Opinion
Is Baba Obasanjo being vindicated?
Is it right to claim that corruption, massive looting of public funds, armed robbery, youth banditry and gangsterism as well as militancy are queer attitudes that have crept into our lives? I remember my old mother used to tell me that the worst crime a family feared for its members was stealing peoples’ property which was likened to armed robbery.
So any family whose member was identified as a thief was cursed by the whole village and no one would marry from or be married to the family. Such thieving family would never be trusted or entrusted in the society until they repented and displayed otherwise openly for a long time. Because of the gravity of similar social vices, culprits were buried alive in big mould of sand or forced to drown in the river by tying heavy stones to them. This was in the good olden days.
But now some Nigerians openly parade themselves as corruption agents, militants and bandits massively looting public funds and causing mayhem to the society that they are supposed to assist in building. They easily forget that some people genuinely put in their lives for the victory they claim in elections. What have the governments made up of these politicians at the three levels done for the families of those who died while ensuring that the politicians won their elections or re-elections, or putting it rightly, in defence of the nation’s democracy?
It is not new the statement credited to former president of Nigeria, Chief Matthew Olusegun Obasanjo, popularly called Baba where he described the National Assembly as being made up of rogues. Obasanjo is such a leader that can be seen to possess faceless, fearless and considerably unassuming costume when corruption is talked about in Nigeria. At least, even if the other four of his fingers may be pointing towards his direction, he could be sure of what he says.
Whether it is accepted or not, Obasanjo is the pioneer in the making of NIGERIA TODAY. He is, and even while gradually losing grip of the rope hanging down from the Aso Rock, the godfather of many of those in power today. So, it is to be doubted that he may have put up a total falsehood for mere relevance – such relevance that he has maintained since Nigeria returned to democratic governance in 1999. After all, he can claim untouchability!
Obasanjo cannot be unaware of all the probes conducted and being conducted by the assemblymen. He cannot be unaware of the executive bills which are often imposed on the people through the national chambers and the financial efforts it takes to make such bills sail through the chambers. He had practically experienced and successfully enforced such in the past. Obasanjo cannot be unaware of the current bribery allegation of N44 million involving an assemblyman and the director general of Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). Obasanjo, having been too long in government at that highest level, remains an insider in government and therefore cannot just open his mouth to make frivolous accusations. After all, he also accused the judiciary and the police. He even acknowledged that some justices were sacked on bribery and corruption related matters during the hard democratic experiment of his tenures.
For the national chambers to find a soft landing for themselves and for Obasanjo is an attempt to cover the fawning ass of the foul. It is either they accept what Obasanjo has said and then swallow the shame or challenge the relevance Obasanjo is searching for and vindicate themselves.
What does the House Committee on Information, Hon. Zakari Mohammed imply by proclaiming not to join issues with former President Obasanjo who accused them of being rogues? Accused of being rogues! Is this accusation not enough – even if it is believed to be mere allegation – to sue the accuser to court for character assassination of the distinguished and honourable assemblymen? A whole assembly accused!
Zakari, in playing down this great accusation, could only find such words as, “…I think it is wrong for an elder to stand outside and pee into the house”. There are two sided revelations from this. It is either that the elder has become mentally weak that he can no more differentiate his position of being outside the house or he is sure that it makes no difference peeing into the house because the house has the similitude of a urinary. It is really a confusing scenario. The assemblymen should go further to clarify and reclaim their dignity within this context and challenge Obasanjo on this.
One startling revelation from Zakari’s defence was, “Since I came here as a legislator, I have not heard stories of Ghana-must-go bags but when former President Obasanjo was in charge, nocturnal visits of Ghana-must-go bags were a routine in an attempt to buy over the legislature and having failed especially with the last one over his third term agenda during which several MILLIONS OF DOLLARS were involved, I don’t think it is right for anybody to have headache over whatever he says”.
For the avoidance of doubt, it has been established by the assemblymen themselves that Obasanjo squandered public funds (millions of dollars) in pursuit of his then pet project codenamed ‘tenure elongation’. Has any action been taken by the assemblymen to unveil and punish the originators, proponents, distributors and collectors of the acknowledged millions of dollars? Obasanjo surely knows those who collected the money in full but refused to deliver their promises to him. Are there no more nocturnal visits within the political sphere?
Can Hon. Zakari patriotically and religiously authenticate his claim that since 2007 when Obasanjo left office as the President of Nigeria or at least from May 2011, that Ghana-must-go bags have ceased to come the ways of politicians, including the assemblymen? Why has Obasanjo not been investigated despite all the glaring indices that his regime was believed to be administratively corrupt? A regime of unequalled squandermania, power-throttling force, socio-economic vandalization and religio-political victimization!!
In the same vein, the Deputy Minority leader of the House, Hon. Suleiman Kawu postulates, “Obasanjo does not have credibility in Nigeria. Remember he was dragged to court by his own son accusing him of sleeping with his wife”
Chairman, Senate Committee on Information, Media and Public Affairs, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, while at a press conference in Abuja challenged Obasanjo, “in the new spirit of transparency and openness Obasanjo should assist the National Assembly by naming those that he knows in the National Assembly as either rogues or criminals. That would help us to be able to sanitise the polity and we sincerely thank him for his role in Nigeria, someone who cares very deeply about the Nigerian state and how it is at the moment”, adding, “the National Assembly can never engage in any talk back to the president.”
Is Obasanjo a Rock that he cannot be summoned to the National Assembly for interrogations? Remember that harmless Muhammadu Buhari has severally been verbally drilled over his misquoted statement on the 2015 elections. Buhari has been subjected to merciless tongue-lashings by Nigerians most of whom he is capable of fathering even in the political sphere. Poor Buhari!
Nonetheless, we should not forget that Obasanjo started behaving like a born-again Christian after leaving office as the president of Nigeria. Those who watch African Independent Television (AIT) may have seen when he appears to sing a gospel song saying, “I have decided to follow Jesus…” To this, one of my neighbours burst into a wild laughter saying, “Is it our Lord Jesus whom we Christians worship that Obasanjo means?”
All in all, this is a case that should not be ignored. It is either Obasanjo is right or he is openly summoned to explain if he spoke in rhetoric or was misquoted. This theory of allegation and denial in Nigeria should stop henceforth. On the other hand, what joy and results have the several probes carried out by the assemblymen brought us? Are these exposures just a tip in the iceberg?
Ajah is a writer, based in Abuja.
Muhammad Ajah
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
