A former Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Political Matters, Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, has criticised his former principal over the open campaign for the 2027 election amid the nation’s critical challenges. In this interview on Channels TV ‘Political Paradigm’ monitored by David Lawani, Baba-Ahmed, who was also a former spokesman of the Northern Elders Forum, condemned the National Assembly for allegedly being an appendage of the executive, warning that failure to adhere to the principles of separation of powers violates the tenets of democracy, among other issues
From history to the present, why should we celebrate democracy?
We should be celebrating democracy because the options have been wholly inadequate and sustainable. And very fragile and susceptible to disruptions. We should celebrate Democracy Day from 1999 to date. We have had a democratic system that has survived. I am not saying it is perfect, but it can survive longer than all this put together from 1966 to 1999. We should celebrate democracy because it is superior to other forms of government. It gives our people the right and opportunity to choose whom they want. It allows us the right thing, the privilege, and the power to change leaders when the people feel they deserve to be changed. This will enable the government to remain accountable to its citizens.
How would you describe the country’s democracy before and after the period of military rule?
You’re aware that there are many military rules. From 1960, when we gained independence from Britain to 1966, we had a democratic government in place. We had a different arrangement in place then. We had three to four regions at that time. We had a relatively weaker Centre. We had a very vibrant and competitive opposition. We had a higher level of political consciousness than we have now. People were aware of what voting involves. They were more conscious about the values they voted to protect. We may like or dislike the values, but at least people lined up from 1959, 1963, and 1964, and they voted for something they believed in with their energy. And their time. So, it was a very challenging period in the Republic from 1960 to 1965. It was challenged by fierce competition within three regions at the Federal level. It reveals all the weaknesses in the democratic institutions. And the leadership base to understanding the values of cooperating and collaborating. It was challenged by identity politics in the regions. Ethnic groups were challenged by a very fragile system that was relatively new in 1960. It was not by any means an ideal one, but we had a better system in place. We spent a considerable amount of time with the military. Until 1983, when we had a brief return to a democratic system, which lasted for about four years. Again, our democratic system remains captive in the presence of the military. However, you had a very ambitious attempt on the part of the political leadership to try and move away from more than a decade of military rule and build the foundation of a democratic system from 1979 to 1984, aspiring to build a country for all. At least there was competition for power. A way for citizens to exercise choices and accountable leadership. It had its problems. But it was never given a chance to see whether it could work or not. However, by 1984, a second term of President Shagari had been overturned. However, the military returned, and we never returned to a democratic system until 1999, when the army was disbanded. They had no choice but to allow a democratic system to return, and the rest of the story unfolded. We are now celebrating 25 to 26 years of uninterrupted democratic system. We have had this for 26 years. It is only a cause for survival that we can say the experiment has been a success.
Can you tell Nigerians the difference between the democracy we have now and the system we had before?
It is essential to conceptualise all these comments about democracy. You cannot find any democratic system in the world that does not evolve and grow within its specific context. The first attempt was five years in the first Republic. We had a democratic system that allowed Nigerians, for the first time, to think. One, freedom from colonialism; two, the right and opportunity to build their own country themselves. A united leadership that was confident. It was energetic and intensely competitive, and Nigeria responded to it in a way that suggested the country was well on its way to entrenching democracy after the colonial era. The major transition that many people don’t understand and the challenges we faced from the politicians who took over the country after colonialism. To move from colonialism to full-blown democracy overnight except for a period. From the time of colonialism and after, we underwent democratisation, which was a significant transition. The cause and manner in which it ended led to a number of developments in the subsequent democratic system. We ended up with a civil war and a long period of military rule. The First Republic was a highly confusing period; Nigeria only remembers the sad part of it, forgetting that we had a group of politicians who organised and took over power from the British with the confidence to run a country. If the military had not intervened, we might not have had an uninterrupted democratic system to this day. However, it is difficult to judge the situation five years later, except for the fact that it was a skewed charade on the part of those who took over. It shows vision in many of the regions. In fact, in virtually all the areas. In most regions, you had leaders who worked very hard to shape their region. At the national level, there was leadership who had a vision of what a vast country like Nigeria should be. They competed with each other. There was a strong sense of what Nigeria was supposed to be, both within and outside the country. I have known Nigeria since 1962.
What do you think of the calls for a different system of government in Nigeria?
There are calls for different systems of government, and the system itself doesn’t guarantee good governance. I have listened to arguments in favour of returning to a parliamentary system. These are arguments that are predicated on structures. Structure is at the root of the problems; it is a human problem. It doesn’t matter what structure you’re running or what system you have. If your leadership is not perfect, as it is based on trust and mandate and is bound by what is right, there are institutions and values it must respect. It doesn’t matter what structure you put in place. It doesn’t matter what system you put in place. Or part of Nigeria into six zones. Nigeria’s problem is not a leadership problem but rather a problem of a people who had an opportunity to govern but decided to govern in their interest against those who voted for them. So, democracy is subverted fundamentally because leadership in Nigeria fails to recognise the fact that people give you the power to govern on their behalf. They didn’t provide you with the power to become a big man. To steal their money and treat them as if they are hopeless. The resources of the people are the resources of the leader. If you have this kind of people, it doesn’t matter who you are. But put them in the best country if this leadership holds these kinds of values, as they are demonstrating now. Nigeria is a tragedy even though we have a democratic system. The key elements are missing. That element is the idea that people elect leaders to serve them and protect their resources. To propel and use their resources to build the country in their interest. That has been the problem. Since 1999, every leadership that has taken over has been worse off than its predecessor. I’m not sure if President Muhammadu Buhari was worse than President Goodluck Jonathan. If you start with President Obasanjo, he did pretty well. He thought he could secure additional years, and unfortunately for him, history will record that he was wrong. I don’t have the facts to confirm it. President Umaru Yar’Adua came to power with some fresh air. He was youngish. He was visionary and decisive. But unfortunately, he didn’t last more than two years. President Jonathan took over and ran the country aground. We fought against Jonathan because we feel Nigeria deserves better leadership. With Jonathan, we realise we need to put in place good leadership. Jonathan governs badly. President Buhari didn’t govern at all. Now, we have someone who said it is his turn. Examining the life of President Tinubu’s government, we will judge him by his record. They will tell you they are doing great. Look at the World Bank statistics. And the international global ratings. You measure a country by the way its citizens live. Suppose that is the yardstick by which we will measure the administration. In that case, Tinubu’s administration has failed to meet the expectations that it would radically improve the quality of governance more than President Buhari.
Please point out the areas where, since 1999, all successive administrations have failed Nigeria.
Take the issue of insecurity. I was involved in President Buhari’s campaign for three to four years in his time. I was intimately involved with his attempt to get power. We saw him as a tough and no-nonsense person. And we saw that he could tackle book haram and bring peace back to this country. He didn’t. Insecurity grew under him to a level beyond what we had known. We told Nigerians Buhari is a no-nonsense guy. He is not a corrupt person. He was going to fight corruption. And Nigeria will be rid of corruption. But he failed. Some of the worst forms of corruption occurred under his leadership. And one of the prices we are paying for it. President Tinubu’s first declaration was that he would remove fuel subsidies. The subsidy has become such a massive problem under Tinubu. He must have thought he was doing the right thing when he said he was removing it. We clapped when he said he was removing it. We must have done a lot of thinking. Ideas in terms of how to mitigate the hardship and suffering it will cause, and he didn’t provide anything. Instead, he began looking for solutions after removing it, which created numerous problems. Here we are, three years down the road. Would he change his style of government? A significant portion of the issue is addressing insecurity and waste in the government, as well as the poverty of the Nigerian people.
Which policy do you think he should tinker with going by his administration in the next two years?
To be reasonable and realistic, asking President Tinubu to reinstate the subsidy doesn’t make sense. He won’t do it, and it’s not in the country’s interest. As a result of the removal of fuel subsidies, we are now getting a considerable amount of money from federal and state governments, which should go into areas that should improve security, reduce poverty, build infrastructure, improve education and health delivery system, and giving Nigerians hope that there is something in this country that is meant for them. That enormous amount of money, where is it going? They have massive funds. However, we do not know whether it will be passed on to local governments. However, in any case, it can improve accountability, just as we have improved revenue through the removal of subsidies. I reviewed the 2025 budget, and despite my limited understanding of budgets, it is unbelievable how much is allocated, yet it seems to be spent on nothing except abuse and corruption. There is no correlation between the level of poverty and the level of insecurity in the country. President Tinubu could present a budget that includes a lot of unnecessary spending and focuses on mitigating poverty and improving security to support social and human capital development. Then, use the power that you have to rally governors around and insist that money sent to them is used judiciously. The governors, including those from the PDP and another party, as well as their governors, have allegedly stolen millions of resources. The level of waste and corruption is so high that ordinary citizens are only vaguely aware of it despite the vast revenue generated by state and federal governments. Anger is increasing. They are more and more exposed to criminals and kidnappers. They can use this money to equip the military and state police. It’s as if we are citizens of hardship.
Why has corruption remained entrenched since 1999 despite previous administration claims to fighting it?
From 1999 to 2007, I served as a permanent secretary in the federal government, holding several sensitive positions. President Obasanjo had to break the backbone of corruption within the budgetary process. The word ‘padding’ misled us into including all sorts of unwanted things in the budget, and after, they went behind the scenes and arranged something different. It started under him. Every President Has had issues with stealing, particularly when using the budgetary process. If they want to steal, they pad the budget, and every legislator knows what is involved. President Yar’Adua tried, Buhari tried, and President Jonathan attempted. Buhari, in fairness to him, tried. The only area he failed was in both the executive and legislative branches. The executive allows legislators to steal vast amounts of money that will be padded, with very little of it being used. Their claims on constituency projects were mere recklessness. The executive pretends not to know so that they can obtain the budget pad. They inflate the budget. There is no relationship between the level of poverty and insecurity in the country. President Tinubu can do something. He should focus on mitigating poverty. And insecurity. Infrastructure and social development, as well as the development of human capital that we possess. Then, use the power that you have as a President to rally governors around. He must insist that money sent to them is used judiciously. He must control all the governors, including those from the APC and PDP because there is widespread abuse of resources. It is disheartening that ordinary citizens often only hear about vast amounts of revenue being allocated to federal and state governments. But they don’t see anything. Hunger is increasing, and people are being exposed to criminals and bandits, including kidnappers. They need to equip the military and establish a state police force, but they must start from the basics. Also, you cannot have a President who must insist on having the Senate President and the Speaker; that is why they are called the independent arm of government. They are related, but they are independent. The moment you have their leadership in your pockets, it is finished. In Nigeria, we have the highest level of collusion between the executive and legislative branches. And when you have that, then your democratic system is beyond redemption. Unless you have an executive arm that will say, ‘I will go by the name, letter, and words of the Constitution.’ You don’t need to intervene or interfere with what they do as a leader.
How did we allow diversity, which should be in our favour, to consume us so profoundly and affect us so negatively?
Nigerians are entitled to be governed justly, irrespective. We need a fundamental change in our system. All citizens deserve equal treatment. We need a leadership that can govern all sections of this country. I assure you, religion, and ethnicity and where you come from will become entirely. I am not saying they will disappear, but they will become a lot less prominent than they are now. But when the political system becomes captive with very destructive ideas, what you get in the country becomes where you come from, what language, what God you worship, etc. If you want to redesign this country, you have to do it fundamentally,
When did nepotism start?
I don’t know. But to be honest with you, I am a little different from my friends, with lots of arguments. I don’t personally see or count the number of Hausa, Yoruba, or Igbo people in this administration. I don’t see that as an issue. There are many ways in which elites attempt to divide the people. If you have a good person governing this country, and they say, ‘Listen, I am going to govern a country with people and citizens,’ I know they are different. Still, I will not differentiate between somebody from the Southeast and somebody from the North. I will not let anybody do that. I assure you that all these arguments about nepotism will substantially decline. You will not be counting the number of ministers they have. Ministers are the theme. The fact that the Northwest has 16 ministers, what do they do for us? I am from the Northwest. I have not seen how these 16 people have helped me when I am unable to travel to Katsina, Sokoto, and Zamfara. Often, it is politicians who raise concerns about nepotism. A Nigerian doesn’t care who his President is. This administration raised the issue of faith, a move that had not been made before. Hardly did anybody know that MKO Abiola and Babagana Kingibe were both Muslims. And yet they won an election. However, the win was not declared. However, don’t think that’s an issue, but it is. Abiola was never a President of Nigeria. Because he was never declared the winner as the law requires.
Do you think June 12 should have been declared democracy day?
I think June 12 was declared Democracy Day to remind Nigerians of the dangers associated with our democratic process. With two years to go, the present administration, both at the federal and state levels, is talking about 2027; they have forgotten about governance. They don’t even know they are two years into the administration. Criminals, bandits and politicians have turned our democracy into a personal battle. Politicians are not democrats. Democracy serves them. We are missing the point about June 12. It was never intended to celebrate the both of them but to remind Nigerians to be careful. You could lose all the values in the system. You will not play the game as it is intended to be played.
