BY GODFREY UBAKA
THE complex, sometimes benumbing undercurrents of deceitful opaqueness and cynicism in Nigeria’s political leadership structure curiously resonated last week when it was announced that former President and military General Muhammadu Buhari had died at 82 in a London hospital . The question on the lips of many Nigerians was ‘ How many times will Buhari die?” Some even said that the way many public servants have what is referred to as official age is akin to how the event of penultimate Sunday was meant to mark the official death, the actual death being an event that had taken place in the past as a way of closing the chapter on a long, complex public life.
The rumour mill also had it that the official announcement of his death and burial were important as a way of making his double body, one cloned Jibril to be free to return to Niger Republic to resume his normal unfettered life. The purveyors of this somewhat pernicious and intriguing rumour also did refer to the official separation of the President with the wife, Aisha Buhari in circumstances that suggested that there was more to the management of the president’s prolonged health issues than meets the eyes. And so it happened that a bemused and serially traduced nation was once again reminded of an outlandish conspiracy theory which swept through the country at the peak of Buhari’s repeated foreign medical trips. The theory had it that the president had died and was of a political necessity and expediency replaced by a Sudanese look alike named “Jibril.”
The more the presidency made efforts to dismiss the rumour, the stronger it gained grounds like wildfire in some sections of the populace. It was widely believed that the Northern political elites interest groups were desperate to avert a replay of the Yar’Adua/Jonathan presidency saga. Whether the rumour had some trace of truth or not, the fact that it did spread in the first place and was sustained for, a reasonably long time did speak volumes about a President who weaponized silence even in times of national emergencies. His citizens engagement strategy through regular and effective communication was near abysmal.
And so it has been a season of somewhat subdued national mourning amidst overwhelming scepticism. It must be clearly stated at this point that core to African culture and values is the traditional axiom not to speak ill of the dead. Quite understandable as they are no longer in a position to reply in cases where they are wrongfully maligned. If however, as a people we do not want to continue progressing in error or gravitating in grand illusion, we should be able to objectively evaluate the performances of our leaders whether living or dead. For a two-time leader — first as a military Head of State and later as an elected president — Buhari’s name has been etched permanently in Nigeria’s history. Not taking a close look at how Nigeria fared under his watch would either amount to playing the ostrich or voting for a people to continue to repeat the debilitating mistakes of history.
Opinions therefore have remained sharply divided whether the legacies he left behind qualified him to be remembered as a Statesman indeed or cast him in the mould of a strongman that bruised the collective psyche of a people. As a military Head of State, his efforts at instilling discipline in public space didnot go unnoticed. The war against indiscipline as prosecuted by the Buhari/ Idiagbon military administration were however, largely marred by the jailing of public officials without trial, the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press via draconian Decree 4, and sweeping human rights violations. His second coming as an elected president experienced deafening silence as herders and terrorists held the nation by the jugular. Nigerians will also not forget in a hurry how youths protesting in #EndSars were ruthlessly murdered under his watch as president. Others however, say he would equally be remembered for his strict discipline, austere lifestyle, and largely controversial leadership style that evoked both admiration in some quarters and widespread criticism across other sections of the country. Many insist that as president, he placed more premium on cows rather than on lives of citizens who elected him to protect them.
Buhari’s presidency was dogged by criticism as there was tensed and evident disconnect, through lethargy or deep -seated aloofness with the yearning of citizens for a safer and more secured Nigeria. He was overtly accused of running an insular, nepotistic government. On his lopsided appointments heavily tilted towards the North, he said it was in line with those who gave him 95 per cent of their votes and the other sections that gave him miserly five percent. This attempt at justifying lopsidedness in political appointments led to a large feeling of non- inclusiveness that gave rise to agitations for self- determination by separatist agitators. His response to the farmer-herder conflict, especially regarding rampaging Fulani herdsmen largely confirmed allegations of ethnic bias and Fulanization agenda.
The coalition that brought him to power had ridden on the theory of Jonathan’s government being ‘clueless’ in the face of festering insecurity. With Buhari, a retired General as president however,security deteriorated further on several fronts with Boko Haram becoming even the more active in the North-East, while kidnappings, banditry, and activities of “unknown gunmen” plagued other regions. Nigeria stood delicately on the precincts of a full-blown ethnic crisis.
In the words of Gen T.Y. Danjuma , “Under Buhari, the level of insecurity rose to an unimaginable height, requiring an increase in the budget to procure more equipment to fight insurgency, yet we did not get commensurate results from the huge funds spent on defence. It means the funds were not well utilised and nobody has been charged for corruption. It is sad. Some of us regret that we are not in the system now because there is so much money to eat and people are eating it not minding Mr. President.”. That in a way largely summarized the state of the country under Buhari’s presidency.
Being a Fulani man, critics accused him of nepotism and that he only cosmetically romanced the cattleherders men and was never all out to practically deal with the rampaging terrorists whose terror led to the loss of hundreds of lives and livelihood of communities. At the peak of the lopsided appointments, in June 2020, some Southern leaders dragged President Buhari before the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court over alleged marginalization in appointments made by his administration since 2015.
His administration was also criticised for failing to tame inflation, curb unemployment, and manage the naira’s depreciation. To former President Olusegun Obasanjo this may not have come as a surprise as Buhari had never shown serious signs of being a good manager of the nation’s economy. Meanwhile, Nigeria overtook India as the world’s poverty capital under his watch. Inflation soared high, professionals left the country in frustration even as ASUU left the gates of the nation’s universities more closed than they were ever opened.
Women exchanged suckling babies for buckets of garri in a famished land of plenty. The country will find it difficult to forget One of the most defining moments of his presidency when during the #EndSARS protests of 2020, patriotic youths were shot and murdered in cold blood. The Lekki Toll Gate incident, where soldiers opened fire on peaceful protesters will for a long time remain one of the most gruesome events of our time.
Buhari’s repeated medical trips to the United Kingdom spoke volumes about a nation’s health care sector that was practically on its knees. He eventually died in a foreign health facility surrounded not by the citizens he served for years but by foreign doctors in far away London. His communication style, far from being active and engaging was slow, heavily curated, and often deliberately delayed — was widely criticised even as citizens resorted to regular studied speculations in attempts at decoding the reflexes of his body language and deep intonations of his silence.
On one occasion, he ordered security forces to “deal ruthlessly” with ballot box snatchers. On one occasion, he threatened that even the baboons and gorillas will be swallowed up in blood if the results of an election were not favourable to him. It can also be recalled that when Jonathan administration offered to negotiate with the leaders of Boko Haram insurgents, they nominated him to represent their interest at the negotiation table. That on its own cast the shadow of a desperate if not despicable strongman instead of the statesman he would wish to be remembered.