Presidential elections in any nook and cranny of the world always generate special interests because of the need to know the likely attitudinal disposition of a potential or a would-be new president. Put differently, will the new president be policy friendly? Will he or she be democratically-oriented? To what extent will he or she become a fundamentalist? Is he or she Western or Eastern cultured? Can he or she be easily manipulated? And perhaps most significantly, to what extent can he or she be an agent of better bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral cooperation? These questions generally warrant interferences, not interventions, in the domestic affairs of other sovereign States. The interference can take the form of electoral advice, financial grants, logistic assistance, election monitoring, election workshops, etc. It is from this perspective that the presidential candidatures of Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Atiku Abubakar. Rabiu Kwankwaso, Omoyele Sowore, Adewole Adebayo, and particularly, Peter Obi are quite interesting. The presidential candidature of Peter Obi is very interesting because of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s endorsement without reservation. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo is an internationally acknowledged statesman, plurilateralist by choice, and diplomatist by political desideratum.
In fact, he joined the Nigerian Society of International Affairs (NSIL), a learned society, in 1971. Grosso modo, he was well exposed internationally before assuming presidential functions as a military Head of State and as an elected president. Chief Obasanjo always moves with the aura of a powerful leader. British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, cannot be too quick to forget Obasanjo’s decision to nationalize the British Barclays Bank and the British Petroleum when she consciously but wrongly disregarded Nigeria’s anti-Apartheid policy.
Consequently, in the eyes of the international community, if Chief Obasanjo, who not only received the instrument of unconditional surrender from General Phillip Effiong on 12 January 1970, a surrender that brought the 1967-1970 shooting battles to an end, but not truly the war to an end, if Chief Obasanjo could also hand over political power in 1979 to a civilian administration led by Alhaji Shehu Shagari, and if he again openly endorses Peter Obi, a non-Yoruba personality, that he will be nationally and internationally listened to, is most likely.
Obasanjo’s Endorsement: The Physiognomic Issues
Chief Obasanjo’s endorsement of Peter Obi’s candidature has generated proponents and opponents. The opponents focused more on the person, rather than on the issues raised. They argued that Obasanjo has only one vote, that election is not won based on endorsements but on number of votes cast in favour or against, and therefore, it is the electorate that will eventually determine the plight of any presidential candidate at the time of election.
As noted by Festus Eriye, ‘in the last two or three election cycles, everyone he (Obasanjo) supported, failed woefully and those he opposed carried the day.’ More important, he said Obasanjo’s ‘previous attempts to sponsor some sort of third force option against the APC and PDP flopped spectacularly, leaving him in such desperate straits that he was constrained to back an Atiku, whose character he had savaged on several occasions, in a vain bid to spite the incumbent Muhammadu Buhari in 2019.’
In the same vein, Rabiu Kwankwaso, former Governor of Kano State and the standard bearer of the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP), advised on Wednesday, 4th January, 2023 in Benin City, that Chief Obasanjo should stop disgracing himself because no one owns the voters. As he put it, ‘supporting and endorsing Mr. A. or Mr. B… is a big mistake … There is a time in (one’s) life when (one) become(s) real statesman, not a politician.’ More important, he said ‘any candidate or party that comes out with the face of ethnicity or the issue of religion, that party, that candidate,… has failed that election before it starts.’ He therefore advised ‘our leaders that ‘they should stop disgracing themselves. We have so much respect for them. If you say you don’t like me, no problem.’
Other opponents have said that Obasanjo’s endorsement is meaningless because many people have already decided on who to vote for, based on ethnicity, religion, solidarity, and other considerations. Some people even accused Chief Obasanjo of being instrumental to the establishment of the Obi Movement, and therefore considering his endorsement as nothing more than partisanship.
Additionally, and perhaps more insultingly, the APC standard bearer, Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu, described Chief Obasanjo as a blind man leading a blind people. He asked his audience in Benin City on Thursday, 5th January 2023 whether than ‘man’ (Obasanjo) can ‘recommend a leader for you in Nigeria.’ ‘Is that not sending an agent to pick your pocket? A blind leading the blind,’ Tinubu asked. He made it clear that he was not insulting ‘visually-impaired people. But it won’t work. They will end up in the ditch. If I talk about Obasanjo and Obi, you will think they are human beings together. One who doesn’t know the way cannot show the way.’
From the afore-analyzed factors of opposition, there is no disputing the fact that greater emphasis was on the messenger to the detriment of the message. Omoyele Sowore, the presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), did not help the matter when he noted during an interview with the Arise Television, that he was not interested in ‘endorsement of people who have ruined Nigeria’ but in the endorsement of ‘people who decide who their leaders should be. People who are on the pasture land of life technically should not be dictating the future of young people, especially since they have done everything possible to destroy.’
The proponents, considering the environmental conditionings in the country, see in Obasanjo a true nationalist and a patriotic statesman, rather than as a man who is jealous of the achievements of Bola Tinubu or President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB). True, and to a great extent, Chief Obasanjo’s endorsement of Peter Obi, as contained in his letter, entitled ‘My Appeal to All Nigerians Particularly Young Nigerians,’ truly demonstrated objectivity of purpose at three levels: addressees, complaints against President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration; and pleas.
At the level of the destination of the message, Chief Obasanjo addressed his message, stricto sensu to the Nigerian youth, and lato sensu, to all Nigerians regardless of the categorization of their citizenship: by blood descent, place of birth, conferment, naturalization, marriage, registration, etc. The message was addressed to ‘all Nigerians’. Besides, it was also addressed to the ‘friends of Nigeria’ and to the ‘development partners’ of Nigeria. The implication of the extension of the message to the international friends and partners of Nigeria cannot be far-fetched: inform them of current developments in the country, attract international attention to potential changes in circumstance in the governance of Nigeria, and more importantly, to secure international support for Peter Obi.
Without scintilla of doubt, Chief Obasanjo is quite pro-West when Nigeria’s national interest is not in conflict with that of the United States and its NATO allies. Nigeria is seen as of strategic importance to the western countries, especially in terms of East-West relations, and especially in the making of the New World Order. Consequently, by drawing attention of the international friends and cooperation partners to the preferential presidential candidate of Chief Obasanjo, the expectation cannot but be, in the immediate, to ensure Peter Obi’s election and to ask for all possible support after his election.
What is noteworthy in the opening statements of the message is that the title begins with the word ‘appeal’ and the appeal was particularly to the ‘young Nigerians.’ And more importantly, the message was written under constraint ‘because of the gravity, responsibility and implications of the collective decision Nigerians, both young and old, will be making within the next two months.’ Most importantly, Chief Obasanjo wished everyone a happy new year with a request that ‘all our national calamities disappear this year.’ This prayer brings us to the second level of analysis, the allegations.
The allegations and calamities are synonymous in this context of Obasanjo’s message. Chief Obasanjo first observed that Nigerians have moved from the frying pan to the fire and from the mountain top to the valley. It is hell on earth, hence the need for an immediate better future and need not only to be cautious, but also not to be fooled again. In this regard, is this observation or allegation true? This is one statement that the opposition school of thought ought to respond to as an issue.
Secondly, Chief Obasanjo disagreed with the notion of ‘Emi lokan’ (my turn) and recommended ‘enyin lokan’ (your turn: referring to the Nigerian youths). In the thinking of Chief Obasanjo, ‘Emi lokan’ and ‘I have paid my dues,’ are one and the same thing’ which is a wrong attitude and mentality for the leadership of Nigeria now. As posited by him, the solution should be in “we” and “us” and not in “me” and “I”. Again, this is another issue for debate. Is presidential nomination an election by rotation? There is absolutely nothing wrong for Tinubu to cry out that it is his turn if he perceives elements of cheating or neglect. However, if he says that he has paid his dues, many questions cannot but be raised, especially at the level of payment of dues. These are observations that should have warranted reactive analyses rather than addressing the person of Chief Obasanjo.
Thirdly, Chief Obasanjo also raised the question of competence as basis of appointments and selection into the service. In his eyes, there has not been competence. ‘What is masqueraded as competence is self-interest and nepotism.’ Is this observation wrong? PMB has been accused publicly by many Nigerians of nepotism and PMB has even told Nigerians that he appoints the people he knows. The ideal thing when allegations are raised is to respond directly to issues raised and separate the message from the messenger.
Old age in political governance was raised by Chief Obasanjo. As he put it, ‘the vigour, energy, agility, dynamism and outreach that the job of leadership of Nigeria requires at the very top may not be provided as a septuagenarian or older… And it is glaring out of our current experiences, otherwise we will be fed with, “the President says,” and we will neither see nor hear him directly as we should.’ Why is this old age issue not also attracting reaction?
At the level of pleas to the youth, Chief Obasanjo said: ‘Youth of Nigeria, your time has come, and it is now and please grasp it. If not now, it will be never. I appeal to you to turn the tide on its head and match forward, chanting ‘Awa lokan (our turn) not with a sense of entitlement, but with a demonstrable ideological commitment to unity and transformation of Nigeria. Leave the past. Face the future.’ Why are the political special advisers running away from critical issues, but preferring to engage in insulting competition?
Obasanjo as Aficionado: the Policy Dimensions
Without any whiff of braggadocio, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo has an international personality that cannot be denigrated domestically. He is internationally recognized as an aficionado of a united Nigeria, as a committed defender of presidential system of government and democratization, and as a true defender of black dignity in international relations. He is therefore listened to internationally. His endorsement of any candidate has the potential to shape attitudinal disposition towards Nigeria after the election.
Many have rightly observed that Chief Obasanjo has only one vote but, most unfortunately, quite wrong in not recognizing that the issues he raised can also impact on the yet-to-be-decided voters. One man’s view can change or shape the viewpoints of others. For instance, the eligibility conditionality given by Chief Obasanjo is worth investigating by presidential candidates and the general voters. He proposed what he has called the TVCP conditionality. ‘T’ stands for track record of ability and performances. Is the criterion relevant or not? If yes, who amongst the presidential candidates has the best track record? ‘V’ is for vision ‘that is authentic, honest and realistic. Should a leader of Nigeria be visionless? If no, why is the focus of attention neglecting this factor? ‘C’ is for ‘character and attributes of a lady and a gentleman who are children of God and obedient to God.’
In other words, Chief Obasanjo wants the leader of Nigeria to be God fearing. And more importantly, ‘P’ stands for ‘physical and mental capability with soundness of mind.’ These are conditionality that objectivity of purpose cannot set aside if a new foundation for a better Nigeria is to be laid. It is against this background that the choice of Peter Obi for the Nigerian presidency is a matter of desideratum for Chief Obasanjo and that the policy dimensions, and particularly the foreign policy implications, should be discussed and understood.
First, based on the age criterion defined by Chief Obasanjo, the choice of Peter Obi is natural. Regardless of the controversy surrounding the true age of Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu, he is already in his 1970s. So is Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. It is only Rabiu Kwankwaso, born on 21 October 1956 (66 years) that compares fairly well with Peter Obi, who is aged 61 years. He was born on 19 July 1961. Bola Tinubu, reportedly, was born on 29 March 1952, meaning that he is about 70 years. Some analysts believe that Tinubu was 79 years old in 2021 based on his own admission that he was 69 years old and speculations that Folashade Tinubu was sixty years old. The age computation was based on the consideration that his first child, Folashade could not have been born when Tinubu was only nine years of age. Atiku Abubakar is not less than 76 years of image (born on 25 November 1946). Thus, of the leading presidential candidates, Peter Obi appears to be the youngest and therefore conveniently qualifies to be called a political godson.
In terms of character, Bola Tinubu and Atiku Abubakar cannot be said to be in the good books of Chief Obasanjo. For example, Bola Tinubu accused Chief Obasanjo in 2019 at a rally in Lagos of having organized one of Nigeria’s most flawed elections, especially in light of the admission of Umaru Musa Yar’Adua that ‘election which brought him into office was rigged.’ In the words of Tinubu, ‘Obasanjo is the greatest election rigger in this country.’ The misunderstanding between the two of them was made clear in October 2022 when there were social media reports that Obasanjo had endorsed the candidacy of Tinubu for presidency. Obasanjo’s reaction was swift: ‘I am not a politician. I am a decorated soldier, an army general. If you are looking for thorough bred politician of masters class, visit Lagos Bourdillon, there you’ll find one…’ This reaction was denied by Obasanjo and re-explained as follows: ‘politics, however, has no permanent friends or enemies. If you remind me about what Bola said about me four years ago, have you reminded yourself about what I did to him and his Lagos government about twenty years ago? I almost crashed his government and state. No governor or government from 1999 to date could have survived what I did to Bola and Lagos. No one. He survived because he has the magic wand. I hope he gets the chance to wave the magic wand over Nigeria.’
The character of Atiku Abubakar is more disturbingly. When Obasanjo was looking for a good running mate who could work with him ‘and understudy (him) so as to learn to take over and maintain continuity and consistence,’ he settled for Atiku Abubakar because ‘he worked hard for the project, he never indicated interest in the job…’ However, Obasanjo has it that what he did not know much about Atiku Abubakar by then, but which was later revealed was Atiku Abubakar’s parental background ‘which was somewhat shadowy, his propensity to corruption, his tendency to disloyalty, his inability to say and stick to the truth all the time, a propensity for poor judgment, his belief and reliance on marabouts, his lack of transparency, his trust in money to buy his way out on all issues, and his readiness to sacrifice morality, integrity, propriety, truth, and national interest for self and selfish interest. May be some of these traits and poor attributes are not easy to see until you work with the person concerned’ (vide volume 2 of Olusegun Obasanjo’s My Watch: Political and Public Affairs Lagos: Kachifo Limited, 2014, p.31 et s.).
This statement was written and published in 2014, meaning that the perception of Atiku Abubakar by Chief Obasanjo was not, could not have, and is most likely not to be favourable to his presidential .ambition. The belief that Atiku Abubakar is seen to be ready to sacrifice morality, integrity, propriety, truth, and national interest for self and selfish interest is too heavy an allegation to be set aside in any normal presidential ambition and contest.
Thus, the Choice of the first day of the New Year, when the Te Deum Laudamus (Thee, O God, We Praise), Christian Psalm is universally rendered, giving thanks to God Almighty for the Cross Over, is more than symbolic a date for endorsement. Besides, Chief Obasanjo’s letter is therefore strategic in timing, targeted audience, military blitzkrieg in style, influence impacting in electoral mobilization, and consciousness awakening in ultimate objective. Chief Obasanjo once told Nigerians that PMB has an Islamisation and a Fulanisation agenda which the Governor of Bauchi State, Bala Mohammed, confirmed during his interview with the Channels Television in 2019. Consequently, calling on the Nigerian youth who represent not less than 70% of the estimated Nigerian population of 217 million, is patriotic and far from being a jealousy. Therefore, whoever is looking at the endorsement of Peter Obi from the perspective that Chief Obasanjo has only one vote to cast or cannot control the youth or that he cannot win election in his ward is myopically missing the point. Pointing accusing fingers to Bola Tinubu and Atiku Abubakar cannot but be an element of foreign policy attitude towards Nigeria if anyone of them is elected. International respect is earned. The description of Africa as a continent of shitholes by Donald Trump or Nigeria as fantastically corrupt by British Prime Minister David Cameron, are cases in point.
Credit: This Day