The article explores the impact of General Olusegun Obasanjo’s decision to retain military leaders before Shagari’s presidency and how it allowed Babangida to rise in influence. Babangida’s autobiography, while seeking to frame his rule as a service to Nigeria, reveals more about his self-serving agenda and the suffering experienced under his regime. The importance of counter-narratives from victims and historians is emphasized to challenge his revisionist history.
In retrospect, General Olusegun Obasanjo’s decision not to retire military coup plotters before transferring power to Alhaji Shehu Shagari on October 1, 1979, significantly shaped Nigeria’s political landscape. This neglect allowed figures such as Generals Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, Sani Abacha, Abdulsalam Abubakar, and Muhammed Gusau to remain influential, transforming them from obscure military officers into prominent politicians. The reasons for this oversight might stem from ingrained military beliefs of superiority over civilians or distrust towards civilian governance.
Alhaji Shagari’s reluctance to retire these military figures, despite pressure from significant political figures like Alhaji Umaru Dikko, can be attributed to complex ethnic, religious, and geopolitical dynamics. Consequently, Babangida’s notoriety in Nigeria is primarily linked to his role in the military coup, rather than any legitimate role as a public servant. His autobiography, “A Journey in Service,” merits scrutiny as it intersects with historical narratives and realities of the Nigerian populace.
The autobiography, comprising 420 pages, is segmented into five parts with extensive appendices and an introductory foreword by retired General Yakubu Gowon. It reflects Babangida’s tenure as a military leader and provides insights that corroborate public perceptions during his regime while shedding light on the military’s patronizing attitude towards civilians. His narrative reveals the suffering inflicted upon the citizenry, temporarily holding them hostage under military governance.
However, the autobiography is fraught with shortcomings, particularly its misleading title, suggesting he served the Nigerian people. In reality, Babangida’s rise was marked by the overthrow of civilian governance and the pursuit of a personal agenda that favored him and his associates while damaging national interests. His policies, particularly the controversial Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), and brutal responses to dissent further highlight his self-serving motives.
Throughout his rule, the populace fiercely resisted Babangida’s authoritarianism and economic policies, which culminated in protests demanding the reinstatement of democratic governance. Figures like Comrade Ali Chiroma and organizations such as the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) played pivotal roles in leading this resistance, showcasing a well-organized civil society committed to upholding democratic values.
While Babangida’s autobiography may attempt to present a sanitized account of his leadership, it fails to address the extensive documentation provided by contemporary media that chronicled his administration’s challenges and public grievances. Significant events, such as the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election, warrant a more honest discourse than he provides, as much of the information surrounding it was publicly available and verifiable.
Babangida’s narrative also conspicuously avoids discussions of the adverse legacies left in his wake, such as rampant corruption and civil strife exacerbated by his administration’s actions. The memoir’s overtly revisionist stance seeks to obscure historical truths and rewrite the narrative of his tenure, casting aspersions on those opposed to his regime.
Consequently, it is paramount for the victims of Babangida’s regime and historians to document their experiences and counter his narratives. Initiatives to compile corrective histories, facilitate scholarly discussions, and establish forums for public discourse should be prioritized to ensure that the events of the Babangida years are accurately represented, thus preserving the collective memory of Nigerians against historical revisionism. Ultimately, such efforts will serve to uphold accountability and discourage future tyrants from manipulating historical narratives for personal gain.
In summary, General Babangida’s autobiography reflects a distorted perspective on his regime, emphasizing personal interests over national service. His tenure marked a significant era of opposition and resistance in Nigeria, countered effectively by civil society. Future endeavors must focus on documenting these historical truths to preserve the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic narrative and ensure accountability for past misdeeds.
Original Source: www.premiumtimesng.com
