The race for leadership credibility is on in Nigeria. Former and current Presidents and military dictators have argued repeatedly over the person who achieved the most during their tenures. The rush for national recognition of feats achieved or hyped by a President began when Ibrahim Babangida compared his military government with that of Olusegun Obasanjo. In late January 2008, Obasanjo, who was recovering from official and unofficial public exposure of his personal and public life, claimed that during his two terms as President, he achieved the best for Nigeria. The jury is still out on that claim.
Now, claims are being made about the rocket-style speed with which Bola Ahmed Tinubu has launched his government that is still being contested at the election petitions’ tribunal. Keep in mind that Tinubu has not been President for up to one month, as he was sworn into office on May 29, 2023. Perhaps the reason for heaping accolades on Tinubu is that there is a distinct difference in the style of leadership between Tinubu and his predecessor Muhammadu Buhari during the first few months of their government.
While it took Buhari months to stitch up his cabinet and fill up senior positions in government, even before he submitted names of ministerial nominees to the National Assembly, Tinubu has, in the words of Dele Alake, a senior spokesperson, “hit the ground running” by announcing people to oversee key positions in the government, including officials who would serve in an interim capacity pending appointment of replacements or confirmation of those holding the positions.
I am not persuaded that one month is sufficient time to evaluate the performance of a new government. The fact that Buhari was uninspiring and incredibly slow in appointing members of his cabinet is no reason to compare Tinubu and Buhari. Owing to marked differences in the period that Tinubu has served so far, and the eight years that Buhari superintended the underdevelopment of Nigeria, there should be no reason to present Tinubu and Buhari to the court of public opinion for an assessment.
More important, speedy appointment of government officials cannot serve as a credible benchmark for the performance of a government. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the officials appointed so quickly by Tinubu would excel or perform commendably the tasks assigned to them.
There is a proverb in my part of the country that states that it is not the person who rushes to the police station first to lodge a complaint that is guaranteed of victory when the case is tested in a court of law. Tinubu is still in the first month of his government. It is sheer exaggeration to claim that Tinubu has achieved wonders in the first three weeks of his government.
It is counterproductive, indeed a self-defeating argument, to allocate accolades to a government that has barely taken off. Tinubu has a long way to travel to convince Nigerians through verifiable achievements that his government is incomparable to previous governments, or that he has demonstrated extraordinary management skills that have allowed him to “hit the ground running” (apologies to Dele Alake again) to attain good governance within weeks. Time shall tell.
It is this sentiment that was expressed by Olabode George, former deputy national chairman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), during an interview on Channels Television programme, “Politics Today,” on Tuesday last week. When he was asked to assess Tinubu’s government in the past three weeks following the inauguration of his government, George said: “It is not a 100-metre race. He (Tinubu) is to manage his people and to manage the resources of this country for the betterment of this country. He is just starting off.”
Previous Presidents have tried to talk sloppily about how their government was the best the country ever had. During a one-day visit to Ekiti State in late January 2008, Obasanjo was confronted by an angry crowd that accused him of poor governance. As expected, Obasanjo told the crowd that he left the economy in better state than what was bequeathed to his government in May 1999 during his first term as an elected President. He used strong language to reply anyone who accused him of poor record of achievement.
In Ekiti, Obasanjo responded to provocative chants by his critics. He said: “People can say what they like. We went, we saw, and we performed to the best of our ability and we thank God. But some may not hear of our performance because they are deaf, some may say they do not see because they are blind.”
Not only was Obasanjo’s language disrespectful of all those who suffer from hearing or visual impairment, it was also inappropriate for a former President to belittle people in such a way.
It was strange, therefore, to hear Obasanjo, who could not tolerate criticisms by citizens, deliver a late afternoon sermon to then Ekiti State governor, Segun Oni. Obasanjo told the governor: “In governance and in politics, once you are in position of authority, all the citizens are your subjects. You must not discriminate against anybody. All must benefit from your government. Accountability must be your watchword…You must be transparent, honest and keep your integrity intact. The economy of the state must receive all the attention it deserves so as to improve the lot of your people.”
It is amazing that Obasanjo should prescribe for a state governor the values that he scorned when he was President. Paradoxically, Obasanjo never lived up to the standards he recommended to other leaders at state and national levels.
For eight years, Obasanjo meddled arbitrarily in state affairs. He encouraged secretly the reign of terror unleashed by political thugs in Anambra State under the supervision of a political mischief-maker known as Chris Uba. For the eight years that Obasanjo was President, the people of Anambra State were held hostage by the combined force of Obasanjo’s mobile police and Chris Uba’s lawless team.
But Obasanjo’s unsolicited intrusion into other state matters did not end in Anambra. In Oyo State, Obasanjo idolised Lamidi Adedibu, the stormy petrel of Ibadan politics, who consistently wrestled for political pre-eminence with the duly elected Governor Rasheed Ladoja. In Ekiti State, Obasanjo played his duplicitous political card as he encouraged Ayo Fayose and at the same time encouraged the opposition that eventually succeeded in overthrowing Fayose.
With such an unenviable track record, it is difficult to understand how Obasanjo could claim legitimately that he left the country in a better state than he found it when he became President in 1999.
It’s all very good to stand aside and offer advice for public consumption. Clearly, Obasanjo should not recommend what he could not achieve when he was in government.
It is in this context that former Presidents and Tinubu who begin to contest the race for leadership credibility must be advised to reflect on the years they plotted to ascend the throne in Aso Rock but found the job challenging.
Obasanjo, Babangida, Goodluck Jonathan, Buhari and now Tinubu can continue the public debate over who performed best as President of Nigeria. In the court of public opinion, all of them, perhaps except for Tinubu who has been in office for under four weeks, represent the effigies of failure. They are men to whom so much was given but who squandered excellent opportunities to transform Nigeria and to make a difference in the lives of ordinary people.