In the intricate tapestry of Nigerian politics, few rivalries have captured the public’s imagination as vividly as that between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and President Bola Tinubu. Their feud, spanning decades, is not just a personal clash but a reflection of differing visions for Nigeria’s future, making it a saga that intertwines personal ambition with national policy. This article delves into the roots, developments, and implications of this enduring conflict.
Olusegun Obasanjo, a military head of state (1976-1979) who transitioned Nigeria to civilian rule, Obasanjo returned as a civilian president from 1999 to 2007. His tenure was marked by economic reforms, debt relief, and an aggressive anti-corruption stance, though not without controversies over authoritarian tendencies.
Bola Tinubu, Known as the “Jagaban”. His political career took off when he became the Governor of Lagos State in 1999. His administration was lauded for financial autonomy and infrastructural development, setting him on a path to become a pivotal figure in Nigerian politics, eventually leading to his presidency.
Initially, their relationship was cooperative, especially during the transition to democracy in 1999, where both were key players, while Obasanjo through the Peoples Democratic Party became the President of Federal Republic of Nigeria, Tinubu via Alliance for Democracy (AD) became the governor of Lagos and also aided a lot of his colleagues in South West to emerge as governors of their respective states. However, signs of discord soon emerged.
Obasanjo’s centralist approach to governance often clashed with Tinubu’s advocacy for true federalism and state autonomy. This ideological divide was at the core of their rift.
In perhaps the most emblematic conflict, Tinubu’s decision to create 37 new Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) in Lagos led to a bitter dispute. Obasanjo’s government withheld federal funds meant for these new councils, viewing Tinubu’s action as unconstitutional.
Attempts to disqualify Tinubu from running for office in 2003 due to alleged certificate forgery further deepened the animosity. Tinubu prevailed, but the episode highlighted the lengths to which Obasanjo’s administration would go to challenge his political stronghold.
Obasanjo’s approach during his presidency often seemed designed to curb the influence of regional power brokers like Tinubu. His policies on local government finances and party politics were perceived as efforts to weaken opposition from the Southwest.
After his governorship, Tinubu played a crucial role in forming and leading opposition parties, notably the Action Congress (AC) which evolved into the All Progressives Congress (APC). His strategic maneuvering ensured his relevance in national politics, often at odds with Obasanjo’s lingering influence.
Obasanjo is often seen as a statesman with a vision for Nigeria’s global standing, yet criticized for his authoritarian style. Tinubu, on the other hand, is celebrated for his political acumen and economic policies but criticized for his alleged godfatherism and opaque political dealings.
The media has oscillated between portraying Obasanjo as a seasoned leader with a paternalistic approach to governance and a figure whose methods are anachronistic in modern democracy. Tinubu is depicted as a strategic genius whose influence is both a boon and a bane to Nigerian politics.
This rivalry has had a profound impact on party dynamics. The formation of the APC was partly a result of Tinubu’s efforts to consolidate opposition against Obasanjo’s PDP, influencing the two-party dominance in Nigerian politics.
The 2023 election marked a pivotal moment when Tinubu clinched the presidency, not just a personal victory but also a testament to his long-term political strategy. Obasanjo, who had endorsed another candidate, found himself on the opposite side yet again.
Few days ago Obasanjo took a swipe at Tinubu calling Nigeria a “failed state” due to the policies of former President Muhammadu Buhari and President Bola Tinubu.
He said Tinubu and Buhari led Nigeria into a “state of chaos, insecurity, and underdevelopment.”
He stated this during a paper presentation at the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum at Yale University in the United States. The annual lecture honours the late Nigerian writer, Chinua Achebe.
The former president delivered his keynote address, titled “Leadership Failure and State Capture in Nigeria”, in a pre-recorded speech played at the event.
Read also: Labour Party suspends Enugu senator over alleged anti-party activities
Even with Tinubu in the presidency, the feud continues, albeit more nuanced. Public statements, policy directions, and political appointments are often scrutinized for signs of continued rivalry or attempts at reconciliation.
“As we can see and understand, Nigeria’s situation is bad. The more the immorality and corruption of a nation, the more the nation sinks into chaos, insecurity, conflict, discord, division, disunity, depression, youth restiveness, confusion, violence, and underdevelopment.
“That’s the situation mostly in Nigeria in the reign of Baba-go-slow and Emilokan. The failing state status of Nigeria is confirmed and glaringly indicated and manifested for every honest person to see through the consequences of the level of our pervasive corruption, mediocrity, immorality, misconduct, mismanagement, perversion, injustice, incompetence, and all other forms of iniquity,” Obasanjo said.
In a sharp rebuke to Obasanjo’s recent criticisms, the presidency, through Special Adviser Sunday Dare, accused Obasanjo of hypocrisy. The response highlighted Obasanjo’s own controversial tenure, citing his failure to lay foundational infrastructure, inadequate attention to education and security, and his unsuccessful attempt at extending his presidency beyond two terms.
Dare emphasized that Obasanjo lacks moral authority to criticize, pointing out that his administration was marred by corruption and mismanagement, including the misallocation of funds meant for electricity generation. The presidency’s stance is that Tinubu is actively engaged in correcting these historical oversights, urging Obasanjo to reflect on his own legacy instead of critiquing others
Their conflict has influenced governance, particularly in areas like federalism and local government autonomy. Policies and appointments have sometimes been seen as moves in their chess game, affecting national development narratives.
The tale of Obasanjo and Tinubu is more than a personal feud; it’s a narrative about power, influence, and governance in Nigeria. Their conflict has shaped political strategies, party formations, and even the democratic process itself. As Tinubu’s presidency continues, the dynamics might shift, but the legacy of this rivalry will likely influence Nigerian politics for years to come. Whether their relationship will find common ground or continue in opposition, only time will tell. However, their story remains a critical lens through which to view the complexities of Nigerian political life.
