“History is not a weapon for settling old scores, it is a mirror through which nations examined their past and prepare for their future”.
Beyond personal grievances, Nigerians need elder statesmen to offer credible solutions to insecurity, economic hardship, unemployment and democratic renewal not war of words at this moment .
The renewed war of words between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has reopened one of the most consequential political relationships in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. What began as a political partnership that helped usher Nigeria out of prolonged military rule in 1999 eventually became a rivalry marked by distrust, constitutional disagreement and competing interpretations of history.
Obasanjo’s reported description of choosing Atiku as his running mate as the
“biggest mistake” of his presidency and Atiku’s response that he supported Obasanjo during imprisonment, assisted him after his release and mobilised political structures for his emergence as president have transformed an old political disagreement into a new national debate.
Yet the central question for Nigerians should not merely be who helped whom, who betrayed whom, or whose version of history is more persuasive.
The deeper question is:
What lessons can Nigeria draw from the Obasanjo-Atiku experience, and what solutions can these two statesmen offer to a country confronting economic uncertainty, insecurity, unemployment and declining public confidence?
The debate deserves neither blind loyalty nor political hostility. It requires historical evidence, institutional analysis and a clear focus on Nigeria’s future.
The 1999 Alliance: A Partnership That Helped Shape the Fourth Republic
The Obasanjo-Atiku partnership emerged during a decisive period in Nigerian history. Following years of military rule, the 1999 election represented a transition from authoritarian governance to constitutional democracy.
The Obasanjo-Atiku ticket won the presidential election of February 1999 with approximately 18.7 million votes, or 62.78 per cent of votes cast, defeating the Olu Falae–Umaru Shinkafi ticket.
The victory was not simply the achievement of one individual. It reflected a broad political coalition involving political parties, regional interests, pro-democracy actors and influential political networks.
Atiku brought significant political experience and networks to the partnership. Before becoming vice-president, he had won election as governor of Adamawa State but accepted the vice-presidential nomination before taking office.
Historical accounts also identify him as an important figure within the political movement that became part of the Peoples Democratic Party’s national
Obasanjo, meanwhile, brought national stature, military experience and international recognition. His emergence was also connected to the political imperative of rebuilding national confidence after the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election and the instability that followed.
Therefore, Atiku’s assertion that he contributed substantially to Obasanjo’s political return deserves historical examination. However, the claim that one individual “made” another president should be treated carefully. Presidents emerge through coalitions, party structures, electoral mandates, public support and broader historical circumstancesnot through the efforts of a single political actor.
Equally, Obasanjo’s later criticism of Atiku represents his personal evaluation of their political relationship, but it does not erase Atiku’s contribution to the administration or to the political coalition that produced the 1999 government.
History is usually more complex than the memories of political rivals.
The administration between 1999 and 2007 recorded important institutional and economic reforms. Nigeria returned to civilian constitutional rule, strengthened some public institutions and pursued economic restructuring.
The government established or strengthened institutions such as the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). It also introduced the Universal Basic Education programme and pursued reforms in telecommunications, banking, public enterprises and economic management.
Nigeria’s macroeconomic performance improved during parts of the period.
Academic assessments note that economic reform programmes initiated under the Obasanjo administration contributed to stronger growth and greater macroeconomic stability, although the benefits were not evenly distributed across society.
Nigeria also secured major debt relief through negotiations with international creditors. The country’s external debt burden was substantially reduced, while foreign reserves increased during the period. These achievements strengthened Nigeria’s international economic standing.
Atiku played a significant role in the administration’s economic architecture.
As vice-president, he chaired the National Economic Council and the National Council on Privatisation. He was associated with economic reform initiatives and the restructuring of several state-owned enterprises.
However, a balanced assessment must also recognise the controversies. Privatisation generated debate over transparency, valuation, ownership and whether public assets were transferred in ways that adequately protected national interests. Some scholars argue that market-oriented reforms produced substantial gains for politically connected elites and private interests without sufficiently reducing inequality or improving living conditions for many citizens.
This mixed record offers an important lesson: economic growth is not automatically the same as inclusive development. A government may improve reserves, reduce debt and expand investment while citizens continue to experience unemployment, poverty and inadequate public services.
Nigeria needs both sound macroeconomic management and policies that improve everyday life.
The Third-Term Question:
A Defining Democratic Divide
The most consequential rupture between Obasanjo and Atiku was connected to the controversial attempt to amend aspects of the Constitution in 2006.
Atiku has consistently presented his opposition to the third-term agenda as a defence of constitutional democracy.
From this perspective, resisting an extension of presidential tenure represented loyalty to the Constitution rather than disloyalty to a political leader.
The proposed constitutional changes generated intense public debate and deepened tensions between the presidency, the National Assembly and political actors. The failure of the amendment process became an important moment in Nigeria’s democratic development.
Atiku’s argument that “no individual is bigger than the Federal Republic of Nigeria” reflects a central principle of constitutional government: public institutions must be stronger than political personalities.
Nevertheless, the historical record also shows that the conflict between the two leaders involved more than constitutional principle. It was shaped by political succession, presidential ambition, party control and the struggle for influence within the ruling PDP.
The lesson is not that one leader was entirely right and the other entirely wrong. The lesson is that democracies become vulnerable when personall political ambitions dominate constitutional institutions.
Nigeria must never build its democracy around the preferences of powerful individuals.
The Constitution must remain superior to personalities, parties and politicall alliances.
When Political Gratitude Becomes a Public Argument
Atiku’s statement that he supported Obasanjo during imprisonment and assisted him after his release introduces a moral dimension to the debate: Does political assistance create a permanent debt of loyalty?
His answer appears to be no. He argues that helping another person should not be treated as a commercial transaction or an investment requiring repayment.
That principle has moral value. Public service should not be based on the expectation that kindness will later purchase political obedience.
However, political gratitude is different from constitutional loyalty. A vice-president may respect and appreciate a president while still opposing policies considered unconstitutional or harmful to the national interest.
This distinction is essential:
Personal loyalty is valuable, but constitutional loyalty must come first.
A democracy cannot function if political officeholders are expected to support every decision of their leaders merely because those leaders assisted them politically.
At the same time, political leaders should avoid reducing decades of national service to personal resentment. Public disagreements should be based on evidence, policy and institutional accountability not insults or attempts to diminish an opponent’s entire record.
The Obasanjo-Atiku debate also reveals a wider problem in Nigerian politics: political history is often narrated through personal experience rather than independently verified evidence.
Both leaders possess important memories of the events that shaped the Fourth Republic. Yet personal memory is not identical to historical proof.
Claims concerning financial assistance, political mobilisation, personal support or private arrangements should be examined through documentary evidence, credible testimony and historical records. Political statements even when made by respected leaders should not automatically be treated as complete historical accounts.
As political communication scholars observe, political narratives may be framed selectively to influence public perception.
This places a responsibility on journalists, researchers and citizens to distinguish evidence from rhetoric and public history from personal grievance.
Nigeria needs a stronger culture of political documentation. Presidential papers, cabinet records, party archives and major policy decisions should be preserved and made available for scholarly research.
A nation that does not preserve its history leaves its past vulnerable to political revision.
Both Obasanjo and Atiku are elder statesmen with decades of experience in governance, diplomacy, political organisation and national leadership. Their knowledge should be used to strengthen Nigeria’s future.
Nigeria does not need another prolonged contest over who gave whom clothes, who created whose political opportunity or who committed the greater political mistake.
Nigerians need answers to urgent national questions:
How can Nigeria build an economy that creates productive employment?
How can insecurityl be reduced and communities protected?
How can public institutions become stronger than political individuals?
How can corruption be addressed without selective enforcement?
How can education and healthcare be improved?
How can elections become more credible and transparent?
How can young Nigerians participate meaningfully in governance?
How can economic growth translate into lower poverty and greater opportunity?
Research on youth-employment policies shows that programmes often fail when they lack coordination, adequate funding, institutional capacity, accountability and connection to long-term development plans
This is where experienced leaders can contribute. Rather than exchanging historical accusations, they can present practical proposals for employment, security, education, industrial development and democratic reform.
Nigeria needs a national agenda of solutions, not a permanent archive of political grievances.
Statesmanship is measured not only by what leaders achieved while in office but also by how they use influence after leaving office.
Former leaders can strengthen democracy by mentoring younger politicians, supporting institutional reforms, encouraging national dialogue and speaking truth without deepening division.
Obasanjo’s experience in governance and diplomacy remains valuable. Atiku’s experience in political organisation, economic management and private-sector development also remains relevant.
Their disagreements should not prevent them from contributing to national renewal.
Indeed, their political history offers a lesson for future leaders: political alliances may collapse, but national institutions must endure. Personal friendships may change, but constitutional democracy must remain stable. Political ambitions may compete, but the national interest must be protected.
The Nigerian people should therefore judge both leaders not only by their past disagreements but by the quality of the solutions they offer today.
The Obasanjo-Atiku debate should not become another political distraction.
Nigeria’s future cannot be built by endlessly revisiting the conflicts of yesterday. The country needs leadership that moves beyond personalities toward institutions; beyond political loyalty toward public accountability; and beyond historical accusations toward measurable national progress.
The 2027 political conversation should focus on policy, competence, integrity and the capacity to improve citizens’ lives.
Nigerians deserve leaders who can explain:
What will be done differently? How will it be funded? Who will be accountable? When will citizens see results?
These are the questions that should dominate public debate.
The legacy of statesmen should not be measured by the intensity of their quarrels but by thel strength of the institutions they help build and the hope they create for future generations.
“The past may explain where Nigeria has been, but it must not imprison where Nigeria is going. The true test of Obasanjo, Atiku and every elder statesman is not who won yesterday’s political battle, but who contributes most meaningfully to Nigeria’s tomorrow.”
Cliff Stanley
Political Scientist, Analyst, Public theologian Cliffstanley3@gmail.com
07032826319.