By Akin Samuel KAYODE
Few political contradictions in Nigeria’s democratic history are as striking as the relationship between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. On one hand, Obasanjo authored some of the harshest criticisms ever directed at a former political associate, portraying Atiku in deeply unfavorable terms in his memoir, My Watch. On the other hand, years later, the same Obasanjo publicly endorsed Atiku Abubakar for the presidency of Nigeria and praised his capacity to lead the nation. These two realities cannot be ignored when evaluating the credibility, context, and finality of Obasanjo’s assessment.
In recent years, critics of Atiku Abubakar have frequently relied on selected passages from My Watch as political ammunition against the former Vice President. The quotation is often circulated as though it constitutes the ultimate and unquestionable verdict on Atiku’s character, leadership, and public life. Because the remarks came from a former president who worked closely with Atiku for eight years, many assume they should be accepted without further examination. Yet history is rarely so simple, and serious political analysis requires a broader perspective.
There is no doubt that Obasanjo’s comments were severe. The allegations touched on integrity, loyalty, transparency, judgment, and personal conduct. The language was unmistakably harsh and designed to leave a lasting impression on readers. However, the credibility of any political assessment must ultimately be tested not only against words but also against actions. In public life, actions often provide deeper insight than rhetoric.
The first question that naturally arises is both simple and profound. If Atiku Abubakar truly possessed all the deficiencies described in those passages, why did Obasanjo retain him as Vice President throughout two full terms in office? The vice presidency is not a ceremonial position. It is the office closest to the presidency and one that carries enormous responsibilities, including participation in major policy decisions, access to highly sensitive information, and representation of the nation at the highest levels. Entrusting such responsibilities to an individual supposedly lacking integrity, loyalty, transparency, and sound judgment presents an obvious contradiction.
This may be described as the “Presidential Trust Test.” If Obasanjo genuinely believed Atiku possessed the extensive character flaws outlined in his memoir, retaining him as Vice President for eight years would inevitably raise questions about presidential judgment itself. Either the alleged shortcomings were not as absolute as later portrayed, or Obasanjo considered Atiku sufficiently competent and trustworthy to occupy one of the most sensitive offices in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Both propositions cannot comfortably coexist without inviting legitimate scrutiny.
The contradiction becomes even more significant when one examines the record of the Obasanjo administration between 1999 and 2007. During that period, Atiku was not merely a passive participant in government affairs. He was widely regarded as one of the most influential members of the administration and a key contributor to several economic reform initiatives. His role extended beyond ceremonial duties and placed him at the center of important discussions concerning economic modernization and national development.
Supporters and independent observers alike frequently point to Atiku’s role in promoting economic liberalization, encouraging private sector participation, attracting investment, and supporting public enterprise reforms. The economic team that helped reposition Nigeria’s economy during that period operated within a framework in which Atiku played a visible and influential role. While reasonable people may disagree on specific policies, few would deny that Atiku was an important figure in the administration’s economic architecture.
This reality sits uneasily alongside attempts to portray him as a leader devoid of redeeming qualities. No administration would willingly place an individual lacking judgment, competence, or credibility at the heart of its economic reform agenda. The fact that Atiku remained a central figure in major economic discussions suggests that his contributions were considered valuable by those who worked closely with him, including the president himself.
Perhaps the most compelling response to the criticisms contained in My Watch lies not in what Atiku said, but in what Obasanjo himself later did. Ahead of the 2019 presidential election, Obasanjo publicly endorsed Atiku Abubakar as his preferred candidate for the presidency. This was neither an accidental gesture nor a casual remark. It was a deliberate political decision made by a former president who fully understood the enormous responsibilities associated with the office.
That endorsement raises a legitimate and unavoidable question. If Atiku truly embodied all the negative attributes attributed to him in My Watch, why would Obasanjo later support him for the highest office in the country? The presidency is not a position that should be entrusted to an individual believed to be fundamentally deficient in character, judgment, integrity, and commitment to national interest. By endorsing Atiku, Obasanjo implicitly acknowledged qualities that made him worthy of serious consideration for national leadership.
Even more revealing was the language used by Obasanjo during that period. While acknowledging that Atiku was not a perfect individual, he nevertheless argued that he possessed the experience, exposure, and capacity necessary to govern Nigeria effectively. Such statements are difficult to reconcile with the absolute and sweeping nature of the criticisms that are often selectively quoted by his opponents.
Another important factor that deserves consideration is political timing. Many of the harshest public criticisms emerged after the relationship between both men had deteriorated politically. This observation does not automatically invalidate the criticisms. However, it does remind citizens that context matters. Political disagreements, especially those involving powerful figures, often influence how former allies interpret and describe one another after their relationships break down.
History is filled with examples of political partnerships that transformed into political rivalries. Such developments are not unique to Nigeria. Former allies frequently become critics, and former critics occasionally become allies. Consequently, responsible citizens should be careful not to treat statements made during periods of political conflict as though they exist in a vacuum. They should instead be evaluated within the broader context of the relationship from which they emerged.
The issue extends beyond the personalities involved. It touches on the broader danger of selective memory in political discourse. In contemporary politics, quotations are often detached from the larger historical record and circulated as standalone truths. Yet no single quotation can adequately capture decades of cooperation, policy collaboration, disagreement, reconciliation, and political engagement. Responsible citizenship requires a willingness to examine the complete record rather than isolated excerpts that merely confirm existing biases.
Furthermore, democratic societies are built upon the principle that individuals should be judged through evidence, performance, and public record rather than through personal testimonies alone. Memoirs are valuable historical documents, but they remain personal accounts shaped by individual experiences, perceptions, disappointments, and judgments. They are not judicial pronouncements, criminal convictions, or independent investigations. Their value lies in contributing to historical understanding, not in providing unquestionable verdicts.
Atiku Abubakar’s political journey spans several decades and includes significant contributions to Nigeria’s democratic evolution. He has remained one of the nation’s most influential political figures, participating in democratic transitions, advocating economic reforms, building political coalitions, and maintaining a national political presence across different generations. Whether one supports his political ambitions or opposes them, his relevance to Nigeria’s political development cannot be denied.
Constructive criticism of Atiku, like constructive criticism of any public figure, is both legitimate and necessary. No politician should be placed beyond scrutiny. However, criticism is most effective when it is evidence based, balanced, and intellectually honest. Selectively repeating one quotation while ignoring subsequent events, actions, and contradictions does not advance public understanding. It merely reinforces predetermined narratives.
The larger lesson therefore extends beyond Atiku Abubakar and Olusegun Obasanjo. It concerns how citizens evaluate public figures in a democratic society. Should political judgments be based solely on the testimony of former associates, or should they be informed by a comprehensive assessment of public service, leadership record, policy contributions, and historical context? A mature democracy requires the latter approach.
In the final analysis, history is rarely written in black and white. It is often shaped by competing interpretations, personal experiences, political disagreements, and evolving realities. The responsibility of citizens is not to inherit opinions uncritically but to examine evidence independently. In the case of Atiku Abubakar and Olusegun Obasanjo, the historical record contains both criticism and endorsement. Intellectual honesty demands that both be considered. To ignore one while celebrating the other is not analysis. It is a selective memory.
Akin Samuel KAYODE.
Member, The Narrative Force(TNF).
20062026.
