By Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba
Francis Bacon once wrote, “A man that studieth revenge keeps his own wounds green.”
That timeless observation appears relevant to the renewed attacks on His Excellency Atiku Abubakar by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. Many Nigerians are beginning to wonder whether these latest remarks reflect an objective reassessment of history or lingering political grievances over the failed third-term agenda. Others view them as another attempt to rewrite history in a way that diminishes Atiku Abubakar’s role and legacy.
Chief Obasanjo now claims that choosing Atiku Abubakar as his running mate was the greatest mistake of his political life. Nigerians are entitled to compare that statement with the historical record and decide for themselves.
The facts remain unchanged. Obasanjo and Atiku did not become allies in 1999. Their relationship predated Nigeria’s return to democracy. During General Sani Abacha’s regime, Atiku reportedly stood firmly with Obasanjo, warning him of his impending arrest and supporting him throughout his incarceration. When democracy returned, Atiku’s formidable political structure played a crucial role in Obasanjo’s emergence as President.
More importantly, Atiku was never imposed on Obasanjo. He was Obasanjo’s personal choice. He served as Vice President for eight uninterrupted years and was entrusted with some of the most important responsibilities in government. If Atiku was truly his greatest political mistake, why was he trusted with such enormous responsibilities throughout their administration?
History also records that despite years of political disagreements, Obasanjo publicly endorsed Atiku Abubakar in 2018, declaring that he possessed the experience, knowledge and capacity to lead Nigeria. That endorsement cannot simply be erased because political interests have changed.
Many analysts also believe that Chief Obasanjo has never truly moved past the collapse of the controversial third-term agenda, an episode in which Atiku Abubakar emerged as one of the most prominent political figures resisting the proposal. To those observers, Obasanjo’s renewed attacks on his former deputy appear to reflect lingering political grievances rather than an objective reassessment of history.
Many Nigerians also see the latest attack as a political distraction. In their view, it comes at a time when Atiku Abubakar appears to be attracting broad support across regional, religious and ethnic divides, with many voters increasingly regarding him as a candidate capable of building a national coalition. Whether that perception ultimately translates into electoral success remains to be seen, but it helps explain why every statement concerning Atiku now attracts intense political attention.
It is therefore understandable that many political observers interpret Obasanjo’s latest remarks as another attempt to weaken Atiku Abubakar politically ahead of another election cycle. Some believe the comments could indirectly strengthen other opposition figures, including Peter Obi. Whether that is indeed Obasanjo’s intention remains a matter of political interpretation, but the timing has inevitably fuelled such speculation.
The people of the South-East should therefore approach every political endorsement with careful reflection rather than emotion. Political alliances should be judged not only by present declarations but also by historical records. Every region of Nigeria deserves to examine whether today’s political friendships are driven by enduring conviction or by changing political calculations.
This is particularly relevant because Chief Obasanjo’s relationship with the South-East has itself been the subject of longstanding political debate. During his presidency, critics accused his administration of neglecting parts of the region and of pursuing policies that strained relations with several South-East political leaders. Organisations and commentators have, over the years, urged Ndigbo to evaluate every political endorsement on its merits rather than assume it reflects a lasting commitment to the interests of the region.
Meanwhile, many Nigerians, especially in Northern Nigeria are still waiting for answers to important questions from the Obasanjo administration between 1999 and 2007. They continue to ask why many strategic industries declined, why key national assets deteriorated, and why other major concerns from that period remain unresolved.
There is also a growing sentiment among many Nigerians that Chief Obasanjo’s frequent public letters and election-season interventions no longer command the influence they once did. Critics argue that his repeated political commentaries have diminished their impact over time, with many citizens now treating them more as recurring political theatre than as authoritative national interventions. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, it reflects a noticeable shift in public perception compared with the enormous moral influence he once wielded.
Chief Obasanjo is entitled to his political opinions. However, he is not entitled to expect Nigerians to forget history. The same man who selected Atiku Abubakar as his running mate, entrusted him with immense national responsibilities for many years, and at a point, endorsed him for the presidency cannot expect the public to ignore those facts simply because the political landscape has changed.
History cannot be rewritten by rhetoric. It is preserved by facts, and those facts serve as the basis why majority of Nigerians decided to adopt Atiku Abubakar as both the candidate of choice and necessity ahead of 2027.
Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba writes from Kano, and can be reached via drssbaba@yahoo.com
