Former President Obasanjo’s recent critique of Nigerian governance at Yale stirs discussions on leadership hypocrisy and historical missteps.
Former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo has reignited controversy with his recent comments on leadership and governance during the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum at Yale University.
Using the platform to critique past and present administrations, Obasanjo labelled Nigeria a failing country and criticised both President Muhammadu Buhari and President Bola Tinubu for their governance styles.
Also read: Sanwo-Olu, Obasanjo, Cardoso to headline ‘The Power of One Man’ book launch
Obasanjo’s tendency to critique his successors has long drawn mixed reactions.
While some see him as an elder statesman addressing critical issues, others accuse him of hypocrisy.
At the Yale forum, Obasanjo referred to Buhari as “Baba Go Slow” and Tinubu as “Emilokan,” calling into question their leadership effectiveness.
However, critics argue that Obasanjo’s tenure was rife with shortcomings.
Chinua Achebe, the forum’s namesake, famously rejected a national honour from Obasanjo’s administration in 2004, citing corruption and abuse of power.
Achebe’s refusal highlighted state-sponsored lawlessness in Anambra, where a sitting governor was abducted under Obasanjo’s watch.
During his tenure from 1999 to 2007, Obasanjo faced allegations of corruption, constitutional violations, and electoral malpractice.
His administration was marked by contentious impeachments of governors and the failed third-term bid, which reportedly consumed billions of naira.
Critics also recall his privatisation programme and the controversial sale of national assets, such as ALSCON, at undervalued rates.
Obasanjo’s economic policies remain another point of contention. While he cleared $15 billion in debt to the Paris Club, many argue the funds could have addressed Nigeria’s decaying infrastructure.
The $16 billion spent on failed electricity projects and the inadequate maintenance of federal roads are frequently cited as missed opportunities.
Security lapses during Obasanjo’s administration planted seeds of future crises. Under his watch, militancy and kidnapping surged in the Niger Delta, and Boko Haram began to take root.
Comparatively, subsequent administrations under Buhari and Tinubu have made strides in military modernisation, acquiring fighter jets and naval ships while tackling insurgency and banditry.
As Nigeria grapples with economic and security challenges, many believe Obasanjo’s focus should shift towards reflection and collaboration rather than critique.
His critics urge him to acknowledge his role in the country’s current state and support constructive efforts for national progress.
While Obasanjo’s voice remains influential, his legacy invites scrutiny, making his critiques a contentious topic in Nigeria’s ongoing quest for effective governance.
