Yes, Babangida is Serious
The Historian is a prophet looking backward - SCHLEGEL
It was thrilling reading the online interview granted by General Ibrahim
Badamasi Babangida (rtd.), former Nigerian military president, to The
People’s Magazine/pointblanknews.com. Like every objective admirer of
the former president, it was yet another exciting opportunity for me to
have further insight into his personality and the historical period of
27th August, 1985 to 26th August, 1993. As characteristic of every
Babangida interview – brilliant with facts and figures and concise with
reasoning – he answered questions put to him in ways to deflate any
contradiction. I expectedly looked forward to reactions, mostly counter,
from some so-called newspaper wise-men acting the role of sole
custodians and analysts of modern Nigeria history. So, it was not
surprising reading Dr. Reuben Abati’s opposing commentary in The
Guardian of Friday, 25th January, 2008 titled, ‘IBB can’t be serious’,
which spurred this essay.
Since the early 1990s, I have been following nearly every national
columnist, inclusive of Abati since he joined The Guardian. And if I may
digress a little, Abati must be given the credit for first using the
phrase, ‘the evil genius’, in describing Babangida in a commentary after
the general stepped aside in 1993, and which so amused Babangida that,
when asked of the best description of himself, he had told the team of
Tell interviewers that he preferred that phrase among many others
because (still in a light mood) he could not understand how somebody
could be an evil and still be a genius at the same time. But,
thankfully, Abati has never taken credit for the phrase because this
writer had first come across it in the introduction in an old edition of
Jonathan’s Swift’s classic, Gulliver’s Travels.
As common with some of his commentaries, Abati attempted a
deconstruction of the interview and emerged with a so-called ‘main thesis’, which he concluded was Babangida’s intention. He itemized it
as, one, ‘I may be bad but Obasanjo is worse’; two, ‘I am better than
Obasanjo and the facts show this to be true’; and, three, ‘inevitably,
history will be kind to me’. Then Abati destroyed one of the elementary
rules of logical argument, argument ad hominem, when he posited that
Babangida lacks the moral standing to point out Obasanjo’s shortcomings.
Abati wants his readers to take a critical look at Babangida’s alleged
bad deeds and not at Babangida’s argument. Talking of integrity and
morality, if one may follow Abati’s lead, this writer is not alone among
enlightened and studied followers of socio-political events and
commentaries that it is Abati that lacks ‘the moral status to
pontificate on the subject of integrity and good governance’. This will
be made clear soon.
To this writer, the most memorable commentary Abati ever wrote on
Babangida’s presidential ambition is that which has his infantile
suggestion to his Egba kinsman to ensure Babangida never emerged as
Obasanjo’s successor for the simple reason that it would go down in
history that Obasanjo governed Nigeria for twelve years while Babangida,
if he had emerged president in 2007 and 2011, would have ruled for
sixteen years, beating Obasanjo’s record. Abati has been able to sneak
in subtle (sometimes not so subtle) ethnic jingoistic commentaries in
his column, under the guise of objectivity. His commentaries can pass
for brilliancy, stylishness but surely not devoid of tribalism, except
for those who cannot read between the lines. While his sharp criticisms
of former Lagos State military administrator, Brigadier Mohammed Marwa
(rtd.) throughout his government, is tolerable, likewise those of former
Vice President Atiku Abubakar when he was alleged to be warming up to
challenge Obasanjo in the PDP presidential primary in 2003, and his preference of
Obasanjo to Chief Olu Falae in 1998/99 is forgettable, but his preference
of Obasanjo to General Mohammadu Buhari (rtd.) in 2003 is neither
tolerable or forgettable. One can easily recall his commentary titled,‘No, not Buhari’, where he recalled every single alleged sin of Buhari
and why he was not fit to return as civilian president, forgetting every
single good legacy of the general, simply because Buhari was challenging
Obasanjo. But Buhari’s second attempt in 2007 did not elicit a commentary
from Abati because his Egba kinsman had already secured his two terms.
How can one forget Abati’s commentary titled, ‘Obasanjo, Obasanjo and
Obasanjo’, where he could not contain his excitement and glee over
Obasanjo’s victory at the PDP presidential primary in 2003, praising the
Chief Tom Ikimi-led electoral panel – the same Ikimi who the press highly
reviled in Abacha era – and not making mention of allegations of blackmail against the panel, chief of which was that the
ballot papers used were numbered for each state delegate so that,
afterwards, it could be easily detected who each delegate voted for. And
what about Abati’s loud silence in 2003, following the monumental fraud
that was the presidential and gubernatorial elections, which produced
Obasanjo? He conveniently lost his critical pen in his column after the
result were announced and the nationwide condemnation that ensued, and
found solace in comedy, recalling humorous incidents associated with the
elections, chief of which was Chief Gabriel Igbinedion’s comment that if
his son had failed the Edo people as governor in his first term, he
should be allowed a second term because if a student fails an
examination, he is asked to repeat it.
It was instances like these that provided Professor G.G. Darah, Abati’s
immediate predecessor at The Guardian editorial board, who would later
become ex-governor James Ibori’s aide, weapon with which to attack Abati
in a rejoinder to Abati’s objective commentary on Ibori’s ex-convict
saga in 2003. Though both Delta State gubernatorial contestants were
Urhobos, but Chief Great Ogboru was vying under Alliance for Democracy
(AD), which was largely seen as a Yoruba party. Darah had to use it
against Abati, warning him not to use The Guardian, owned by an Urhobo
man, as a platform to fight a Yoruba cause against the Urhobos. (Darah’s
allegation.) Darah, who obviously had influence at The Guardian at that
time, even insinuated at the possibility of Abati being fired if he did
not retrace his steps. Of course, no ex-convict commentary emanated from
Abati’s pen thereafter.
This essay is not on Abati, but it becomes necessary to draw his
attention to the fact that when it comes to ‘morale status’, he is not
qualified to comment on the Babangida interview. This essay is on his
commentary. Abati hinged his commentary on the thesis he drew up. So, if I may
counter him accordingly. Now, his argument on Babangida’s government
being bad but Obasanjo’s being worse. Abati wants his readers to believe
that while the N565 billion allegedly accrued to the federal government
during Babangida’s eight year era could be small compared to the more
than times eight (x8) which accrued to Obasanjo in a single year,
Babangida should have considered inflation rate and other analytical
indices in his comparison before drawing conclusion, and that, even at
that, Babangida should have emphasized on what he (Babangida) achieved
with such money. Also under the first item, Abati posited that Babangida‘ended up being regarded as the most corrupt leader in Nigerian
history’.
Only one explanation will clear those two positions. In an interview
after he had left government, Babangida had acknowledged the rumour
that, indeed, together with his friend, Otunba Adekunle Ojora, and
former President Shehu Shagari, he was mooting the idea of setting up a
private university that would measure up to Oxford and Cambridge
Universities. But Nigerians anxiously waited for a university that never
came because Babangida realised he could not afford it. But ten year
after, and only four years in government, Obasanjo who was so broke that
friends had to contribute his donation at a PDP fundraiser in 1998, had
built a multi-billion naira private university, likewise his deputy,
Atiku Abubakar, who only wanted to be a governor in 1998. Now, if
Babangida, even teaming up with two others, could not build a private
university in the early 1990s, and ten years later, former Nigerian
first and second citizens had each built a university, that goes to show
the minor role of inflation on the naira, and the value-equating or -corresponding
monumental fraud the past first and second citizens must have committed
to have built those two universities. Nobody should tell me Babangida
might have simply changed his mind for other reasons. Private university
is a status symbol of super rich Nigerians, and for Babangida to admit
mooting the idea, that means he actually desired it. And his incapability
to set it up shows Babangida does not have the money. But Abati wants to
brain-wash his readers with the popular refrain of ‘Babangida is the most
corrupt leader in Nigerian history’. I sincerely want to meet somebody
who does not know of an Egba columnist who is secretly pleased that
Obasanjo has established a private university in their land, the source
of funding notwithstanding.
It was this same ‘most corrupt leader’ chorus Nigerians were fed with by
a section of the media throughout Babangida’s reign till he left office.
Then followed by the rumour that his Minna home had fifty bedrooms only
to be revealed afterwards that it is a regular duplex, a modest home, so
modest the reception for his eldest daughter’s marriage had to hold at
his wife’s private secondary school for lack of space. But Obasanjo
whose Abeokuta country home was upgraded preparatory to his return from
Aso Rock last year, realised there was too much money lying about, so
decided to build a new palatial home, at the age of seventy, and moved
in. There are presently allegations in gossip magazines that the new
house is the most expensive private house in Nigeria. What about the
rumour held for long that Babangida owned Global Communications (Glo),
and that Otunba Mike Adenuga was just a front? That rumour received
presidential acceptance when Mallam Nuhu Ribadu got orders from above to witch-hunt Babangida by investigating Glo in search of indictive
evidence to prevent him from contesting for president. And what was
discovered? Nothing except 12.5 percent ownership traced to an alleged
associate of Mohammed, his eldest son, for which Mohammed was arrested
for questioning. (That was the same percent EFCC alleged Atiku Abubakar
also owns.) And what about Adenuga, the so-called front? Controlling
shares!
Still on corruption, Abati, much afterwards, alleged that Babangida made
many Nigerians wealthy, with ‘dubious wealth’. Which government does not
have appointees and contractors? Jesus Christ! Somebody is saying his
government is the most investigated in Nigerian history, and that his
ministers are still ready for probe, and Obasanjo’s unofficial spokesman
is feeding his readers with cock-eyed argument. Abati also alleged that
the present crop of governors and ex-governors generally believed to be
corrupt, are the children of Babangida era. Indeed! One of the
ex-governors presently on trial, recently alleged that Obasanjo is so
corrupt that he is presently the richest African. That makes Obasanjo
the eldest child of Babangida era. And if Obasanjo, who was, as Abati
gleefully reminded his readers, ‘IBB’s senior in the army’, allowed
himself to be negatively influenced by his junior, then Obasanjo ought
to be demoted in retirement.
Abati recounted some alleged sins of the Babangida government. But most,
if not all of them, are regular tools for Babangida bashers, recycled
all over again. For the purpose of objectivity and clarity, it will be
paramount to look at some relevant ones. On the economy, he acknowledged
that Babangida had a good economy blue-print, which he carried out but
that most problems were in its execution. But those ‘major reforms’ were
hinged on Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which many Babangida
bashers had hoodwinked ordinary Nigerians into condemning with their
criticisms. It was these same SAP-based reforms that laid the foundation
on which Nigerian economy is presently heading to. If given the
appropriate forum, it will be shocking the number of anti-SAP
commentators who cannot explain the ordinary merits and demerits of SAP
let alone display in-depth understanding. And Abati inadvertently
acknowledged that Babangida spent the excess money realized from
overpriced oil during the Gulf war. Not a few Nigerians had thought he had pocketed it.
On 12th June presidential election, it will be pertinent to tell the
story as it really happened, especially for those who find it convenient
to follow the crowd because they do not read and cannot reason
independently. From reports, interviews, commentaries and other
literature on the election, its background and its aftermath, it can be
seen that, in annulling the election, Babangida took the best decision
in the prevailing circumstance.
On assumption of power in 1985, Babangida had promised a transition
programme that would lead to a democratically elected government, and
subsequently announced the handover date as 1990. But as we approached
1990, he had claimed that the date was no longer feasible as there were
many things to be put in place first. Thus, the goal post was shifted to
1992. Eventually, elections were conducted for council, state
governorship, and state and national assemblies, but he had to cancel
the presidential primaries and banned the contestants in both parties,
following allegations of widespread malpractices, protests and tension.
Those elected were sworn in, and 12th June, 1993 was fixed for the
presidential election. Chief Moshood Abiola and Alhaji Uthman Tofa had
emerged presidential candidates of SDP and NRC respectively.
Security reports available to Babangida were overflowing with evidence
of alleged anomalies from the primaries of both parties. But Babangida
himself was exhausted from cancellations, bans and postponements.
Besides, the media, controlled by the south, which saw the possibility
of a southerner emerging president in the person of Abiola, and which
also considered Babangida to be acting too smart by his antics, played
it down, praising the primaries. Then 12th June, 1993 came. But even
before then, more security reports had over-flooded Babangida’s desk,
revealing alleged possible military revolt should the election hold
because it (the military) did not want Abiola, the likely winner. After
the election, results being released indicated clear victory for Abiola.
And the pressure on Babangida became intense, with damning revelations
of threats, not only his life, but also that of Abiola, should he
hand-over to him. Rumours of coup were in the barracks. To avoid a
repeat of Obasanjo’s 1979 transition to civilian rule programme whose successor
government was overthrown four years after, Babangida had to stop further
release of the results, and eventually annulled the election. (It should
be recalled that in the online interview, Babangida revealed that they,
the coup plotters, had informed Obasanjo of the coup that overthrew
Shagari government in 1983. And the approval by silence goes to show
Obasanjo’s acknowledgement of the structural defects of his transition
programme that produced Shagari. Such were the shortcomings which
Babangida was avoiding in his own transition programme)
Babangida had to announce a new presidential election timetable, which
would be conducted by an Interim National Government (ING) which would
be headed by Chief Ernest Shonekan, head of then transition government,
and the ING was to last six months. Because the generally held opinion
then was that Babangida did not want to relinquish power, he had
promised he would still leave on 27th August, 1993 as earlier scheduled.
There were nation-wide protests, especially in the south-west region,
where it was believed the election was cancelled because Abiola was
Yoruba, and the first elected southern president. From unofficially
released results, it was clear Abiola had won. And he had vowed to
protect his mandate by actualising it on 27th August, 1993. Rumours of a
possible civil war were abound. And many Nigerians headed for their
native land for safety in the event of a civil war. The country was in
disarray. There were palpable threats to Babangida’s life, from within
and outside the army. So scared for his own life, where everyday he
survived was like a miracle, Banbagida had to hand-over power to
Shonekan on 26th August, a day before the scheduled date, and
practically had to race to Minna, his home town.
But who was the brain behind it all? Late General Sani Abacha,
Babangida’s trusted friend and muscle man. And who was Abacha before
Babangida’s departure? In an interview after Abacha’s death in 1998,
Babangida had described Abacha as his friend of more than thirty years.
Babangida liked and trusted Abacha, a loyal and a naturally strong man.
Abacha was his de facto No. 2. They had planned Babangida 1985 coup
together. Abacha was known to be so loyal to Babangida that during the
Major Orkah coup of 1990, he personally took charge, leading the crush
and taking personal protection of the former first family.
While Babangida was the brain behind that government, Abacha was the
muscle that was feared in the military. But he was fanatically loyal to
Babangida. And Abacha’s limitations were legendary in the army, chief of
which was that he believed in the solution of violence to every problem.
He never believed in the finesse of politics. In an interview in the
early 1990s, Obasanjo had referred to Babangida government as a fraud.
Based on that interview, at an AFRC meeting, Abacha was alleged to have
advised Babangida to arrest Obasanjo for his pseudo-statesmanship. But
Babangida had allegedly refused on the ground that arresting him was not
the best solution to his sharp criticisms. The UN secretary general
position, earlier allotted to Africa, became vacant following Boutrus
Boutrus-Ghali’s failure to secure a second term. Babangida then
nominated Obasanjo for the exalted position. Though he did not win, but
Babangida’s backing brought silence in Obasanjo.
But when Abacha came to power and Obasanjo did not realize that there
was a different man at the helms of affair, Abacha had to jail him on a
trumped-up charge of coup plotting to silence him. It was these obvious
limitations that made every of Abacha’s colleagues, including Babangida,
not to expect him to dream of becoming the commander-in-chief someday,
and Abacha never showed any inkling of ambition. But Abacha out-witted
Babangida and others. Due to Babangida’s trust in Abacha, when the
Abacha-orchestrated over-blown intelligence on Abiola, military revolts
and coups reached him, he believed them, not knowing that the reticent
and dark-goggled general had his scheme. In a statement during Obasanjo
government, Colonel Abubakar Umar
(rtd.), though a strong Babangida loyalist but who had worked with Abacha to see an end to the 12th June empasse in the heat of the
crisis, had admitted that one needed to possess the power of clairvoyance
to have been able to judge Abacha otherwise because Abacha displayed so
much patriotism that he did not arouse suspicion.
Eventually, Babangida had to hand over power to Shonekan, retiring every
service chief but leaving Abacha behind as defense secretary. After
Abacha’s death, when asked why he did not retire him, Babangida had
admitted that the ING needed muscle to survive, and Abacha was that
muscle. Invariably, Babangida was saying that, after stepping aside, he
had expected the uproar to die down, allowing Shonekan to conduct
another presidential election, with Abacha there to contain any military
uprising or coup. Babangida may want Nigerians to believe that he was
not so naïve as to assume Abacha could not take-over government, that,
afterall, Abacha had been involved in both Buhari and his (Babangida)
coup, and had got to the peak of his military career as defence
secretary; and Babangida may blame the media and the political class for
creating the enabling environment for Abacha to take-over by their open
call for the military to come to the rescue, but Babangida was conned by Abacha. Babangida may be brilliant, tactful and cunning, but he is only
human. His argument does not hold water. He cannot say he expected
Nigerians to keep calm, waiting for another presidential election when he
did not explain why the last one was annulled. The gospel truth is that
Babangida had expected Abacha to resist every pressure to take over
government and to support the election that was to be conducted by
Shonekan, ensuring the victorious candidate was sworn in.
Abacha eventually forced Shonekan to resign and he took over power,
shocking the nation by taking it to what the BBC headline read the next
day, ‘Back to square one’; disbanding NEC, both parties, dissolving all
the state assemblies as well as the national, and putting an end to the
office of all elected politicians. Because nobody knew Abacha’s
antecedents, Nigerians were still hoping for something. So, when Abacha
had a meeting with Abiola, the nation was agog with speculations that he
might set up a government to be headed by Abiola. That was when
Babangida, responding to questions from airport correspondents, had
alleged that those who caused him not to hand-over to Abiola were those
who then wanted to give him power. Babangida had obviously become aware
he had been out-witted but, like most Nigerians, he still did not
understand Abacha’s mind-set. Abacha did not know Babangida from
Obasanjo, neither did he care for Abiola or Tofa. He just wanted power
and control it. And either you were for him or you were against him. And if you were
against him, then, in the words of Dr. Alex Ibru, The Guardian owner and
Abacha’s first interior minister who survived a government-sponsored
murder attempt, ‘God help you’.
Babangida’s fears that the hawks, both in the military and the elite
civil society, who saw an end to military rule as an end to their power
and influence, as personified by Abacha, would have killed Abiola if he
(Babangida) had handed over to him, were confirmed a year later when
Abiola declared himself president on the first anniversary of 12th June.
He was arrested for treason, denied bail, where did not come out alive.
After Abacha’s death, when asked why he did not simply complete the
announcement of the results, declare Abiola winner, swear him in and
ensure his own personal safety, damning the consequences, where history
would have judged him upright, Babangida had explained that high level
decisions of that nature are not taken based on impulse but on important
factors, considering the fact that his government was military with
vested and varied interests. And when asked if, with the benefit of
hindsight, given what he knew now, he would still annul the election, he had responded that he would be an ‘ass’ to do that.
That is the story of 12th June, 1993. Babangida played his role in the
prevailing circumstances, a role that required a man of decisiveness,
courage and patriotism, a role that history will judge aright. And Abati
knows this. But, like every Babangida basher, it is convenient to use it
to bash him.
On the assassination by letter bomb of Dele Giwa, founding
edition-in-chief of Newswatch, that was a deep dent on the image of
Babangida’s government, perhaps the deepest. It is too obvious that
there was official knowledge of the murder. But as characteristic of
most military leaders, Babangida had played it down. Most Nigerians have
argued that Babangida should have used the opportunity of the Oputa
Panel to clear his name on it, instead of the court injunction he had
secured to stop his appearance at the panel. But it is not unusual for
military governments, serving or former, to avoid forums to present
official positions on tricky past government actions or inactions.
Babangida’s decision found precedence in Obasanjo’s sought and granted
court injunction preventing his appearance before the Irikefe Panel
during the Shagari government, which it set up to inquire about the N2.8
billion missing oil money during Obasanjo regime.
Finally, Abati alleged that the main reason why Babangida dropped his
presidential ambition was because the civil society revolted. Which
civil society? That was not reasoning. That was rubbish: absolute
rubbish. Either Abati is naïve, ignorant, engaged in cheap propaganda,
or all of the above. How could a columnist in a leading national
newspaper such as The Guardian blabber that much? Although Babangida is
too diplomatic to admit it, but every discerning Nigerian knows that the
major reason why Babangida dropped his ambition was that he saw the
hand-writing on the wall that Obasanjo did not want to hand-over power
to him, and considering the level of our electioneering process, it
would have been stupid of him to have been engaged in a fruitless fight.
If the civil society, nay the electorate, was the determining factor in
the 2007 presidential election, then Obasanjo should have left the field
open for both Babangida and Atiku Abubakar to slug it out instead of inviting Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. Besides, if Obasanjo had so desired
Babangida to be his successor as he did Yar’adua, what role would Abati’s
so-called civil society have played?
When Babangida came to power in 1985, I was an eleven-year-old primary
five student. By the time he left in 1993, I was approaching twenty. I
cannot in anyway he accused of being a direct or indirect beneficiary of
Babangida’s alleged largesse. I rely on materials in drawing my
conclusions. In coming to independent and valid conclusions, the
political science student goes to the library and the internet to source
for materials, likewise the economics student, and students from other
disciplines. They get information from the internet, year-books and old
newspaper reports. And from old published commentaries, they decipher
objective commentaries from biased and ethnic jingoistic ones. Those are
the people that will define modern Nigerian history. Babangida is not a saint. Nobody is. Babangida is a man who was
opportune to have led this country for eight years during which he
impacted positively on the system, redefining statesmanship. More than
any other Nigerian leader, and nearly fifteen years after leaving
office, Babangida commands the highest percentage of genuine and eternal
admirers, from politics to the economy, to the academia and the arts.
Brilliant, genial, urbane, gentle, charismatic, suave and with a great
sense of history, Babangida’s noble place is assured in modern Nigerian
history. And it will be of eminent disservice to the act of comparison
to equate Babangida’s rulership with that of Obasanjo (both as military
and as civilian), let alone rate it under. No ethnic jingoistic
commentary can alter it.
By Oghene Omonisa