BUHARI AND AUGUST 27, 1985 'THIRTY-THREE YEARS AFTER'

- By Bashorun J.K. Randle, OFR, FCA

History is always neutral. Whenever distortions creep in, it is historians who are to be

blamed. Effortlessly, but most significantly history like an ever-rolling mill has crept up

on us. According to the clock and calendar, thirty-three years now separate us from

the day when Major Abdulmumini Aminu, Major John Madaki and Major Lawan

Gwadabe the Nigerian Army [Infantry] swept into Dodan Barracks, Ikoyi, Lagos and

arrested the Military Head of State and Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces of

Nigeria, Major-General Muhammadu Buhari. It was a dawn attack and the coup d’état

was swiftly accomplished.

There was no resistance; hence there was no bloodshed. It brought to an end the

Buhari / Idiagbon regime which had been in power since 31st December 1983 – a brief

twenty months of stern military rule which by its own mantra was determined to rid

Nigeria of corruption and indiscipline. The efficacy or otherwise of the security reports

which should have alerted the Head of State that a coup d’état by his own colleagues

was imminent is a subject for another day.

For now, it would suffice to confine ourselves to the neutrality of history which has

with complete detachment and neutrality recorded that Major-General Tunde

Idiagbon who was Chief of Staff Supreme Headquarters and the number two man /

right hand man of Buhari was away to Mecca on pilgrimage allegedly on the invitation

of the King of Saudi Arabia. It was a decoy disguised as a ruse which effectively fooled

Idiagbon the strongman. He even took along his teenage son. He had been sold a

dummy!! Unknown to the rest of the nation, Idiagbon would have (on his return

from Mecca) announced the retirement of the Chief of Army Staff, Major-General

Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida [IBB] from the army. This was regardless of the pivotal

role Major-General Babangida had played in the 1983 coup d’état that toppled the

civilian government of President Alhaji Shehu Shagari. Rather than take over the

mantle of leadership himself, Babangida had ceded it to Major-General Buhari who

was then in faraway Jos, in Plateau State as General Officer Commanding [GOC] of the

Second Division of the Army. Major-General Tunde Idiagbon was the Secretary of the

Army Council.

Initially, the rulership had been anchored on the troika of Buhari, Idiagbon and

Babangida. Then the cracks began to show as both Buhari and Idiagbon were of the

same stern and spartan disposition while Babangida’s orientation and body language

were in sharp contrast (to the duo of Buhari and Idiagbon). It was of little

consequence that all three of them were Northerners and Moslems. Increasingly,

Babangida was according to his own subsequent version of events side-lined and

isolated. The Supreme Military Council consisting of the military hierarchy and

intelligence / security officers was split down the line (as well as various factions

headed by Major-General Mammam Jiya Vatsa and Major-General Magoro). There

was also the unresolved nuanced dilemma over whether the Head of State was the

“Supreme Commander” (Emperor) or “Commander-In-Chief” (first among equals).

It is also on record that following the 1983 coup d’état, two memorable declarations

were given wide publicity by BBC Overseas Service:

(i) “These are our boys” - General Olusegun Obasanjo (former Military Head of

State 1976-1979).

(ii) “If only we had known that the Nigerian economy was in such a shambles

(and the treasury was empty) we would not have bothered to take over the

government”

- Major-General Muhammadu Buhari (Military

Head of State of Nigeria).

Somehow the previous umbilical cord between General Buhari and General Obasanjo

has been abruptly severed in a remarkable feat of reverse abortion. As for the Buhari /

Babangida nexus, that is a different and complex equation. Right in the vortex of the

quadratic equation is Lt-General T.Y. Danjuma (Rtd) and his undulating relationship

with General Obasanjo, (late) Major-General Shehu Yar’Adua and General Babangida.

For now, it is sufficient to record that within a few months of the Buhari / Idiagbon

government, the cracks began to show particularly as Idiagbon who had no direct

control of the troops became increasingly domineering and overbearing – at the

expense of Babangida, the Chief of Army Staff. From being a full member of the

troika, Major-General Babangida was somehow degraded to a junior partner in the

government he had installed. A whole chapter should be devoted to the dummy sold

to Lt-General Mohammed Inuwa Wushishi (Chief of Staff 1981 to 1983) who like

Babangida is from Niger State and may have been led to believe that he would be

invited to become the Head of State.

Anyway, what brought matters to a head was the retirement of Brigadier Aliyu Gusau

by Buhari / Idiagbon regardless of the protestation of Babangida. According to the

grapevine the allegation against Gusau had something to do with import licence.

Brigadier Gusau pleaded innocence but he was nevertheless served with a letter of

retirement by the new secretary to the Army Council, Brigadier Ele Peters.

Major-General Babangida, Chief of Army Staff did not need any one to prompt him

that the writing was on the wall. If the junta of Buhari and Idiagbon could retire his

trusted ally and bosom pal Brigadier Aliyu Gusau, he [IBB] was next in the firing line.

He went for the pre-emptive strike. It was a masterstroke but the timing was

awkward. The coup d’état was on the eve of sacred Sallah but the security agencies

were generally relaxed. Besides, Major-General Idiagbon who would have launched a

counter coup was away in Mecca. Here is the thrust of Babangida’s maiden address

according to BBC History series:

Most of all, the August coup appears to mark the decisive rejection of authoritarianism

in Nigeria. This was forcefully signalled in President Babangida’s maiden address to the

nation, an extraordinary statement for a military ruler. In it, Babangida recognized that

even a military government "needs the consent of the people" to govern effectively.

Promising to uphold human rights, he announced an immediate review of the status of

political detainees. Most significant, he announced the repeal of Decree Number 4 and

vowed, "We do not intend to lead a country where individuals are under the fear of

expressing themselves." Words are easily offered to an angry nation; the test will be in

the way President Babangida governs. But having figured so centrally in the last four

coups, he is acutely aware that Nigerian leaders ultimately cannot escape

accountability for their actions. His initial actions indicate that—whether through real

commitment to liberal government or simply shrewd political instinct—Nigeria’s new

president means to govern liberally. 
########################################

Among his government’s first actions was the release of all journalists in detention.

Dozens of politicians who had been in prison up to 20 months without charge or trial

were also released, many to heroes’ welcomes. In addition, public exposure of the

NSO’s (National Security Organisation) violations of human rights was encouraged. The

top leadership of the NSO was dismissed, and a thorough probe and restructuring

were undertaken. Amnesty International praised Babangida for these steps. Another

augury of a more consensual and accountable style of rule is the new government’s

structure and composition, which is both more open to criticism and internal debate

and more representative of the country’s many ethnic and interest groups. To disperse

power at the top of government, the functions of the domineering former chief of

staff, Idiagbon, were split between two positions. 
############################

Political administration was assigned to the chief of general staff, Naval Commodore

Oko Ebitu Ukiwe—the first Igbo military officer to hold such high government office

since the 1967-70 civil war. Military administration was assigned to a newly created

Joint Chiefs of Staff, chaired by the powerful Defence Minister Domkat Y. Bali. All but

five members of the former Supreme Military Council were appointed to the new and

enlarged Armed Forces Ruling Council. The five who were dropped were those

primarily responsible for the previous regime’s abuses: Buhari, Idiagbon, the internal

affairs minister, the NSO director and the attorney- general.
###############

The ethnic balance of the council’s membership was also altered, with the center of

gravity shifting from the far north to the ethnic minority states of the middle north.

And at the state level, Babangida replaced 13 of the 19 military governors, a shrewd

move that gave younger officers—including several populists and an avowed

socialist—a share in the running of the country. The cabinet appointments are even

more striking, both for those who were retained (only six of the previous 18 ministers)

and those who were newly selected. Signalling that open dissent will not be

unwelcome, the new president retained Petroleum Minister Tam David-West, an

independent academician who had condemned the policy of negotiating massive

countertrade or barter deals exchanging Nigerian oil for foreign goods.

It was rumoured at the time of the coup that David-West would be fired for his

candour. Instead, he is joined in the cabinet by other forceful and capable figures who

were not afraid to speak out in opposition to the Buhari regime. These include

Akinrinade (Agriculture), Professor Bolaji Akinyemi (Foreign Affairs), who condemned

the Buhari government’s expulsion of illegal immigrants, and Dr. Kalu Idika Kalu

(Finance), who argued, in opposition to the former regime, that Nigeria should take an

IMF loan. Babangida named the president of the previously banned Nigerian Bar

Association, Bola Ajibola, attorney-general. Given the explicit pledges, personal

inclinations, appointments and early actions of President Babangida, his government

seems unlikely to sink into the kind of narrow dictatorship that preceded it.

Nevertheless, symbols and good intentions lack the force of law and the stability of

institutions.

Verbal commitments can wither in the heat of crisis and opposition, which are sure to

greet the difficult economic decisions that will have to be made in future months. If

there is a lesson in the misrule of the Buhari regime, it is so basic as to seem banal:

unlimited power corrupts its holders and perverts its original ends. The Buhari-

Idiagbon regime had promised to bring its predecessors to account, but put itself

beyond public scrutiny or criticism.

J K Randle

The current government likewise has pledged retribution for offenders. For example,

in proclaiming the recent coup, the Babangida regime denounced the "glaring fraud"

in the Buhari government, and then appointed a committee to investigate corruption

in the negotiation of oil countertrade agreements. But, again, this is to establish

accountability for past actions of other officials; it remains to be seen how those now

in power will conduct themselves. How can accountability be advanced from the past

to the present, so that it is not merely retroactive but also preventive? In my analysis

of the December 1983 coup, I suggested that stable and accountable government in

Nigeria might be achieved through a "diarchy" of shared civilian and military rule, in

which civilian democratic rule was further checked and balanced by military control of

certain crucial regulatory functions. 
#######################################

This reflected the active search then under way in Nigeria for a constitutional formula

to overcome the abuses of power that spoiled the country’s two attempts at

democratic government. Before the Buhari regime banned all discussion of the

country’s political future, this public debate accelerated, and numerous variations of

diarchy were advanced and debated. Now that the Buhari regime, like the military

government in the post-civil war era, has soured public confidence in the military as

rulers, there may be an even more compelling case for diarchy as a way out of what

one observer called "Nigeria’s ruinous political cycles." Diarchy is typically conceived as

civilian government making some permanent institutional place for the military in the

constitutional system. It could, however, be implemented in reverse; the military could

create and gradually enlarge institutional roles for civilians. Indeed, if the Babangida

government is serious about allowing itself to be held accountable, and about building

a consensus for a long-term attack on Nigeria’s economic problems, power-sharing

may be indispensable to its success. 
######################################

To some extent, it has already shared power by appointing prominent civilians to the

federal and state cabinets. But there is nothing institutional about this participation.

Similarly, it has recognized that the free press is a cornerstone of accountable

government. But with the constitution in suspension, this freedom exists only at the

pleasure of those in power.

There is no reason why a military government cannot draw up a constitution or bill of

rights to which it can be held accountable in the courts. Such a document would be a

first step back to democracy in that it would recognize the supremacy of the judiciary

in interpreting and protecting fundamental liberties. There is also no reason why a

military government cannot subject itself to a code of conduct for public officers, to be

enforced by an independent bureau and tribunal.

While the military remains dominant in government, the appointment and supervision

of this framework could be entrusted to the Supreme Court, or the bar association, or

a council of traditional rulers, or some other independent, civilian body commanding

general respect. No government can ever be fully trusted to watch itself; nor can it

root out corruption if it does not set up independent structures for doing so.

These structural innovations would provide established means for ensuring

accountability and thus enhancing public confidence in military government.

Moreover, such changes would not threaten the military’s basic control of the

government. Yet it is difficult to imagine any government, including this government—

for all its apparent democratic intentions—limiting its power in the absence of explicit,

sustained pressure from opinion-makers and organized interest groups.

The military government could also be strengthened, as an editorial in the journal

West Africa suggested, "by announcing early a programme for a return to a more

representative form of government no matter how far in the future." President

Babangida has signalled his intention to present a programme of political transition,

with initial emphasis on revitalizing local government. This might allow

experimentation with new forms of electoral representation, reintroducing political

competition and participation first at the grassroots.
#######################

Phasing in democracy in this way could defuse grievances and pressures and give the

government a stronger basis of legitimacy. With the economy in dire straits, there will

be no shortage of grievances and pressures in the months to come. Nigeria’s external

debt remains in excess of $20 billion, and payment on short-term trade debts is

lagging months behind. Oil production remains low and petroleum prices are likely to

tumble further, as Babangida himself recently warned the nation. Hence, the prospect

is for even less than the 1984 oil income of $10 billion, which is less than half the peak

figure of four years ago. Most economists believe that the only way out of the crisis is

for Nigeria to reach agreement with the International Monetary Fund for a three-year

$2.5 billion loan; negotiations on this have been deadlocked for three years because

Nigeria has refused to accept the IMF’s stringent adjustment program. Upon taking

office, President Babangida seemed determined to come to an agreement quickly but

then threw the question open to public debate, and the consequent intense

opposition has clearly reduced his freedom of manoeuvre. 
######################

Reaching agreement on an IMF loan would unlock perhaps another $2.5 billion in

loans and credits from other sources; it would also enable Nigeria to resume imports

necessary to regenerate industrial production and employment. But critics denounce

the hardships that would follow the required currency devaluation and subsidy cuts.

They also dismiss the utility of another huge infusion of cash, which, they maintain, the

country is no better equipped to manage than the massive infusions of the oil boom.

As President Babangida recognized in his recent independence- day address, "with or

without the IMF loan facility," all Nigerians "must make hard choices involving great

difficulties and requiring sacrifices from everyone in every sector, including the Armed

Forces." With or without the loan, the prospect is for a prolonged period of economic

austerity, in which consumption has to be limited severely and productivity sharply

increased. Knowing this, the Babangida government may well determine that the

urgent need for government to be responsive to the popular will, in particular the

opposition to the loan, outweighs the urgent need for new foreign exchange and

restructuring of debt. The Reagan Administration’s new policy emphasis on economic

growth as the best relief for debt crises in the Third World may eventually benefit

Nigeria.

Further, since the Babangida government has struck a surprisingly cordial stance

toward the United States and promised to remove bureaucratic and other obstacles to

foreign investment, the time might be propitious for the United States to take the lead

in helping Nigeria to restructure its international obligations. Ultimately, however, the

success of the new government is likely to depend on whether it can build a national

consensus around a coherent economic strategy, distribute the sacrifices fairly, and

put a stop to the disastrous leakage of the country’s resources through corruption and

mismanagement. This will be difficult to do without some institutional means for

ensuring open and accountable government. In this sense, 20 months of repression

may have taught the valuable lesson that the choice between democracy and

economic recovery is a false one.

We should also flash back to Major-General Muhammadu Buhari’s maiden address:

In pursuance of the primary objective of saving our great nation from total collapse, I,

Major-General Muhammadu Buhari of the Nigerian army have, after due consultation

amongst the services of the armed forces, been formally invested with the authority of

the Head of the Federal Military Government and the Commander-in-Chief of the

armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is with humility and a deep sense of

responsibility that I accept this challenge and call to national duty.

As you must have heard in the previous announcement, the constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria (1979) has been suspended, except those sections of it which are

exempted in the constitution. The change became necessary in order to put an end to

the serious economic predicament and the crisis of confidence now afflicting our

nation. Consequently, the Nigerian armed forces have constituted themselves into a

Federal Military Government comprising of a Supreme Military Council, a National

Council of States, a Federal Executive Council at the centre and State Executive

Councils to be presided over by military governors in each of the states of the

federation. Members of these councils will be announced soon.

The last Federal Military Government drew up a programme with the aim of handing

over political power to the civilians in 1979. This programme as you all know, was

implemented to the letter. The 1979 constitution was promulgated. However, little did

the military realise that the political leadership of the second republic will circumvent

most of the checks and balances in the constitution and bring the present state of

general insecurity. The premium on political power became so exceedingly high that

political contestants regarded victory at elections as a matter of life and death struggle

and were determined to capture or retain power by all means.

It is true that there is a worldwide economic recession. However, in the case of

Nigeria, its impact was aggravated by mismanagement. We believe the appropriate

government agencies have good advice but the leadership disregarded their advice.

The situation could have been avoided if the legislators were alive to their

constitutional responsibilities; Instead, the legislators were preoccupied with

determining their salary scales, fringe benefit and unnecessary foreign travels, et al,

which took no account of the state of the economy and the welfare of the people they

represented. 

As a result of our inability to cultivate financial discipline and prudent

management of the economy, we have come to depend largely on internal and

external borrowing to execute government projects with attendant domestic pressure

and soaring external debts, thus aggravating the propensity of the outgoing civilian

administration to mismanage our financial resources. Nigeria was already condemned

perpetually with the twin problem of heavy budget deficits and weak balance of

payments position, with the prospect of building a virile and viable economy.

The last general election was anything but free and fair. The only political parties that

could complain of election rigging are those parties that lacked the resources to rig.

There is ample evidence that rigging and thuggery were relative to the resources

available to the parties. This conclusively proved to us that the parties have not

developed confidence in the presidential system of government on which the nation

invested so much material and human resources. While corruption and indiscipline

have been associated with our state of under-development, these two evils in our

body politic have attained unprecedented height in the past few years. The corrupt,

inept and insensitive leadership in the last four years has been the source of

immorality and impropriety in our society. Since what happens in any society is largely

a reflection of the leadership of that society, we deplore corruption in all its facets.

This government will not tolerate kick-backs, inflation of contracts and over-invoicing

of imports etc. Nor will it condone forgery, fraud, embezzlement, misuse and abuse of

office and illegal dealings in foreign exchange and smuggling.

Arson has been used to cover up fraudulent acts in public institutions. I am referring to

the fire incidents that gutted the P&T buildings in Lagos, the Anambra State

Broadcasting Corporation, the Republic Building at Marina, the Federal Ministry of

Education, the Federal Capital Development Authority Accounts at Abuja and the NET

Building. Most of these fire incidents occurred at a time when Nigerians were being

apprehensive of the frequency of fraud scandals and the government incapacity to

deal with them.

Corruption has become so pervasive and intractable that a whole ministry has been

created to stem it. Fellow Nigerians, this indeed is the moment of truth. My colleagues

and I – the Supreme Military Council, must be frank enough to acknowledge the fact

that at the moment, an accurate picture of the financial position is yet to be

determined. We have no doubt that the situation is bad enough. In spite of all this,

every effort will be made to ensure that the difficult and degrading conditions under

which we are living are eliminated. Let no one however be deceived that workers who

have not received their salaries in the past eight or so months will receive such salaries

within today or tomorrow or that hospitals which have been without drugs for months

will be provided with enough immediately.

We are determined that with the help of God we shall do our best to settle genuine

payments to which government is committed, including backlog of workers’ salaries

after scrutiny. We are confident and we assure you that even in the face of the global

recession, and the seemingly gloomy financial future, given prudent management of

Nigeria’s existing financial resources and our determination to substantially reduce

and eventually nail down rises in budgetary deficits and weak balance of payments

position. 

The Federal Military Government will reappraise policies with a view to

paying greater attention to the following areas:

• The economy will be given a new impetus and better sense of direction.

• Corrupt officials and their agents will be brought to book.

• In view of the drought that affected most parts of the country, the federal

government will, with the available resources, import food stuffs to supplement

the shortfalls suffered in the last harvest.

Our foreign policy will be both dynamic and realistic. Africa will of course continue to

be the centre piece of our foreign policy. The morale and combat readiness of the

armed forces will be given high priority. Officers and men with high personal and

professional integrity will have nothing to fear.

The Chief Justice of Nigeria and all other holders of judiciary appointments within the

federation can continue in their appointments and the judiciary shall continue to

function under existing laws subject to such exceptions as may be decreed from time

to time by the Federal Military Government. All holders of appointments in the civil

service, the police and the National Security Organisation shall continue to exercise

their functions in the normal way subject to changes that may be introduced by the

Federal Military Government. All those chairmen and members of statutory

corporations, parastatals and other executive departments are hereby relieved of their

appointments with immediate effect.

The Federal Military Government will maintain and strengthen existing diplomatic

relations with other states and with international organisations and institutions such

as the Organisation of African Unity, the United Nations and its organs, Organisation of

Petroleum Exporting Countries, ECOWAS and the Commonwealth etc. The Federal

Military Government will honour and respect all treaties and obligations entered into

by the previous government and we hope that such nations and bodies will

reciprocate this gesture by respecting our country’s territorial integrity and

sovereignty.

Fellow Nigerians, finally, we have dutifully intervened to save this nation from

imminent collapse. We therefore expect all Nigerians, including those who

participated directly or indirectly in bringing the nation to this present predicament, to

cooperate with us. This generation of Nigerians, and indeed future generations, have

no country other than Nigeria. We shall remain here and salvage it together.

May God bless us all. Good morning.

Bashorun J.K. Randle is a former President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN) and former Chairman of KPMG Nigeria and Africa Region. He is currently the Chairman, J.K. Randle Professional Services. Email: jkrandleintuk@gmail.com