By Tunji Ajibade
Recently, former military dictator, General Ibrahim Babangida, presented the military as the better achievers in governance in Nigeria. He couldn’t have said otherwise as a soldier and former military leader. On the other hand, I hold a doctorate in Political Science, meaning there’s no way I would ever want to have military rule as against constitutional rule. It also means there’s a difference in orientation, as there must necessarily be between a soldier and a political scientist.
For this reason, I should be one of many Nigerians to take note of the problems military intervention caused for this nation. This is more so as some of the decisions soldiers took led to disruption in my education. Counting the number of months I stayed at home because of industrial actions instigated by the decision soldiers took when they were in power, it meant I spent two extra sessions in the university. It also ensured I missed the NYSC call-up by another six months. I haven’t seen a situation that compares to this under a constitutional rule. So, my grouse against the military in government is deeply personal. Since the retired General said in a recent TV interview that it’s “silly” of anyone to say the military intervention caused problems for Nigeria, it means he’s on one page, and I’m on another.
There were different angles to the interview Babangida had that time. The interviewer tried his best. It was just that there were questions I thought he would hit on the head, but he didn’t. For instance, he made allusion to how politicians in power often muffle the opposition. Since the latter don’t have any means of removing the politicians in power, they appeal to the military to take over. I expected the interviewer to ask Babangida if he was ever approached by politicians to plan a coup. If they did, who were the politicians? Such personal questions would have added to our knowledge. The interviewer didn’t reach that finish line.
There was also that question about the military in power working with civilians. What the interviewer wanted to bring out wasn’t so clear, as he let the question hang. This allowed the former military dictator to respond whichever way he liked, talking about how many of the decisions which the military took were done in consultation with civilians. I didn’t see what insight that inconclusive question brought to viewers, except to give the retired soldier the opportunity to not take the blame for the decisions he took which Nigerians didn’t like. But such things could happen to a journalist in the course of an interview, so I could understand what transpired on the two occasions that I pointed out. Why? Sometime, in 2002, I was the moderator of a current affairs programme on the Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria, Ibadan network station. I recall that at least on two occasions, I asked my panelists a question and at the tail end of which I didn’t briskly wrap up, making it a clear concise question. But my panelists helped out by picking it up from where I trailed off, providing answers to what they thought I was asking them.
Now back to the question Babangida was asked and for which he made the comment that Nigerians who held a particular opinion about the military were “silly.” Now, note that the septuagenarian too was expressing an opinion. Opinion is subjective, especially if you are not an academic who has carried out research and come up with findings that are verifiable. It’s for this reason one would wonder why other people’s opinion on a matter should be dubbed “silly”. This is more so as a frontline player under a military regime is the one making the judgment. Does a court judge give verdict in a case in which he’s the defendant?
What was the question Babangida was asked that time? The interviewer said some alleged that military intervention caused problems for Nigeria; what did Babangida have to say to that? When the respondent said those who said so were silly, I had waited to hear him persuasively give reasons that I never heard before with regard to the ‘good’ soldiers did this nation. He didn’t. Any reasons there were, were suggested by the interviewer who mentioned the Third Mainland Bridge in Lagos as well as some other edifices constructed under the military. He said such have not been replicated under a civilian administration. Whenever anyone mentions infrastructure as achievement under the military, they remind me of an argument a serving state governor once made. He did when some politicians categorised construction of roads, bridges etc. as their achievements in office. The said governor had asked: What does it take to construct a road? Any idiot can have roads constructed. Is it not to call in Julius Berger and give them money to go and construct? This therefore makes me ask: Are we saying civilian governments cannot give money to contractors and have roads and bridges constructed? In any case, when the Lateef Jakande government wanted to make first class metro railway operate in Lagos State, the military arrived and cancelled the contract. Till today, that project hasn’t seen the light of day. Let alone military that didn’t cause any problem for Nigeria.
But I’ve heard about the reasons some think soldiers did us ‘good’ in some other settings, and I’ve never been impressed. Some mention creation of states. The question has always been: You mean the same states that cannot finance themselves? In the course of sitting down to interview people from our past, in my capacity either as journalist or author, I’ve heard players from the 1950s and 1960s describe to me what obtained pre-1966, and what happened after the military took over. One former Police Chief under a Native Administration, and whose work with his men ensured effective local security in the Division which has since become a state, told me of how his powers were withdrawn and taken to the centre after the 1966 military coup. The NA prison, which to some extent he was also overseeing, was taken to the federal level. So, what has happened to security in local settings after that centralisation? We see the evidence around us today. That’s is the much good the military did to us from 1966 onward.
The civil war happened. It has been argued that if the military takeover of 1966 didn’t happen, we might have avoided the civil war. I concur. Why? The battle of ego that saw two soldiers in Lagos and in the East taking irreconcilable positions would probably not have happened. A civilian Premier in the East would probably not have declared independence of Biafra in the face of inadequate arms and ammunition. He and the Prime Minister in Lagos would probably have sat at a table and resolved contentious issues amicably. Moreover, with someone like Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe as the President, the chances are that under a civilian government he would have exercised more influence in the entire saga and ensured amicable settlement. Even the civil war, we know, is a one-way traffic flowing from the military coups of 1966.
Aside from that, would the iconic Daily Times have been destroyed if the military government didn’t forcefully take it over? If a free and fair election wasn’t cancelled in 1993, two of Nigeria’s illustrious sons, M.K.O Abiola and Shehu Yar’Adua, wouldn’t have died when they did. Moreover, powers for the regions were gradually taken to the centre from 1966 onward. The centralisation of those powers is the root of the agitation which has led to so much division in the nation at this time. Would this have happened if soldiers didn’t tamper with the devolved power and resources that gave component parts the opportunity to develop at their own pace pre-1966? Now, to devolve the powers back to where they were taken has become a problem. As things stand, the nation is so polarised that we need to work really hard to change the present course. That’s the extent of the harm military intervention did, and regarding which Babangida says whoever says so is silly. I’ve always respected the retired General as an intelligent person. And it would help his argument, if he regarded the views expressed in the interview essentially as his own humble submission in a national discourse that must have people for and against.
[email protected]; 08036683657