The article critiques General Babangida’s autobiography, arguing it misrepresents his regime’s impact on Nigeria. By portraying himself as a national servant, he overlooks the suffering caused by his policies and governance. The author calls for victims to share their experiences and establish a truthful historical record to counter Babangida’s revisionist narrative.
General Olusegun Obasanjo could have altered Nigeria’s political landscape by retiring military coup plotters, such as Generals Muhammadu Buhari and Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, before transitioning power to Alhaji Shehu Shagari in 1979. His failure to do so, likely due to military loyalty or distrust of civilians, allowed these individuals to remain influential. Shagari’s reluctance to dismiss them stemmed from ethnic and geo-political considerations.
Babangida, primarily known for his coup-making, would have been a minor character in Nigeria’s history had he not assumed power. As the Head of State, his autobiography “A Journey in Service” must be scrutinized, given its implications for Nigeria’s history. The book, spanning 420 pages with multiple sections, reveals the colonial mindset of military leaders toward civilians and the trauma inflicted upon them during Babangida’s regime.
While the autobiography does confirm widely held views about the detrimental effects of Babangida’s eight-year rule, it also fails to provide new insights. It inaccurately presents a narrative that emphasizes national service, misleading readers into thinking that he worked for the nation’s good rather than for his personal agenda and the interests of Western powers, including the IMF and World Bank.
Protests against Babangida’s oppressive regime were met with violence, showing the disconnect between the government and the populace. His responses to calls for returning to democratic rule reflected his prioritization of personal power over national welfare. The title of his autobiography should denote the destructive impact of his governance rather than suggest a noble journey of service.
Despite the book’s omissions and inaccuracies regarding his regime’s failures, Babangida seeks to revise history in his favor. He avoids discussing his administration’s damaging legacies, which include fostering division, corruption, and the deterioration of public services. His account portrays him as a victim of circumstance, evading responsibility for the chaos of his tenure.
There is a pressing need for those affected by Babangida’s misrule to tell their stories and correct the historical record. Documenting these narratives through books and conferences can provide a comprehensive account of the suffering experienced under his administration. Such efforts will not only honor the victims but also discredit Babangida’s attempt to reshape history through his autobiography.
Babangida’s autobiography is an attempt to reshape his legacy, failing to account for the personal and collective suffering endured during his regime. By misleadingly framing his tenure as a service to the nation, he diverts attention from the actual consequences of military governance in Nigeria. It is crucial for the victims of his rule to assert their narratives and ensure an accurate historical account, discouraging future leaders from similar autocratic practices.
Original Source: www.premiumtimesng.com
