Remarkably, Obasanjo absolved himself and his government of corrupt practices during his eight-year tenure as president. Obasanjo said when he was elected president in 1999, Nigeria was indebted to the staggering amount of nearly $35 billion. He said the country was spending at the time about $3 billion annually on debt servicing. In that context, he said he decided Nigeria should seek debt relief. In his words: “Our creditors took us very serious and granted us debt relief.
The reserve of $3.7 billion that I met in 1999 grew to well over $45 billion by the time I left office. After we paid over $12 billion, we cleared the debts.” No sooner did Obasanjo end his sermon on corruption in Africa than he was labelled by Pastor Tunde Bakare, leader of the Save Nigeria Group (SNG), as the man who institutionalised corruption in Nigeria. Bakare said this during a message he delivered in Lagos at the Latter Rain Assembly. Bakare said Obasanjo must be held accountable for the endemic corruption in the country. In his view: “Nigerians wanted a better Nigeria. We wanted a chance to start all over again.
We lost that chance when former president Olusegun Obasanjo assumed office. Today, the old man conveniently assumes the stance of a statesman. He goes up and down telling everybody Nigeria will go up in flames. That the man he planted in power has allowed corruption to go unchecked under his clueless watch. What he expediently forgets is his role in facilitating our arrival at the sticky junction we presently find ourselves.” He continued: “In 1999, Nigerians were full of enthusiasm as they watched the military return to the barracks. We were excited because it was the dawn of a new beginning… we wanted a different and better country, one with a defined national character and the possibility of creating a sense of self-pride, we so badly needed after so many traumatizing years under the military. It never happened.”
This is not the first time that Obasanjo would advance arguments to suggest that his tenure was the best the country had experienced among all the people who had ruled Nigeria since independence. Most recently, he criticised the Goodluck Jonathan administration for the way it was handling unprecedented violence by Boko Haram. Obasanjo suggested Jonathan should explore dialogue as an option rather than use force against members of the sect. What a paradox! Obasanjo’s antecedents as president contradicted his suggestion that Jonathan should engage in dialogue with Boko Haram. How could Obasanjo suggest the use of dialogue to end insurgency by Boko Haram when he used military force during his presidency to massacre people in Odi (Bayelsa State) and rioters in Plateau State?
In his response to endless killings and reprisal killings by Christians and Muslims, Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State on 18 May 2004. He also removed Governor Joshua Dariye whom he accused of failing to stem the bitter and violent fighting between the two groups. In place of Dariye, Obasanjo appointed General Chris Ali as interim administrator to manage the affairs of the state for the six months of the emergency rule. Consistent with his projection of himself as a flawless leader, Obasanjo wrote in an essay he published in the New York Review of Books on September 24, 1998, a year before he stood for presidential election in 1999: “After my prison experience, I am committed more than ever to the ideals for which I have lived and suffered – democracy, peace, human rights, alleviation of poverty, transparent government, and popular participation.”
These commitments were made before Obasanjo was elected president. In hindsight, after eight years of his political dictatorship, only a few Nigerians would agree that Obasanjo truly lived up to those towering ideals. Obasanjo has always perceived himself as an unblemished president and knowledge dispenser whom God selected and despatched to solve Nigeria’s numerous problems. Paradoxically, however, despite Obasanjo’s exaggerated views about himself, everywhere he goes since he left office in 2007, he is trailed by placard-wielding protesters.
This is a clear message that people have not forgotten the abuses Obasanjo’s government committed during the eight years he misused his power as president. It is often said that time heals all wounds. In Obasanjo’s case, time seems to be opening new wounds and reopening old wounds. During a one-day state visit to Ekiti in late January 2007, Obasanjo was confronted by a crowd of hecklers when he claimed that he left the economy in better state than what was bequeathed to his government in May 1999. Unsurprisingly, Obasanjo turned against the protesters and used strong language to reply his critics. Obasanjo told his critics: “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.”
Obasanjo’s language was strong. It was disrespectful to people who were visually impaired or those with hearing impairment. It is difficult to understand how Obasanjo could make a hollow claim that he left the country in a better state than he found it when he assumed office in 1999. After eight years in government, Obasanjo’s track record as president was not particularly attractive. Soon after he left office, the House of Representatives instituted a committee to investigate spectacular allegations of corruption, greed, financial illegalities and irresponsibility that marked electricity contracts awarded by the Obasanjo government. This and other investigations into Obasanjo’s stewardship as president helped to unmask Obasanjo as a man with a double face who perceives himself as the most accomplished and celebrated president.
When journalists met Obasanjo at the Murtala Muhammed Airport, Ikeja, Lagos, on Tuesday, 22 July 2008, they asked him: “Sir, what advice do you have on the power problem in the country?” Obasanjo’s answer was as untrustworthy as you can get. He replied: “Anything you don’t have or you cannot get, then leave it to God.” Obasanjo’s response validated popular assumption that Obasanjo’s phony power project was designed to fail. It is Obasanjo’s contemptuous attitude to serious national problems, and his perfidious allusion to God as a cover for his personal failures, that convey the impression that Nigerian political leaders are certified liars and scam masters. If anyone was stunned by the extent of the corruption that permeated all levels of government in regard to the electricity contract schemes, many people were also offended by the corruption that emerged at the Health Ministry, including unauthorised payments received by members of the Senate Committee on Health, which, believe it or not, was headed by Obasanjo’s daughter – Iyabo.
As president, Obasanjo advocated transparency in government as the showpiece of his administration but regrettably he used his presidential powers in questionable ways to empower and enrich people of low character. Obasanjo emerged from prison and proclaimed himself a born-again Christian but his lifestyle and his activities were at odds with the main elements of Christian religious precepts. There is soundness in the suggestion that Obasanjo was and still is the dreaded monster of Nigerian politics. His peers in the army and the public service describe the man in colourful language, as a nasty and unforgiving man. In a two-part interview published in The Guardian on Sunday of February 17 and 24, 2008, former Defence Minister and former Chief of Army Staff Theophilus Yakubu Danjuma described Obasanjo in callous words as “the most toxic leader that Nigeria has produced so far”. This is not to suggest that Danjuma has better attributes.
The contradiction between Obasanjo’s public face and his human flaws is obvious. In the public domain, he vigorously condemns corruption. But when he was president, he secretly encouraged the same dishonest practices he pretended to be opposed to. In public, Obasanjo presented himself not only as a respected member of Transparency International (the global anti-corruption agency) but his questionable practices have consistently cast aspersions not only on his moral uprightness but also on the integrity of his commitment to and membership of Transparency Internation-al. Obasanjo represents the effigy of a failed president who has been consigned to the bin that holds the names of those who undermined the progress of Nigeria.
He was a man to whom so much was given but who, through arrogance and unparalleled appetite for vengeance, squandered excellent opportunities to transform the country and to make a difference in the lives of the people. It is alright for Obasanjo to preach about the virtues of transparency and accountability, as well as the deleterious impact of corruption on national development but the question must be asked: To what extent did Obasanjo uphold these virtues when he was in power? Specifically, to what extent did Obasanjo fight corruption when he was president?
TheSun
No comments:
Post a Comment