For some weeks, President Tinubu administration has come under the barrage of criticisms over the hardship and suffering in the land occasioned by some policies of the government. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and former Anambra State governor, Peter Obi, have also criticized the shortcomings of the government and decried the suffering in the land. Also, the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) has lampooned Tinubu’s insensitive policies to the North (Nigeria) and urged him to tweak some of them and give them a human face. They threatened to back a northerner in 2027. Almost every region of Nigeria has said one thing or the other about the hardship in the country and the need for reform of policies. Even the International monetary Fund (IMF) recently said the government’s economic policies are not working.
However, one criticism that has attracted the most attention and rebuttal was that of former President Olusegun Obasanjo probably because of the weightiness of the message or the persona of the messenger. The former leader (military and civilian) had in a speech entitled, “Leadership Failure and State Capture in Nigeria,” which he delivered virtually at the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States, called for the complete overhaul of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), including sacking its boss, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu and officials of the commission at all levels as part of the electoral reform process.
Obasanjo also condemned the shoddy conduct of the 2023 elections despite the technological back-ups (Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Election Result Viewing Portal (IReV) and the promise by the electoral umpire to use them to deliver transparent, free and fair polls. To the chagrin of Obasanjo and most Nigerians, INEC failed to use these election transparency-enhancing devices. The former leader blamed the “travesty” in the land to the administrations of “Baba Go-Slow” and “Emilokan,” a reference to Muhammadu Buhari and Bola Tinubu.
The presidency immediately hit back at Obasanjo saying among other things that he lacked the moral credibility to critique Tinubu. Besides, they accused him of wasting $16 billion on power without providing steady electricity. Both Bayo Onanuga (Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy) and Sunday Dare (Special Adviser on Public Communications to the President) questioned Obasanjo’s propriety and temerity to criticize their boss. According to Onanuga, “A man under whose watch all of these egregious infractions occurred should certainly not be the one to give any lecture on leadership and corruption.” Dare said “Obasanjo lacked sincerity and moral authority to make such comments. He added that “democracy suffered mortal wounds under his watch.”
Obasanjo and indeed other critics of the Tinubu administration are entitled to their views, irrespective of their moral standings both in and out of office. In a democracy, those in government must embrace critics and criticisms for they exist to ensure good governance. Good governance is good for the ruler and the ruled. If there is good governance in Nigeria, those in government and the ordinary masses must be enjoying the good life. After all, the essence of government is to ensure there is good life for all citizens. This entails the security of life and welfare of the citizens.
However, the spokespersons of the government are employed to defend their principal. It is normal. They are also entitled to their positions. But in doing so, there is need for honour and respect for some individuals, especially those who had been in that office before them. Obasanjo is not a man to be pushed around. He is not a saint but he is definitely not the greatest sinner. He has seen it all, as a military head of state and a civilian president. He must know what he is talking about. He is respected in Nigeria and abroad and his views are respected. Let presidential spokespersons take the message and ignore the messenger.
Although the perception of reality differs between individuals, nobody can deny that there is hardship and suffering in Nigeria of today. The cost of petrol, rice, yam and transportation can clearly illustrate this reality. While politicians and indeed some individuals can politicize issues, that does not distract the reality on ground. The only caveat here, which many don’t admit or factor in their criticisms, is that Tinubu inherited a badly mismanaged economy before he came up with his reforms, some of which are hard pills to swallow.
That Buhari mismanaged the economy is not in doubt. That he caused most of the problems we are facing now is real. Removing fuel subsidy, which many Nigerians called for, came with hardship. Some of them are expected. Mark it that those benefiting from corrupt subsidy regime will do everything to subvert good intentions of the government, including its policies. Such sabotage is not hidden and will be anticipated by those in government.
What the critics of the Tinubu administration should bear in mind is that it takes time to correct a mismanaged economy. What did some of these critics do when Buhari was in charge with his pronounced nepotism and other oddities of his administration? Some of them closed their eyes and pretended that all was well. The damaged economy cannot be fixed overnight. Even one year or two years will not be enough to fix this economy. Those who believe in a quick fix for the economy and Nigeria’s leadership challenge are living in great delusion.
Fixing Nigeria’s leadership challenge is beyond what one man can do with the unworkable unitary structure and 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, alluded to this fact at the launch of “The Noble Academic Patriot: A Biography of Emeritus Professor Akinjide Osuntokun,” in Lagos recently. “To those who think that the trouble with Nigeria today is the political leadership, I would say that as long as we have the 1999 Constitution as our grundnorm, not even Angel Gabriel or Malaika Jubril as leaders can successfully tackle the divisiveness, the underperforming economy with the resultant poverty, the insecurity, the humongous corruption, and the other major challenges currently facing Nigeria,” Anyaoku stated.
Anyaoku had also argued that “the universal lesson is that pluralistic countries which have survived as single political entities in unity and progress are those that have addressed their pluralism, that is their diversity, with genuine federal constitution. Examples of such countries are India, Canada and Switzerland.” Other countries in this league which failed to do what Anyaoku said later disintegrated and they include, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Sudan. He called for “a true Nigerian people’s democratic constitution based on the principles that underlined the 1960 and 1963 constitutions which were painstakingly negotiated and agreed by the founding fathers of independent Nigeria.”
I think that Anyaoku’s intervention is what will engage the attention of those in government and their critics the more and not for a Northerner to take over from Tinubu in 2027 as being advocated in certain quarters and other needless arguments. The hardship in the land affects all Nigerians irrespective of their ethnicity and geography. No group should ethnicize suffering. When Chinua Achebe blamed the problem with Nigeria on poor leadership in 1983, he did not spare leaders from independence to 1983. I also extend it to those who ruled Nigeria from 1999 to the present. They are one way or the other implicated in the leadership failure.