The headline told the story more than the narrative: Jonathan’s performance below average – Obasanjo. It was the lead story of the day. Come to think of it: why would Olusegun Obasanjo speak and it won’t lead the paper? We know the man and his style. We know his language and the weight it pulls.
I recall one of the comments he made a few years back. Journalists needed his opinion on his former deputy, Atiku Abubakar, who had joined the presidential race. He simply uttered: “I dey laugh ooh”, entered his car and took off.
Those three funny words, uttered in pidgin English, without expatiation or any form of embellishment, created one of the most sensational headlines in the Nigerian media the following day. It was crazy!
Status was conferred on those three words because Obasanjo was the one who uttered them. Status was also conferred because of the circumstances that gave rise to them in terms of the issues involved; the person to whom reference was made; and his relationship with Obasanjo.
Earlier, during his time as president, he was approached by journalists on certain controversial issues. One of them had to do with a speculated impeachment attempt by the National Assembly, he replied: “I dey kampe”, then walked away.
Another three queer, deviant words released. The comment was a media hit; a clean copy that left many editors wondering: now that we have the headline, where is the story. Yes, the headline was what Obasanjo uttered, the story was in the event that ignited the headline.
Obasanjo is not an expert with words. What makes him stand out is that he can say from the roof-top what others can’t even conjure in the inner recesses of their minds. He is bold. He is raw. He is most times unorthodox.
It was Richard Smith, the Executive Director of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, who said of the late U.S. president, John Quincy Jones, that he made up in audacity what he lacked in political finesse. That description fits Obasanjo perfectly.
You think he is uncultured? But he has done what only people with refined mannerisms do: he has written historic books, not fictions; he has been a military ruler, and an elected president. He is a prominent citizen of the world.
However, Obasanjo, most times, does not talk like a statesman. These days, just to drive home the point about his hatred for President Goodluck Jonathan, he has started talking like a chieftain of the opposition political parties. He simply talks for the sake of applause. Some people have traced this to his military background; others say he is too patriotic to be economical with the truth. But does he always speak the truth?
Passing a vote of no confidence on Jonathan through the media may be Obasanjo’s usual indecorous style; but it’s wrong. That he brought Jonathan to national politics is not the issue here. Is there no better way of passing judgment without grandstanding?
The former president’s hatred for Jonathan is common knowledge. Yes, he miscalculated. He thought it would be easy to control Jonathan from Ota. That has not happened and may never happen.
Obasanjo was never happy leaving the Presidential Villa. The failure of the third term project was an irredeemable shocker to him. Despite all the denials of involvement, there is no doubt that the retired, war-tested General never thought the project would fail.
Wounded by the failure of Third Term and also losing control of the man he brought to power, Obasanjo sounds like someone who can’t wait to see Jonathan leave the Villa. What if he has another four years to wait?
I don’t believe any Nigerian will doubt Obasanjo’s sense of commitment to the oneness and greatness of Nigeria. But this does not in any way mean that he alone holds the solution to every problem of Nigeria. That is self-delusion.
I don’t speak for Jonathan. It’s also not my business to defend him. While I agree that Obasanjo, more than anyone else, should understand governance at the highest level, I really do wonder if Obasanjo has the required credentials to pass a vote of no confidence on Jonathan.
It would be better if Obasanjo allows those of us who observed him (Obasanjo) from 1976 to 1978, and from 1999 to 2007 to speak about what he did better than Jonathan within the period under review. Scoring himself high and condemning Jonathan sounds pretty mischievous.
Perhaps I should suggest, in the words of the theologian, D.L. Moody, that “the best way to show that a stick is crooked is not to argue about it or spend time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it”. Is Obasanjo that straight stick? Or is Jonathan the crooked stick? Let’s lay both alongside each other.
Where Obasanjo was aggressive as president, Jonathan has been annoyingly undecided. Where Jonathan applies finesse and constitutionality, Obasanjo was unrepentantly brassy. It’s a matter of style.
Though he woke up a bit late to the realities of governance, Jonathan is definitely not a failure, neither was Obasanjo, as president. Both have their strong and weak points.
If, in the words of Arthur Nzeribe, even among thieves there is honour, Obasanjo should learn to be more presidential by emulating the respected former President Shehu Shagari who is never known for hauling criticisms through the media. Obasanjo should leave Jonathan alone, if all he has to offer him are holier-than-thou criticisms.
