Admin
Oseloka H. Obaze
Quite often, when a nation is dire straits, it is resistance groups that rally to save that nation. Just as the “partagiani,” the diverse coalition of Italian resistance fought fascist leader Benito Mussolini, NADECO, a diverse coalition of Nigerian partisans, fought the Abacha regime in order to restore democracy.
In Italy, it was a populist working class movement of political and military elements that eventually freed Italy from fascism in the early parts of the 1940s. Despite NADECO’s efforts, the propitious end of the Abacha regime in 1998 followed a distinctively different trajectory. But NADECO’s role remains indisputable.
Since often life tends to mimics art, this may well be satirical essay that grapples with some rude realities of Nigeria’s realpolitik. Then again, it may not be.
Join our WhatsApp ChannelFor the third time in over six decades, Nigeria’s nationhood and democracy are once again under severe threat, this time from unfettered illiberalism, and orchestrated drift toward monocracy and one-party state. This much is beyond debate. The sustaining tenets of viable democracies are all under assault in Nigeria. There is gross diminution of ordered liberties. Separation and balance of power is vividly absent. The responsibility to protect has become a mere cliché. So, besides the civil war years and the absolutionist Abacha era, Nigerians are once again, asking under President Bola Tinubu’s leadership: Which way Nigeria?
If Nigeria were to be a Fortune 500 company, she would have a Board of Trustees or Board of Directors. These would be persons of high integrity and irreproachable credentials; who though not directly responsible for the day-to-day running of the nation, will do whatever heavy lifting that is required of them, to keep the nation secure and functional. Two indistinct groups fit this bill: the so-called owners of Nigeria, and Nigeria’s Legitimisers. Some would readily discount the existence of any such groups; or that at best; attest to their being an amorphous group of individuals that selfishly arrogate to themselves, undue influence in national affairs. That unfortunately is neither their bona fides nor forte.
READ ALSO : New Tax Laws Poised to Strengthen Nigeria’s Competitiveness, Not Scare Investors, Presidency Insists
Blood on Their Hands: Nigeria’s Security Nightmare Unfolds
Owners of Nigeria are by no means the Legitimisers in Nigeria. Members of both cadres cross-fertilize and they are respectively and distinctly involved in the multidisciplinary efforts at nation-building. Often, they operate remotely. A commonality shared by both groups, is the informal and unstructured nature of the two cadres. Both also exist and operate outside formal government structures, even as some might have served in government in one capacity of the other, either as civilian or military officials. As unstructured and informal as both bodies are, they play a critical role in the political and development trajectory of Nigeria.
The owners of Nigeria are mostly those, who as young men, fought to keep Nigeria intact. They are now aged patriots, but a concerted bunch that is averse to seeing the Nigerian nation disintegrate.
The Legitimisers are fewer in numbers. They are also subsumed in the larger nucleus consisting of owners of Nigeria. Whereas the owners of Nigeria are the custodians and titular successors of the founding fathers, and thus represent in the main, those who fought hard to keep Nigeria whole; the Legitimisers are the national sentinels, who are frequently consulted on vital national eldership issues. It is they, who validate national decisions, including those who are presumably fit to lead Nigeria. They will readily disavow meddling in governance matters, but are rarely shy of individually or collectively acknowledging or wielding their superlative influence. Hence, prospective, presumptive and incumbent Nigerian leaders are tacitly beholden to their imprimatur. They informally authentic candidates considered prima-facie qualified to run for the Nigerian presidency, before such candidates are presented to the voting electorate.
When two or three of the Legitimisers speak up openly, on any national issues, things begin to happen; the policy and practical wheels begin to churn. Some are so influential, they hardly grant press interviews. Reportedly, in mid-November 1993, when some critical national stakeholders gathered at the Flag Staff House on Marina, Lagos, to decide the composition of the Abacha regime after the ousting of Interim National Government (ING), a handful of the Legitimisers were present; they would, in the national interest, largely validate the end of the ING and the return of the military to power after six months. It was they, who supposedly sanctioned some trenchant opposition and NADECO activists joining the Abacha regime.
Ahead of return to participatory democracy in 1999, it was the Legitimisers that proffered the qualifier of “a safe hand” to guide Nigeria. When late President Umaru Yar’Adua was on his deathbed, and the “Doctrine of Necessity” was being bandied around, it was the Legitimisers that gave the non-existent notion their nod, thus allowing it to gain traction and become a redemptive national policy.
In 2015, it was the Legitimisers that tacitly gave a nod to the formation of APC, as a means of strengthening Nigeria’s democracy and getting eclectic politicians with otherwise divergent styles, beliefs, means and modalities, to rally to a consensus as an alliance opposition party. The subterranean consideration was to ensure that the North-South leadership balance, which was intermittently disturbed by natural attrition and the death of Umaru Yar’Adua, was redressed. There are indications, that the Legitimisers are favourably disposed to endorse another political alliance going into 2027.
It is believed, that the Legitimisers, in the national interest, also looked the other way, by tacitly acquiescing to the emergence of Bola Tinubu, despite the very flawed 2023 presidential elections, in order to sustain the merits of foundational policy of rotating presidency between the North and the South. In this sense, they made the tactical decision that played down a credible electoral outcome, in favour of sustainable and unbroken democracy, since 1999. By 2023, the Legitimisers were seemingly acquainted with Peter Obi, but not sufficiently to grant him a carte blanche to the Nigerian presidency. They needed to study him more, grasp the diversity and credentials of those around him, and ensure also that he would stick to his political undertakings, well beyond what his Manifesto or slogans promised.
Because the Legitimisers will not implicitly or explicitly endorse Nigeria’s return to military rule under any guise, the Nigerian military has essentially remained subservient to elected civilian authorities, since 1999.
The Legitimisers are detribalized patriots, who may have political sympathies, but are hardly ever partisans. They don’t carry party cards. Yet their exulted positions make them an asset to any party in power; and also grant them unfettered access to any incumbent Nigerian leader. When they speak, wise leaders listen. Their public remarks, when uttered, elicit prompt policy responses. Recently, when two Legitimisers spoke openly about the spiraling killings in Nigeria by armed bandits, the policy response wheels immediately began to churn. Insiders believe that it was the Legitimisers that persuaded President Bola Tinubu to put the leadership of the Ministry of Defence back into the hands of an experienced military officer and that more changes can be expected in that context.
Two tasks presently preoccupy the Legitimisers. First, is the expeditious retracting of secular Nigeria from crag of being categorized as the fulcrum for religiously induced genocide, a situation that is already eliciting international attention. Second, is to determine, Nigeria’s next leader, cognizant that Nigerians are fed up with the lackluster performance of the Tinubu administration. This consideration assumes greater impetus with emerging evidence that the 2023 elections were exceedingly rigged. The underlying thrust of any action in this direction will be predicated largely on national interest and more importantly, with a sole focus of keeping corporate Nigeria whole.
The Legitimisers may have witnessed various aspects of Nigeria’ socio-economic and developmental fabric damaged irreparably by transactional politicians; but they will definitely not stand and be witnesses to the destruction and implosion of Nigeria. For this reason, while the Legitimisers will discernibly not be seen as taking sides; they will, like puppeteers, ensure that Nigeria’s ongoing political kabuki, does not default to uncontrollable tremors and chasms. Their focus will be to ensure that the 2027 elections are as transparent and credible as possible, in order to keep our democracy on an even keel and the chain that started in 1999, unbroken. To that end, the balance of power will be constitutionally orchestrated to remain in the south for the remaining four years. But who will be at the helm for those four years is still up for debate and consideration. Noting can be taken for granted.
While the Legitimisers talk to each other routinely, of late, from the various power centres in the North, South, East and West, they have intensified their consultative role. They are constructively engaged with owners of Nigeria. They understand the urgency. They are visibly perturbed. Daily, they have watched and heard Nigerians vent their anguish. They have also seen the gory photos of Nigerians being slaughtered in peace time. They have witnessed Nigeria’s lost glory as a respected global player. So, can Nigeria’s Legitimisers save Nigeria from perdition? Perhaps! They know they must act decisively before it is too late. And I suspect they are doing so. We pray, in the national interest that they will succeed as they have always done. God bless the Legitimisers; and God bless and save Nigeria.
Obaze is MD/CEO, Selonnes Consult – a policy, governance and management consulting firm in Awka.
