You are here: HomeNews2023 01 31Article 625829

General News of Tuesday, 31 January 2023

Source: thenationonlineng.net

Obasanjo, Buhari and their contrasting leadership styles

President Muhammadu Buhari and Former President Olusegun Obasanjo President Muhammadu Buhari and Former President Olusegun Obasanjo

Despite having similar military backgrounds before they became democratically elected leaders, former President Olusegun Obasanjo and President Muhammadu Buhari are poles apart in their leadership styles. Their individual idiosyncrasies set them apart. ONYEDI OJIABOR, TONY AKOWE, JIDE ORINTUNSIN and SANNI ONOGU examine the differences in leadership styles of the two great leaders.

The intimidating credentials of former President Olusegun Obasanjo and President Muhammadu Buhari set them apart with regard to elections and general governance styles. While their military backgrounds may have helped them to shape their political and leadership styles, some people believe that President Buhari is more of a democrat than former President Obasanjo.

Despite President Buhari’s military background, it is on record that he remains one of the few African leaders whose commitment to democracy is globally acknowledged. Thrice he contested, thrice he lost in the largely tainted elections; but the soldier in him never gave up until 2015 when luck shone on him to defeat then President Goodluck Jonathan. It is acknowledged that President Buhari’s tenacity and resolve in the democratic process helped to deepen democracy in the country.

While many see Buhari as “a democrat through and through” others look at Obasanjo as a dictator who saw his words as law. The President generally believes in the free choice of his party; while Obasanjo is known to have imposed candidates on his party. For instance, in the presidential primary of the then ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party in 2007, Obasanjo was fingered as the power that compelled the stepping down of former Rivers State Governor, Dr Peter Odili, former Kaduna State Governor, Ahmed Makarfi, and former Cross River State Governor, Donald Duke, for former Katsina State Governor, Umaru Musa Yar’ Adua, who did not indicate interest in the 2007 presidential race.

It is also on record that Obasanjo dubbed the 2007 elections “a do-or-die affair” for his party; while Buhari has continued to appeal to voters to vote for the candidates of their choice. In 2007, there was apprehension that the election would not be free and fair owing to the aggressive way Obasanjo campaigned for his party’s candidate.

This time around, Nigerians are exuding confidence that the electoral process will be largely transparent, free and fair. Reports have it that “Obasanjo sought to alleviate poverty, reduce government corruption, and establish a democratic system.

“He also pledged to reform the military and the police but religious and ethnic strife became a central concern during his presidency, incidents of violence mounted and most Muslim-dominated states in the North and centre of the country adopted the Sharia law.

“Obasanjo’s harsh response to ethnic strife in the South earned condemnation. Indeed, his overall authoritative style, the corruption that was still evident among government officials was evident. Voting irregularities and allegations of fraud were rife during his presidency.

“In 2006, Obasanjo came under domestic and international criticism for attempting to amend the constitution to allow him to stand for a third term as president. The proposed amendment was roundly rejected by the Senate. With Obasanjo unable to run, Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was selected and drafted to stand as the Peoples Democratic Party’s candidate in the April 2007 presidential election. Yar’ Adua was declared the winner of the election, but international observers strongly condemned the election as being marred by voting irregularities and fraud.”

Applauding the democratic credentials, resolve and confidence of Buhari in the electoral system, former Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of African Affairs, Ambassador Johnnie Carson, at the recently-concluded U.S-Africa Leaders’ Summit organised by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), noted that “President Buhari never gave up on democracy and he never gave up on the electoral process. He never abandoned the social and ethical convictions that have guided him throughout his life and that motivated him to run for his country’s highest office.”

At the U.S Summit last December, President Buhari highlighted the modest achievements his administration has recorded in terms of deepening democratic values and ethos in the country. Between 2015 and now, it is on record that the electoral process and democratic governance have been enhanced with the improved electoral process at every election year, while perfections of any electoral shortcomings at general elections were effectively addressed at mid-term elections, through the introduction of mechanisms to ensure free, fair and credible elections by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). This explains why our elections have continued to record impressive and steady progress.

Buhari administration passed the Electoral Amendment Bill, which gives financial independence to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), provides a central electronic voters database, supports/assists voters with physical disabilities, special needs and vulnerable people at the polling unit, and legitimises e-voting/transmission of election results, as well as the introduction of Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BIVAS) by the electoral body to enhance electoral process integrity and enhance a democratic culture that guarantees good governance.

Political watchers strongly believe that Buhari’s commitment to democratic governance in almost seven-and-a-half years of his administration has tremendously helped to further consolidate democratic governance in the African Continent. Under Buhari’s watch, Nigeria has continued to effectively deliver its continental leadership role. It is to Buhari’s credit that the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a sub-regional power bloc, has continued to enforce the tenets of democratic principles in and among member states.

Nigeria’s recent heroic role in ensuring that Guinea Bissau remains peaceful, stable and on the side of democratic governance is commendable. President Buhari’s intervention is predicated on the strong belief that the bedrock of the future of Nigeria, indeed the future of Africa, lies in democratic governance, not only because it is the expression of the will of the people, but also because democracy can help Africa build fair, just and inclusive societies.

For Ayo Oyalowo, a political analyst, the comparison of the two leaders in terms of governance and electoral matters put President Buhari’s head and shoulders higher than Obasanjo’s. He said: “President Buhari is a better leader than former President Olusegun Obasanjo. We all witnessed how Buhari paid all the financial entitlements to states irrespective of the party in power. The payment of the 13 per cent derivation fund was made to benefiting states without any other consideration outside the law. We all witnessed how Buhari paid the bail-out fund to 27 states irrespective of the party in power in the states.

“But one can recall how Obasanjo withheld Lagos State’s legitimate fund for years, simply because he disagreed with the then governor of the state, Bola Tinubu. Their leadership styles and approach to governance are different. While Buhari is a leader, Obasanjo is a tyrant.”

Taking a trip down memory lane, Oyalowo recalled how Obasanjo, when he was angry, removed some elected governors. “We are alive to recall how he removed Fayose, Ngige and others. We are also alive to have the same Fayose under Buhari, he had his freedom, and even when he insulted President Buhari, he never touched or dealt with him in any way.

“The removal of three Senate Presidents by Obasanjo is still fresh on our minds, just because they did not agree with him. He removed them at the expense of the dictates of separation of powers. But Bukola Saraki did not only fight Buhari, he changed party as Senate President and Buhari never removed him.

“I recall how Obasanjo destroyed two towns in Nigeria-Odi and Zaki Biam because he was angry. But at present when Buhari wanted to deal with some elements from the Southeast, their people rose and promised to handle their issue by themselves. He allowed them because he is a leader and not a tyrant.”

On election matters, Oyalowo remembered the “garrison politics” days of Obasanjo. For the Owu-born former President, politics is do-or-die. He recalled how Obasanjo, in Ibadan and many places, enforced the “garrison politics” when he was in power.” Continuing, he said: “Buhari signed the Electoral Act that may not be beneficial to his party. Under Buhari, states All Progressives Congress (APC) lost in the court, he never used executive power to upturn or change the development. In 2003, Obasanjo forcibly removed five Southwest governors, because what took place in Southwest in 2003 was not an election but a political heist.

“Even when he left office, the man that succeeded him, President Yar’Adua said he was ashamed of the election that brought him to office. That was an indictment on Obasanjo’s electoral policy.”

However, some dark sides of President Buhari’s leadership style may not be ignored or overlooked. They formed some incidences of high-handedness, impunity, disregard for rule of law and illegalities that detract from democratic principles under President Buhari’s administration.

Sack of CJN Onnoghen and invasion of judges’ residences at midnight

In early October 2016, the State Security Service (SSS), in an unprecedented move, raided the homes of some senior judges at midnight allegedly to gather evidence of corruption against them. The raids on multiple residences of the affected judges took place simultaneously on a weekend in Abuja, Port Harcourt, Gombe, Kano, Enugu and Sokoto states.

The judges whose homes were raided in a Gestapo style by the SSS operatives included Adeniyi Ademola, and Nnamdi Dimgba of the Federal High Court in Abuja as well as Sylvester Ngwuta and John Okoro of the Supreme Court. In Kano, the home of a High Court Judge, Kabiru Auta, was raided along with another residence in Enugu belonging to the Chief Judge of the state, A. I. Umezulike. The residences of a Gombe State judge, Muazu Pindiga, as well as that of his counterpart from Sokoto State, Justice Samia, were also raided during the operation. The move was widely condemned as anti-democratic, lack of respect for the rule of law and an affront against and intimidation of the judiciary by the agents of the executive under Buhari.

Some of the judges were later suspended from the bench and prosecuted by the state. However, the court in most of the cases discharged and acquitted the accused judges. It ruled that the Federal Government under Buhari failed to establish a prima facie case to prosecute them. For instance, in April 2017, a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting at Maitama struck out the 18-count corruption charge the Federal Government preferred against Justice Adeniyi Ademola, his wife, Olabowale and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

The court held that the government failed to prove any of the allegations it levelled against the judge who, hitherto, served at the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court. Consequently, the trial Justice Jude Okeke, in a ruling that lasted over five hours, had terminated further hearings on the criminal case, even as he discharged and acquitted all the defendants.

In a similar manner, President Buhari had, on January 25 2019, shortly before the general elections of that year, sacked a serving Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, in what was generally seen as questionable circumstances. He replaced him with Justice Ibrahim Tanko Mohammed (now retired) as CJN. Buhari said he removed Mr Onnoghen based on an order of the Code of Conduct Tribunal dated January 23, 2019. Many regard the removal of CJN Onnoghen as essentially politically tainted.

Purchase of 12 Tucano Jets

In April 2018, Buhari transmitted a letter of request to the Senate seeking its approval to withdraw the sum of $496 million from the Excess Crude Account for the purchase of 12 military aircraft (Tucano Jets). Buhari, in the letter, revealed that the money had been withdrawn and paid to the United States for the 12 Super Tucano aircraft, ahead of the request for legislative approval.

The lawmakers, however, condemned the action, saying it violated Section 80 of the Constitution, which stipulates that any expenditure must first be approved by the National Assembly. In his reaction to the letter, Senator Matthew Urhoghide representing Edo South had said: “I heard very clearly when you read the letter that came from Mr President over the payment that was made for the Tucano aircraft. I was completely taken aback because I represent a people.

“This letter that you just read to us, with due respect to the office and the status of Mr President, is a violation of some of the provisions of the Constitution. I stand against it with every vehemence and I want to read Section 80 (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Constitution.

“What you just read to us violates these provisions. Mr President couldn’t have ever, and no Nigerian citizen that is up and active under the provisions of the Constitution is allowed to make any disbursement or any approval coming from any quarter, whether it is by the Council of State of the Federation or the committee of the governors or anybody in the Presidency, without approval or appropriation from this Assembly. I think it important we remind ourselves, because if we sit down here, tomorrow, posterity will judge us.”

DSS’ siege on National Assembly and thugs’ invasion of Senate Chambers

On April 18 2018, the Senate plenary was disrupted after suspected thugs invaded the chamber and made away with the mace, the symbol of authority in the legislative chamber. About 10 suspected thugs reportedly forced their entrance into the chamber. Seconds later, the thugs ran out of the chamber with the mace causing pandemonium in the Senate. They left the National Assembly with the mace. The mace was, however, recovered days later. The Senate described the action as treasonable, saying it was aimed at overthrowing an arm of the government.

In August 2018, operatives of the Department of State Service (DSS) laid siege to the National Assembly to the shock and consternation of lawmakers, members of staff, Nigerians and the international community. This illegality, which was condemned by several quarters, led to the abrupt sack of the then Director-General of DSS, Lawal Daura, the same day by then Acting President Yemi Osinbajo.

Despite these dark spots on President Buhari’s democratic credentials, there is no doubt that accolades are being poured on Buhari locally and on the global political space for all the electoral and administrative reforms that have helped to improve democratic governance and electoral integrity. Unlike the former President who publicly said the 2007 Presidential election will be a do-or-die affair, Executive Director, YIAGA Africa, Samson Itodo said President Buhari has shown that he was ready to leave behind a history of credible elections in the country.

He said: “I think the President is determined to bequeath to Nigerians a credible electoral process. He has expressed his intentions not to interfere with the process. He needs to maintain this same body language, but go beyond this rhetoric of insisting on bequeathing credible elections. He needs to first empower the security agencies and hold them to account. They must be non-partisan and professional in securing the election without preference for his party or any party and let the will of the Nigerian people prevail.”

Itodo argued that even though not much has changed in the political landscape, the introduction of technology into the electoral process under the Buhari government is a plus for him. But he believes the government must move from the determination to leave a credible election to funding the security agencies and ensuring that they are professional in their conduct during the elections.

What is more, former President Obasanjo is known to have a penchant for interference in the governance of states. For example, for several years, he held back the allocation for the 20 constitutionally recognised local government councils in Lagos State because the state government created local council development areas.

The state government was left with the option of funding the councils. Rather than hold back funds belonging to states, President Buhari has given money belonging to the Federal Government to the states as a bailout to enable them to pay salaries and carry out other activities of governance.

Two governors were impeached under the Obasanjo government with less than half of the members of the state house of the assembly when the constitution requires two third majorities of elected members to impeach a governor. The Buhari government has allowed the states to run their affair, even when a governor elected by the people refused to allow elected members of the state assembly to take their oath of office and represent their people.

Buhari has also not interfered with the penchant of state governors to issue draconian orders, especially during elections. The Executive Director of Peering Advocacy and Advancement Centre in Africa (PAACA), Ezenwa Nwagwu, described that as the essence of a presidential system of government. He gave an example of the President’s continuous call on Nigerians to vote for candidates of their choice.

He said: “The undeniable legacy of President Buhari would be the signing of the 2022 Electoral Act which, in a far-reaching sense raised the integrity quotient of our electoral process, especially with the introduction of technology. If the way the executive behaved is anything to go by, it has shifted the goalpost in a very significant way from where we used to have a president that would say it is a do-or-die affair. This President seems to consistently maintain the fact that he will not interfere and even when opposition parties win elections, he has been quick to congratulate them.

“In very significant ways, we have not seen that kind of tension that we used to see in previous general elections. There seems to be some relative calmness; apart from cases in some states where the governors are misbehaving and it appears the President is not able to call them to order. That is the challenge of a presidential system of government. The governors are lords to themselves. There is nothing the President can do to them. He can only persuade or warn. I think this President has manifestly shown his disinterestedness in the eventual outcome of the election.”

The Buhari administration has also made the actualisation of the Second Niger Bridge project a major priority of his government. While not many new road contracts were awarded by the Buhari government, he made the completion of ongoing roads a priority of the government. Many have argued that the Buhari government paid more attention to the completion of ongoing projects than those before him.

In addition, there has been a better and more robust legislature with a high degree of independence under the Buhari government than in previous administrations before him. Under the Obasanjo government, for example, the legislature, especially the Senate, had a high turnover of presiding officers. But between 2015 and 2023, the National Assembly has had only two sets of presiding officers, one per Assembly. A high number of bills passed have also been signed by the President.

Nwagwu believes there is not much to compare between the two governments. He said: “Since 1999, those who have ruled this country have read from the same textbooks. They have not, in any sense, shifted from the market economy which all of them have sworn to. We have had different personalities implementing different programmes, completely taking the government’s responsibility and shifting it to the private sector when, indeed, you do not have a private sector.

“So, in terms of the campaign, if you look at the manifestos of all the political parties except for one or two, you will see that there is no place where they said they are going to expel poverty. They all make the same promises, but in the last 40 years, there has been complete abandonment of government responsibility. So, I think the people should have been setting the agenda for 2023 by calling attention to the fact that while public hospitals are deteriorating daily, we are having more private hospitals coming up. While the government is not funding public universities and public schools, we are having more and more private universities and private secondary schools.

“If we set that agenda as a people, then, we will not allow politicians to give us glossy manifestoes. So, if you are asking me about the campaign, I think we are going through a hollow ritual.”