Babangida’s autobiography offers a personal vindication of a man who, despite the shadow of June 12, firmly believes in the legacy of service for his country, writes

On Thursday, February 20, 2025, the grand halls of the Transcorp Hilton Hotel in Abuja echoed with a blend of nostalgia and reflection as General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, a man whose influence on Nigeria’s political landscape remains profound, launched his much-anticipated biography, ‘A Journey in Service’.

The launch was attended by a glittering array of political heavyweights, including President Bola Tinubu, former Presidents Yakubu Gowon, Olusegun Obasanjo, Abdulsalami Abubakar and Goodluck Jonathan. Ghana’s former President Nana Akufo-Addo and other titans were also in attendance. It was a celebration of Babangida’s odyssey and a moment for the country to reflect on a legacy that straddles the fine line between statesmanship and villainy.

Babangida’s memoir offers a rare glimpse into the inner workings of one of Nigeria’s most enigmatic leaders. He writes that it proves his service to the nation: “In my role as President, a sense of collective responsibility was uppermost. We devolved authority but never ultimate responsibility.” This personal narrative, covering his military career, political journey, and decision-making as Nigeria’s military president, invites the reader to weigh his complex legacy, defined as much by his triumphs as by his failings.

His presidency from 1985 to 1993 was, undeniably, a period of dramatic change and contested decisions. His tenure saw sweeping economic reforms, such as the controversial Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which sought to steer Nigeria toward economic modernisation despite its severe social consequences. Babangida’s foreign policy was marked by a bold pursuit of African unity and a reassertion of Nigeria’s role on the world stage. He reshaped the country’s political landscape by introducing a two-party system and initiating a transition to civilian rule. However, this was marred by his own unexpected and ultimately fateful decision.

However, the most defining and divisive moment of Babangida’s legacy came on June 23, 1993, when he annulled the results of the presidential election in which Moshood Abiola, widely regarded as the winner, had triumphed. The annulment sparked a wave of protests, strikes, and political unrest. For many Nigerians, especially those from the South-western region, Babangida’s actions were seen as a betrayal of democracy. His critics viewed the annulment as an affront to the people’s will and a calculated move to retain control in a deeply divided political environment.

Yet, in his treatise, Babangida stands by his decision, explaining that the annulment was necessary to prevent the nation from descending into chaos. “I was faced with a choice between further destabilising the country and maintaining a semblance of order,” he writes, reflecting on the pressure that mounted as Nigeria teetered on the edge of ethnic and political discord. For Babangida, the annulment was an act of political survival, one he believed was in Nigeria’s best interests, an unfortunate but necessary step.

For the first time, he openly acknowledged that Abiola won. This candid admission brings much-needed closure to a long-standing chapter in Nigeria’s political history.

Considering this, a compelling case exists for a posthumous award for Abiola and Prof. Humphrey Nwosu, the unsung hero of the June 12 election. As Chairman of the National Electoral Commission (NEC), Nwosu demonstrated extraordinary courage by defying military orders to announce the results. This bold stand helped illuminate the democratic spirit that the election represented. His bravery, often overlooked, deserves to be honoured as a pivotal moment in Nigeria’s quest for true democracy.

Notwithstanding, dismissing General Babangida as merely the architect of the June 12 debacle would mean ignoring his contributions to Nigeria’s trajectory in the years leading up to 1993. For example, his leadership during the 1976 coup attempt displayed remarkable foresight and decisiveness. When faced with an effort to overthrow the government of General Murtala Mohammed, Babangida acted swiftly to suppress the insurrection, thus stabilising Nigeria at a critical juncture in its post-civil war history. His ability to contain such a crisis demonstrated a depth of courage in leadership that was not only military but also political.

Again, Babangida deserves commendation for his forthrightness in admitting that the 1966 coup was not driven by sectional interests but by young military officers’ genuine desire to correct political and social ills. Coming from no less a person than Babangida himself, this revelation calls for an authentic process of national reconciliation and propitiation. The sectional narrative of that coup led to brutal recriminations, the bloody civil war that followed, and the deep-rooted mistrust and division that still plague Nigeria today.

Babangida’s honesty offers an opportunity to move past these historical wounds and work toward healing and unity.

Furthermore, Babangida’s leadership was marked by a deep understanding of Nigeria’s strength in its diversity. He firmly believed in a fair Nigeria where all citizens had equal access to opportunities, a vision reflected in his inclusive government. By striving to transcend ethnic and regional divisions, he earned respect as one of Nigeria’s most detribalised leaders. His policies and appointments, both military and civilian, aimed to balance the demands of the nation’s diverse groups, empowering those who had long been marginalised and fostering a sense of unity across Nigeria’s varied ethnic landscape.

Ultimately, the crux of the debate regarding Babangida’s legacy revolves around whether his actions are ultimately those of a statesman or a villain. Undoubtedly, the annulment of the June 12 election and the ensuing chaos constituted a grave mistake. It cost him the trust of many Nigerians, and that blemish will likely never fully fade. However, to assess his entire tenure through the lens of this one event would be to overlook the broader trajectory of his leadership.

Regardless of the animosity generated by June 12, Babangida’s charm has been undeniable. This charm lay in his public demeanour and leadership acumen as he understood the art of negotiation and persuasion. He is a leader who can captivate his audience, disarming even the most ardent critics with his soft-spoken manner and warm, reassuring smile. The “toothy smile Prince of the North” mesmerised, softened and won over those who opposed him. His ability to engage with political allies and opponents allowed him to navigate some of Nigeria’s most turbulent years with a calm that few other leaders could have managed.

History may yet prove kinder to Babangida as his courage in the face of adversity, his foresight in navigating Nigeria through tumultuous years, and his attempts to create a more inclusive political system may secure his place as a statesman rather than a villain of Nigerian politics. His autobiography, now a critical piece of Nigeria’s political history, offers a personal vindication of a man who, despite the shadow of June 12, firmly believes in the legacy of service he crafted for his country.

As Babangida states, “No regime is immune from the inevitability of uneven fortunes.” Whether history regards him as a visionary statesman or a villain largely depends on the perspective through which his legacy is assessed. Nevertheless, one thing is sure: his place in Nigeria’s history is assured. Like all significant figures, the ultimate judgement will be rendered by the sands of time and perhaps a more contemplative generation. The final verdict will emerge as a legacy in the balance.

.Onukwuli PhD, writes from Bolton, UK

[email protected]