The narrative from certain quarters is that President Bola Tinubu is laying the foundation for a new Nigeria which will only manifest in years to come – probably when his presidency has ended. The same narrative pervaded the presidency of Muhammadu Buhari for eight years. But anybody who looks rationally and logically at the indices will acknowledge that Buhari pulled Nigeria back for eight years. The harm Buhari caused Nigeria will take decades to remedy, if it can be remedied at all.
Unlike most other leaders who destroyed mainly the economy, Buhari went beyond the economy to the gum that held Nigeria together. He widened the gulf between the ethnic groups as well as the religious groups and, in his bid to always defend and protect his ethnic group, he emboldened certain forms of insecurity merchants. But the icing on the cake was in 2019 – Buhari’s re-election year – when he took away the independence of the judiciary by sacking the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, and swearing in his preferred candidate as the CJN. That action did an incalculable harm to the justice system in Nigeria.
After 15 years of military dictatorship, Olusegun Obasanjo was elected in 1999 to rebuild Nigeria. He succeeded to a large extent, especially on the economic side, by making Nigeria rich again. He got Nigeria’s debt of $30bn to the Paris Club written off in 2006 by paying $12bn to the group. He embarked on aggressive saving which boosted Nigeria’s foreign reserve. Businesses blossomed, jobs flowed and money circulated. Brand-new cars, refrigerators, television sets and other items that were virtually phased out in the 1980s and 90s resurfaced in the new millennium to the joy of the citizens. Nigeria’s economy was so strong that when the 2008 financial melt-down occurred, it ran off Nigeria’s back like water poured on the back of a duck.
Obasanjo governed Nigeria like a patriot. He paid no special attention to his ethnic group or religion. He used the best brains from different parts of the country, bringing personalities like Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Dora Akunyili, Nuhu Ribadu, Chukwuma Soludo, Nasir el-Rufai, etc, to national limelight.
But Obasanjo did not perform well on electoral and judicial matters. He could not control the megalomania that made him see himself as the only patriot who knew what was good for Nigeria. He chose the court rulings to obey and the ones to disobey. He hated anyone who criticised him and employed all means to deal with that person. He also supervised the conduct of elections that were fraught with irregularities and disenchantment.
When Umaru Yar’Adua was elected in 2007, he continued in Obasanjo’s footsteps as regards the economy, even though his election had a big question mark over it. But Yar’Adua was humble and honest to admit that his election was not transparent, which endeared him to many Nigerians. Even though he lasted just over two years in office due to ill health and eventual death, he made a mark by respecting court rulings. This further endeared him to the people.
Goodluck Jonathan took over from Yar’Adua in 2010. His greatest legacy was transparent elections and lack of desperation to win. He detached himself from the electoral body and repeatedly said that his ambition was not worth the blood of any Nigerian. He urged Nigerians not to rig elections on his behalf nor engage in any violence on his behalf. Underdogs contested elections under small and unknown parties in different parts of the country and won. That caused some excitement and made the citizens believe that power had truly returned to the people. When in 2015, the Independent National Electoral Commission announced that Jonathan was defeated at the presidential election, he conceded defeat, congratulated the winner and took clear steps to hand over peacefully, something that was not common in Nigeria and Africa. He never went to court to challenge the result.
The hope of most Nigerians was that since Jonathan had shown an example of how elections should be conducted, the beneficiary of that election -Buhari – would continue in his footsteps and even surpass him, given that he had lamented from 2003 to 2011 that he was the victim of shady elections. But Buhari reversed the electoral gains made under Jonathan. His re-election in 2019 was not transparent, neither was the 2023 conducted under his watch.
The signs from the presidency of Tinubu show that it is business as usual, as Nigerians would say. For a country that has been sucked dry and is in dire need of sustenance, if there were signs of the desire to rebuild, it would show in the body language of the president, which will in turn cascade to the legislature, ministers and even governors. A president keen to rebuild an ailing economy would have cut down on his spending and asked the citizens to join him in that regard. Most of the things listed in his supplementary budget should not even have been mentioned in the first place.
But Tinubu still appointed 47 ministers, and eventually swore in 45, the highest by any president since 1999. Despite the fact that Nigeria’s debt is mounting and the country does not have enough money to solve its myriad of problems, there are no attempts to cut down on the type and number of vehicles procured for the ministers and advisers. There was a time it was compulsory for all civil servants and public servants to drive only Nigeria-assembled Peugeot cars. Now, public servants compete on who will drive the biggest Toyota Land Cruiser or Prado. Also, the leadership of the National Assembly does not give Nigerians the confidence that the legislators are concerned about cutting, checking the expenses from the presidency. The members of the Senate and House of Representatives have insisted that their plan to get SUVs worth N160m each is justified at a time about 140 million Nigerians are multi-dimensionally poor.
It reminds one of the comment Lee Kuan Yew made in his book From Third World to First: The Singapore Story: 1965-2000. He said that some African leaders came to Commonwealth meetings in private jets instead of giving the impression that they were poor and in dire need of assistance. He mentioned Nigeria in particular among the countries showing off their wealth. Interestingly, Singapore, which used to be a poor country, has been transformed into a developed country and among the countries with the best human development index, while most African countries are still poor, indebted and begging for aid. It shows that the path taken by Nigeria and most African countries over the decades has been wrong. A new path is needed.
There is absolutely no spirit of sacrifice in Nigerian leaders. The leaders merely tell the citizens to make sacrifices without leading by example. Each new leader comes in with the spirit of a new king who has ascended the throne. He and his aides see public office as “our own time to enjoy the reward from power.”
Just like Buhari, Tinubu is taking regular steps that won’t cause any major positive effects, but he is being lionised as doing exceptional things. What is likely to happen is that by the time he is done with his two tenures of eight years, Nigeria will still be lying prostrate. And given what happens in Lagos State with Tinubu choosing who becomes the governor of the state since 2007, it is likely that Tinubu will appoint his successor when he is done in 2031. That will see his deputy, Vice President Kashim Shettima, or someone anointed by him, taking over and continuing doing the regular and getting regular results. And the ding-dong continues.
However, for Nigeria to have any hope of transformation, doing the regular is not the answer. The moment a Nigerian leader starts taking actions that show that he is building the foundation for a new Nigeria, it will be obvious to everyone. The sacrifice and commitment will start with the leader. Nigerians – ever eager to build a new nation – will passionately line up behind the leader and join in the rebuilding. And it won’t take more than two years for the results to start manifesting.
Credit: Azuka Onwuka