterrupted and in whose party Mahathir had earlier served as Prime Minister. Also, Americans needed 78-year-old Joe Biden to send away controversial, far younger Donald Trump, as American President in November 2020.
A combination of such old and younger candidates always presents voters an exciting choice in any election such as Nigeria’s. You must not deny voters their choice in any election. Whoever wins in any election between the old and young would have sent the message. Either don’t mess up with an older man, or elders should avoid being humiliated by kids. Whichever is the case, the choice should remain that of the voters.