On Monday, the Presidency responded to former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s recent criticisms of President Bola Tinubu’s administration. The former president during a keynote addresses last week which he delivered at the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, Obasanjo addressed the theme of “Leadership Failure and State Capture in Nigeria,” labeling the current situation in the country as a form of state capture. He accused politicians of compromising the Nigerian judiciary, claiming that justice in Nigeria is often determined by who can pay the most. In a reaction to this, the presidency through the Adviser on Information and Strategy, Mr Bayo Onanuga asserted that Obasanjo is not a suitable figure to serve as a role model in governance as he lacks the moral rectitude to sermonise ideals of good governance.
The Presidency claimed that Obasanjo, who led Nigeria from 1999 to 2007, lacked the moral authority to provide guidance on governance. It pointed to his administration’s alleged illegal actions, including the unlawful removal of four governors from the Peoples Democratic Party, which Obasanjo himself belonged to. The statement highlighted that Obasanjo’s government made poor economic choices that have had lasting negative effects on subsequent administrations, including Tinubu’s. The statement reminded Chief Obasanjo of the flawed electoral process during his tenure that led to the election of Alhaji Umar Yar’Adua, the Presidency suggested that the former leader reflect on his past missed opportunities as both a military and civilian ruler. The release, titled “Former President Obasanjo Was Not An Ideal Leader To Emulate,” criticized Obasanjo for his persistent habit of blaming subsequent governments for the country’s challenges.
The release also condemned Obasanjo’s role in organizing what is considered one of Nigeria’s most fraudulent elections in 2007, following his failed third term agenda. The subsequent administration acknowledged the election’s flaws and sought electoral reforms. The Presidency expressed that it is hypocritical for Obasanjo to demand changes in the leadership of the Independent National Electoral Commission, given his own electoral history.
Additionally, the statement recalled the controversial $16 billion investment in the power sector during Obasanjo’s administration, which ultimately did not yield positive results. This led to investigations by Yar’Adua’s government, which sought accountability for the funds. The privatization efforts under Obasanjo were similarly criticized for benefiting his associates rather than the nation, as illustrated by the undervalued sale of national assets.
On national security, the statement highlighted that during Obasanjo’s presidency, there was little investment in modernizing the Armed Forces. The Presidency underscored that the security challenges Nigeria faces today, including the rise of militancy and kidnapping, began during Obasanjo’s time in office. The former president’s integrity and ethical standards were also called into question, referencing the public conflict with his former vice president, Atiku Abubakar, over misuse of funds.
In conclusion, the Presidency argued that the legacy of corruption and mismanagement from Obasanjo’s time in office serves as a cautionary tale rather than a model for current and future leaders.
