By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

In last week’s installment, we dealt with the controversy over the removal of fuel subsidy; corruption’s unyielding gripe and perennial event for change after which we suggested several pathways that can be taken by our political leadership in its fight against corruption. We continue with same theme in this week’s feature with emphasis on how the people’s constitution can make the decisive difference. Enjoy.

FROM SHACKLES TO STRENGTH: FORGING A PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTION TO BREAK NIGERIA’S ENDLESS CYCLE OF CORRUPTION AND MISRULE

Since Nigeria gained independence in 1960, the country has been on a turbulent political trajectory. Each leadership era has grappled with its share of challenges such as corruption, economic stagnation, political instability, and ethnic tensions. Beneath these issues lies a structural flaw embedded in Nigeria’s constitutional framework. The 1999 Constitution, a product of military imposition, has hindered the evolution of a truly democratic Nigeria. To move forward, Nigeria must embrace a new, people-driven constitution that reflects the hopes and aspirations of its citizens, addresses systemic corruption, and empowers governance structures for sustainable development.

It is often said, “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link,” and in Nigeria’s case, the weakest link has long been the constitution, a framework that, despite claiming supremacy, fails to embody the will of the people. The current constitution is akin to a vessel built to sail in turbulent waters but without a captain who understands the journey’s purpose. As we embark on this voyage towards political reform and true federalism, Nigeria’s citizens must be at the helm, steering their nation towards a brighter future.

THE ILLEGITIMACY OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION: A ROOT CAUSE OF LEADERSHIP FAILURES

To understand Nigeria’s persistent leadership challenges, one must first grasp the inherent problems with the 1999 Constitution. Enacted through Decree 24 of 1999 under the military regime of General Abdulsalami Abubakar on the 5th of May, 1999 (Commonwealth Legal Information Institute. (1999). Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999). Commonwealth Legal Information Institute. <http://www.commonlii.org/ng/legis/num_act/cotfrond596/.> Accessed on the 26th of September, 2024.), the document was imposed on the Nigerian people without consultation, debate, or referendum. It begins with the words, “We the People,” a phrase that rings hollow because, in reality, the people were never involved. The constitution, rather than being a product of a democratic process, was drafted by a select few military officers, a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

The lack of legitimacy of the 1999 Constitution has had far-reaching consequences. As the legal foundation of Nigeria’s political system, it has created an environment where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, fostering a culture of impunity and corruption. The constitution’s centralization of authority, particularly the excessive powers vested in the executive branch, has encouraged political leaders to view public office as a vehicle for personal enrichment rather than public service. This has led to the rise of what can only be described as “strong men in weak institutions,” where political leaders wield immense influence while the institutions meant to check their excesses remain fragile and ineffective.

To quote Aristotle, “The law should govern, and those in power should be servants of the law.” However, in Nigeria, the law, as it stands in the 1999 Constitution, serves the powerful more than the people. This imbalance has perpetuated a cycle of poor governance, with each successive administration more concerned with maintaining control than addressing the nation’s deep-seated issues. Nigeria’s leadership has been trapped in a game of musical chairs, where the players change, but the song remains the same corruption, nepotism, and ineptitude continue to play loudly in the background.

One of the most significant flaws in the 1999 Constitution is the concentration of power at the federal level. Sections like 162(1)-(6) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which govern the distribution of national revenues, heavily favour the federal government, leaving states and local governments dependent on the centre for funding. This structure creates a scenario where political leaders, rather than focusing on developing their regions, are more concerned with gaining control of federal power because that is where the wealth lies.

“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” (Liberty Fund. (1887). Lord Acton writes to Bishop Creighton that the same moral standards should be applied to all men, political and religious leaders included, especially since power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Liberty Fund. <https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/lord-acton-writes-to-bishop-creighton-that-the-same-moral-standards-should-be-applied-to-all-men-political-and-religious-leaders-included-especially-since-power-tends-to-corrupt-and-absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely-1887>. Accessed on the 26th of September, 2024.) Lord Acton famously said. In Nigeria, the centralization of power has indeed corrupted the political process, making public office a prize to be won rather than a responsibility to be honoured. The pursuit of federal control has turned elections into high-stakes contests, often marred by violence, vote rigging, and judicial manipulation. Political actors are willing to do whatever it takes to ascend to positions of power, knowing that once they are there, they can siphon off resources with little to no accountability.

This centralization has also weakened Nigeria’s institutions, as power-hungry politicians bypass institutional checks and balances. The Constitution, which vests executive powers in the president (Section 5 of the 1999 Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria), has effectively allowed successive Nigerian presidents to act with near impunity, unchecked by the judiciary or legislature. The overreach of the executive has weakened the rule of law, as institutions like the judiciary and the National Assembly struggle to assert their independence in the face of an all-powerful executive.

A constitution that allows for such unchecked power is like a dam with a crack eventually, the waters of corruption and misgovernance will break through. Nigeria’s constitution must be redesigned to ensure that power is not concentrated in one place but is distributed across all levels of government, fostering accountability and strengthening democratic institutions.

A PEOPLE-DRIVEN CONSTITUTION: RECLAIMING NIGERIA’S POLITICAL DESTINY

To break the cycle of poor leadership and systemic corruption, Nigeria needs a new constitution; one that is not imposed from above but emerges from the people themselves. The phrase “We the People” must not merely be symbolic but a genuine reflection of the constitution’s origins. A people-driven constitution would be one that reflects the diverse aspirations of Nigeria’s citizens, ensuring that governance is inclusive, participatory, and transparent.

Creating such a constitution requires more than just amending the current one. The Nigeria Constitution allows for amendments (Section 9(1) of the 1999 Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria), but amending a fundamentally flawed document is akin to placing a band-aid on a festering wound. What Nigeria needs is not reform, but a complete overhaul, a constitution that is autochthonous, meaning it derives its legitimacy directly from the people.
A new Constitution must be drafted through a Constituent Assembly, which would include representatives from every part of Nigeria ethnic groups, civil society organizations, labour unions, religious leaders, and youth groups. This assembly would serve as the platform for a national conversation about the type of governance Nigeria needs. Once the draft is completed, it should be subjected to a national referendum, allowing Nigerians to vote on whether they approve of the new Constitution. This process would give the new constitution the legitimacy it needs to succeed, as it would truly reflect the will of the people.

At the heart of the new Constitution must be the principle of devolution of power. Nigeria is a vast and diverse nation, with each region having its unique challenges and opportunities. A “one-size-fits-all” approach to governance has proven ineffective, as the federal government is too far removed from the daily realities of the people. The new constitution must therefore embrace true federalism, where power is devolved to the states and local governments, giving them the autonomy to manage their affairs akin to that in the first republic (1963-1966).

Sections 44(3) and 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which vest control of mineral resources and revenue allocation in the federal government, need to be reformed. States should have the authority to control their resources, whether oil, agriculture, or minerals, and use the revenue generated to develop their regions. In return, they would pay a reasonable percentage of their income to the federal government. This model of resource control would incentivize states to become more productive and self-sufficient, reducing their dependence on the centre and fostering a more balanced approach to national development.

State and local governments must also be empowered to take charge of security. Section 214(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which creates a centralized police force, should be re-examined. A decentralized police force would allow states and localities to respond more effectively to security challenges, as they would have a better understanding of local issues and could act swiftly to address them. A system of local policing would also promote greater accountability, as police officers would be more closely connected to the communities they serve.

As the famous African proverb goes, “A man who uses force is afraid of reasoning.” In Nigeria, force has often been the method of governance, with little attention paid to strengthening institutions that promote reason, justice, and fairness. For Nigeria to break free from the grip of corruption, its institutions must be fortified. Strong institutions, not strong men, should be the pillars of governance. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“There are three essentials to leadership: humility, clarity and courage” – Chan Master Fuchan Yuan.

LAST LINE

God bless my numerous global readers for always keeping faith with the Sunday Sermon on the Mount of the Nigerian Project, by humble me, Prof Mike Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, FCIArb., LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.Sc, DHL, DA. Kindly come with me to next week’s exciting dissertation.

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

In our last episode, we x-rayed the following sub-themes: insecurity: the Boko Haram Insurgency and the rise of banditry; corruption: a persistent problem; the Tinubu era: corruption issues and the challenge of reform; the allegations: a cloud over the presidency and then the early signs: continuity or change? today we shall take a look at the effect of the fuel subsidy removal by the Tinubu administration; a lingering struggle: corruption’s unyielding grip; the quest for change continues and finally we shall attend to fashion out a path forward for Nigeria’s political leadership and anti-corruption efforts. Read on.

THE FUEL SUBSIDY REMOVAL CONTROVERSY

In an effort to address Nigeria’s perennial fiscal challenges, Tinubu announced the removal of the longstanding fuel subsidy soon after assuming office. For decades, the government had subsidized the cost of petrol to make it affordable for Nigerians, but this policy had become increasingly unsustainable, costing the government billions of dollars each year. The subsidy system was also riddled with corruption, as fuel importers and government officials routinely inflated the subsidy claims to pocket the excess (The Guardian. (2012). Nigeria fuel subsidy scheme: $6bn lost to corruption. The Guardian. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/19/nigeria-fuel-subsidy-scheme-corruption>. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.).

Tinubu’s decision to eliminate the subsidy was widely seen as necessary from an economic standpoint but sparked widespread protests across the country. The immediate effect was a sharp increase in the price of petrol, which disproportionately affected Nigeria’s poorest citizens (ibid). The government’s failure to adequately explain how the savings from the subsidy removal would be reinvested into public services only deepened public suspicion. Many Nigerians questioned whether the savings from the subsidy removal would be used to benefit the people or whether they would disappear into the same corrupt networks that had historically profited from Nigeria’s oil wealth.

In response to public outcry, Tinubu’s administration promised to invest the funds from the subsidy removal in infrastructure, healthcare, and education, but skepticism remained high. After years of government failures to deliver on such promises, many Nigerians doubted whether Tinubu could break the cycle of corruption and mismanagement. As one protester remarked, “We’ve heard these promises before, and we’re still waiting for them to come true.”

A LINGERING STRUGGLE: CORRUPTION’S UNYIELDING GRIP

As Tinubu’s presidency progressed, it became clear that addressing corruption would require more than just policy announcements or high-profile arrests. The systemic nature of corruption in Nigeria rooted in decades of weak institutions, patronage networks, and the politicization of key sectors meant that any serious reform effort would require a sustained and comprehensive approach.

While Tinubu continued to tout his anti-corruption agenda, the early signs suggested that old patterns were difficult to break. Appointments of loyalists to critical positions, accusations of inflated contracts, and the lack of transparency in government dealings indicated that corruption remained deeply entrenched in Nigeria’s political fabric.

As Nigeria approached the midway point of Tinubu’s first term, the jury was still out on whether his administration would deliver the substantive reforms needed to curb corruption. While there was hope among some that Tinubu’s political acumen and experience could lead to positive changes, many others remained skeptical. The challenge for the Tinubu administration was clear: it had to prove that it could not only survive the weight of its past but also deliver a future where corruption no longer defined the Nigerian experience.

As the Nigerian proverb warns, “A tree cannot make a forest.” For Tinubu’s anti-corruption efforts to succeed, it would require not just strong leadership but a collective, national effort to rebuild trust in Nigeria’s institutions and governance systems. Whether or not this would be achieved remained to be seen, but the stakes for Nigeria’s future had never been higher.

THE QUEST FOR CHANGE CONTINUES

As Nigeria entered the mid-2020s, the country remained at a crossroads. The challenges of corruption, insecurity, economic inequality, and weak governance were as pressing as ever. While there had been moments of hope and progress, the road to meaningful change remained long and fraught with obstacles.

The Buhari administration, like those before it, had made strides in some areas but had ultimately been unable to deliver the transformative change that Nigerians so desperately craved. As the nation looked to the future, the question remained: Can Nigeria finally break free from the cycles of corruption, mismanagement, and insecurity that have plagued it for decades? Or will the promise of change remain elusive?

As the Nigerian proverb goes, “No matter how long the night, the day will surely come.” The hope for a better Nigeria still burns brightly in the hearts of its people, but the journey toward that brighter day remains uncertain.

A PATH FORWARD FOR NIGERIA’S POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS

1. Strengthen and Reform Institutions to Combat Corruption

A key reason for the persistence of corruption in Nigeria is the weakness of its institutions. Anti-corruption bodies such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) have often been undermined by political interference and a lack of autonomy. Strengthening these institutions is crucial to ensuring that they can function independently, without fear or favour. To achieve this, laws must be enacted to shield anti-corruption agencies from political pressures, ensuring that their leadership is selected through transparent and merit-based processes. Additionally, judicial reforms are necessary to expedite corruption trials, many of which drag on for years. Specialized anti-corruption courts could help fast-track cases and prevent wealthy or influential individuals from using legal delays to avoid justice. Transparency in public financial management, particularly in sectors such as oil and gas, must also be prioritized. Regular, independent audits of government accounts and resources, with publicly accessible reports, will foster accountability and deter corrupt practices.

2. Foster Political and Electoral Reforms

Corruption in Nigeria is often exacerbated by flawed electoral processes that undermine democracy and allow political leaders to assume office without true accountability to the people. Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must be reformed to ensure greater transparency and independence, reducing the opportunity for electoral manipulation and rigging. Introducing electronic voting systems and biometric verification for voters will minimize fraudulent voting and enhance the credibility of elections. Moreover, political campaigns must be regulated through strict enforcement of campaign finance laws to prevent the undue influence of money in politics. By limiting the amount of money individuals or organizations can contribute to campaigns, Nigeria can prevent its political processes from being dominated by wealthy elites with vested interests. It is also crucial to consider decentralizing power from the federal government to state and local levels, fostering competition and creating more local checks on the use of public resources.

3. Invest in Civic Education and Youth Engagement

Nigeria’s youth have emerged as a significant force for change, as demonstrated by the #EndSARS movement, which harnessed the power of digital platforms to demand greater accountability from the government. To capitalize on this energy, the government must invest in civic education to empower young people with knowledge about their rights and responsibilities as citizens. Educating the populace about the dangers of corruption and their role in governance will help cultivate a culture of accountability and active citizenship. Furthermore, creating avenues for youth participation in political processes will ensure that their voices are not only heard but also reflected in policy decisions. Mentorship programs and political internships for young Nigerians can help foster a new generation of leaders committed to transparency and good governance, reducing the reliance on traditional political elites who are often implicated in corruption.

4. Promote Economic Diversification and Job Creation

Nigeria’s over-reliance on oil revenues has fueled corruption, as the country’s political elites have competed for control of the wealth generated by this single resource. To reduce the incentives for corrupt practices, Nigeria must diversify its economy by investing in sectors such as agriculture, technology, and manufacturing. Diversification will not only help the country stabilize its economy against fluctuations in global oil prices but will also create more opportunities for employment, particularly for the country’s young and growing population. Job creation is key to reducing poverty, a major driver of corruption at the grassroots level. When citizens have stable economic prospects, they are less likely to engage in corrupt activities for survival. The government should also provide more support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as these businesses have the potential to drive economic growth and reduce the dependency on government contracts, which are often riddled with corruption.

5. Strengthen Accountability and Whistleblower Protections

A major challenge in Nigeria’s fight against corruption is the lack of accountability mechanisms and the fear of retaliation for those who speak out against corrupt practices. To address this, the government should establish and enforce robust whistleblower protection laws that encourage individuals to report corruption without fear of retribution. Whistleblowers play a crucial role in exposing corrupt practices, but many are reluctant to come forward due to the risk of personal and professional harm. Adequate protections must include legal immunity for whistleblowers, as well as financial incentives for those who provide substantial information leading to the recovery of stolen assets. Additionally, holding public officials accountable through regular asset declarations and lifestyle audits will deter corruption. Government officials should be required to declare their assets publicly, and any discrepancies should be investigated thoroughly. This will send a clear message that no one is above the law and that public office is a responsibility, not an opportunity for personal enrichment.

These recommendations, if implemented, could help address the systemic corruption that has plagued Nigeria’s political leadership since independence. However, they require sustained political will, broad public support, and strong enforcement to be truly effective. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“Outstanding leaders go out of their way to boost the self-esteem of their personnel. If people believe in themselves, it’s amazing what they can accomplish”. (Sam Walton).

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

Introduction

In the first part of this article, we examined the nexus between leadership and corruption, after which we embarked on a brief historical review of our political leadership from the pre independence period to the First Republic. Today, we shall examine how the first republic was aborted by the military coup and its push-back (the counter-coup) and how ethnic tensions preceeded the civil war which followed afterwards.

Thereafter, we shall trace the persistent trajectory of corruption through the ensuing thirteen years of military rule up to our 2nd experience of democracy between 1979 and 1983; the Buhari-Idiagbon military era (and its preference for draconian decrees) which was later replaced by the seemingly benevolent/benignly regime of our first (and only) military president, Ibrahim Babangida. Enjoy.

MILITARY COUPS: THE END OF THE FIRST REPUBLIC

By 1966, the situation had reached a boiling point. The civilian government, unable to control the escalating violence and political instability, was overthrown in Nigeria’s first military coup. On January 15, 1966, a group of young army officers, mostly of Igbo extraction, assassinated key political leaders, including Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, Northern Premier Ahmadu Bello, and Western Premier Samuel Akintola.

Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, the leader of the coup, declared that the military intervention was necessary to rid the country of corruption, tribalism, and political mismanagement. In his words, “We must halt this rigged dancing competition where the winner is pre-determined before the music even begins.” However, rather than halting Nigeria’s downward spiral, the coup plunged the country into even deeper turmoil.

The coup was widely perceived in the north as an Igbo conspiracy to dominate Nigeria, especially since key northern leaders were among the casualties while the Igbo-dominated Eastern Region’s leaders remained untouched (see Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Nigerian Civil War. Wikipedia. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Civil_War>. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.). The result was a counter-coup in July 1966, led by northern officers, which culminated in the assassination of the new head of state, General Aguiyi-Ironsi, who was Igbo. Lieutenant Colonel Yakubu Gowon, a northern Christian, assumed leadership. What followed was a period of intense ethnic violence, particularly targeted against Igbos living in the northern regions. Tens of thousands of Igbos were massacred in what some historians consider a precursor to the Nigerian Civil War (ibid).

ETHNIC TENSIONS AND THE ROAD TO CIVIL WAR

As Nigeria lurched from one crisis to another, the dream of a united nation began to fade. The period from 1966 to 1967 was marked by intense negotiations to prevent the breakup of the country (ibid). However, the killing of Igbos in the north created a mass exodus of Igbos back to the Eastern Region. The regional military governor of the east, Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu, declared the secession of the Eastern Region, naming it the Republic of Biafra in May 1967 (Lewis, P. (2007). Oil, politics, and economic change in Indonesia and Nigeria. University of Michigan Press. p. 78. ISBN 9780472024742.). In his declaration, Ojukwu framed the conflict as a matter of survival for the Igbo people, stating that “We are humans. We live. We fight, fight because the decision to be free is a decision taken freely and collectively, because to become involved in violent struggle for freedom is the only honour left to an oppressed people threatened with genocide, because in the final analysis the only true bulwark against death is to live. Biafra rejects death…Biafra lives” (Brittle Paper. (2014). 9 powerful quotes by Ojukwu on the history of Biafra and the revolution. Brittle Paper. <https://brittlepaper.com/2014/06/9-powerful-quotes-ojukwu-history-biafra-revolution/>. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.).

Gowon, on the other hand, insisted on the unity of Nigeria. To him, allowing Biafra to secede would set a dangerous precedent for other regions, potentially leading to the disintegration of the entire country. His famous declaration that “There is no basis for a Nigerian nation, except the will to stay together” encapsulated the fragile nature of Nigeria’s unity.

What followed was a brutal civil war that lasted from 1967 to 1970, with millions of lives lost, particularly on the Biafran side which killed an estimated 500,000 to 3,000,000 people (see Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Nigerian Civil War. Encyclopaedia Britannica. <https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nigerian-civil-war>. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.). The images of starving children from Biafra became a symbol of the horrors of the war, drawing international attention. The war ended with Biafra’s surrender in 1970, and Gowon’s government famously declared that there was “no victor, no vanquished.” (Origins. (2020). The Nigerian Civil War: Remembering Biafra, 50 years later. Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective. https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/nigerian-civil-war-biafra-anniversary. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.). However, the scars of the war would linger, deeply affecting Nigeria’s political trajectory in the years to come.

CORRUPTION: A PERSISTENT THEME

While the political landscape of Nigeria was shaped by ethnic tensions and military coups, corruption quickly became a persistent theme in its governance. From the early years of the First Republic, political leaders were accused of using their positions to enrich themselves at the expense of the people (Republic. (2023). Political party financing in Nigeria. Republic. <https://republic.com.ng/February-March-2023/political-party-financing-in-nigeria/>. Assessed on the 18th of January, 2025.). A report by Nigeria’s Coker Commission of Inquiry in 1962 found that Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s government in the Western Region had used public funds to finance the operations of his political party, the Action Group. This was just one of many scandals that eroded public trust in the political class.

The military leaders who took over after the coup of 1966 were not immune to corruption either. While they came to power with promises of cleaning up the political mess, they quickly became entangled in the same web of patronage and self-interest. Gowon’s government, despite overseeing the end of the civil war and initiating efforts to “rebuild” the nation, was plagued by accusations of financial impropriety. Nigeria’s sudden oil wealth, thanks to the oil boom of the 1970s, only made matters worse (Ogunmodede, T. A., & Egunjobi, F. (2018). Historical analysis of Boko Haram insurgency and terrorism in Nigeria.Open Access Library Journal, 5(2), 1-13. <https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=83885>. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.). As one critic put it, “Nigeria is not suffering from poverty; it is suffering from the mismanagement of wealth.” (Ucha, C. (2010). Poverty in Nigeria: Some dimensions and contributing factors. American University. <https://www.american.edu/cas/economics/ejournal/upload/ucha_accessible.pdf>. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024).

THE ERA OF MILITARY DOMINATION: AUTHORITARIANISM AND DEEPENING CORRUPTION (1980-1999)

The Military Marches In: Power Through the Barrel of a Gun

By the dawn of the 1980s, Nigeria had seen more coups than it had enjoyed democratic elections. The post-colonial optimism of the early 1960s had withered, leaving behind a country caught in the throes of military domination. The soldiers who had come to “save” Nigeria from the divisive politics of the First Republic now found themselves enmeshed in the very corruption, tribalism, and mismanagement they had sworn to eradicate. The rise of military rule in Nigeria was not an accident but a consequence of a fractured political system, made worse by economic mismanagement and elite-driven greed. As the Nigerian saying goes, “He who rides the tiger cannot dismount without being devoured.” The military, having tasted power, found it too tempting to give up.

After General Yakubu Gowon’s ouster in July of 1975, the military era took a sharp turn with the ascension of General Murtala Mohammed, a brash and energetic leader determined to right the ship of state. However, his tenure was cut short when he was assassinated in an attempted coup just six months into his rule, throwing the country once again into uncertainty. His deputy, General Olusegun Obasanjo, succeeded him and became the first military ruler to hand over power voluntarily to a civilian government in 1979, paving the way for Nigeria’s Second Republic. However, this democratic experiment was brief, as the nation soon returned to military rule in 1983, beginning what many call the “era of authoritarianism.” (Ameh, A. O., & Oghojafor, B. E. A. (2014). Leadership theories and Nigeria’s development crisis: A retrospective view. CORE. <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/328106737.pdf>. Assessed on the 17th of January, 2025)

THE SECOND REPUBLIC: A FRAGILE DEMOCRACY

Nigeria’s Second Republic (1979-1983) came into existence amid cautious optimism. Obasanjo’s transition to civilian rule was lauded as a step toward stability, and Alhaji Shehu Shagari became the first democratically elected president of the Second Republic. Shagari’s government inherited a country rich in oil but mired in problems: poverty, ethnic divisions, and, most alarmingly, widespread corruption.

Oil was the lifeblood of Nigeria’s economy by this time, providing over 90% of the nation’s foreign exchange earnings (Chinweze, C. (2018). Analysis of the impact of oil spills and the Niger Delta crisis on Nigeria’s external relations. World Maritime University Dissertations. https://commons.wmu.se/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3304&context=all_dissertations. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.). However, rather than being a blessing, this black gold became a curse. The government, flush with oil wealth, mismanaged the windfall, while politicians lined their pockets and patronage networks flourished. As one critic noted, “The Nigerian government is like a leaking basket filled with oil money the more you pour in, the more it spills out.”

During the Shagari administration, corruption became rampant, with large-scale embezzlement and looting of public funds HistoryVille. (2020). President Shehu Shagari: The honest man who was overthrown in a coup. HistoryVille. <https://www.thehistoryville.com/president-Shehu-Shagari/>. Assessed on the 19th of September, 2024.). Public projects were over-inflated, contracts were awarded to friends and allies, and government officials lived in opulence while the majority of Nigerians languished in poverty. A popular Nigerian proverb, “The goat eats where it is tied,” describes this situation perfectly. In the Nigerian political landscape, leaders and their close associates devoured the resources of the state with reckless abandon. The atmosphere of greed became so pervasive that when the oil prices collapsed in the early 1980s, plunging Nigeria into an economic crisis, the government was too crippled by corruption to provide meaningful solutions.

THE BUHARI-IDIAGBON ERA: WAR AGAINST INDISCIPLINE

On December 31, 1983, the military once again intervened. Major General Muhammadu Buhari and his deputy, Brigadier Tunde Idiagbon, overthrew the Shagari administration, accusing it of corruption and economic mismanagement. In his first speech as head of state, Buhari made his intentions clear: “Since what happens in any society is largely a reflection of the leadership of that society, we deplore corruption in all its facets. This government will not tolerate kick-backs, inflation of contracts and over-invoicing of imports etc. Nor will it condone forgery, fraud, embezzlement, misuse and abuse of office and illegal dealings in foreign exchange and smuggling.”

Buhari’s military regime was marked by an aggressive anti-corruption campaign. His government launched the “War Against Indiscipline” (WAI), a series of policies aimed at reforming the moral fabric of Nigerian society announced in March 1984 by Tunde Idiagbon, the Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters and the launch event was held at Tafawa Balewa Square to much fanfare. Public officials were arrested and tried for corruption, and draconian laws were introduced to curb societal vices like tardiness and disorder. Citizens could be flogged publicly for breaking queues, and civil servants faced harsh penalties for lateness. To Buhari and Idiagbon, discipline was the key to Nigeria’s recovery. (To be continued).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“We will not agree on every issue. But let us respect those differences and respect one another. Let us recognize that we do not serve an ideology or a political party; we serve the people.”. – John Lynch.

LAST LINE

God bless my numerous global readers for always keeping faith with the Sunday Sermon on the Mount of the Nigerian Project, by humble me, Prof Mike Ozekhome, SAN, CON, OFR, FCIArb., LL.M, Ph.D, LL.D, D.Litt, D.Sc, DHL, DA. Kindly come with me to next week’s exciting dissertation.