Buhari doesn’t care about a legacy, after all. Or does he?

President Muhammadu Buhari’s wife, Aisha, was uncompromisingly blunt in her explosive and much-publicised BBC interview. She said of her husband’s government: “things are not going the way they should”, adding: “nobody thought it’s going to be like this”.

The Buhari government, she alleged, had been hijacked by a cabal who wield enormous influence over the administration’s appointments and directions. Mrs Buhari questioned the loyalty and motives of the so-called cabal and their acolytes, saying “they don’t know our party manifesto, they don’t know what we campaigned for, they don’t have a mission, they don’t have a vision of our APC!” This is unprecedented, or at least uncommon.

Hardly would the wife of a sitting president   criticise her husband’s government publicly in such a damning manner. Yet, it’s not difficult to understand why. Anyone who listens to the interview, and feels the anguish in Mrs Buhari’s voice, would agree that this was an outburst from a woman who cared deeply about the All Progressives Congress (APC), which she called “our party”, and her husband’s legacy. It was a desperate attempt by a woman, whose private concerns were ignored, to save her husband from himself and from the cabal who have boxed him in and are pushing his government in directions contrary to APC’s electoral promises.

Now, a public spat between the president and his wife, though extraordinary, should be none of my business. But the issues raised by Mrs Buhari are of significant national interest, and can’t be ignored. For a start, the idea that a cabal has hijacked the Buhari government is a huge blow to the reputation of a president, who, on his inauguration, said: “I belong to everybody and I belong to nobody”.

Of course, every government is prone to being captured by a few influential people, but it’s a leader’s duty to prevent his or her government from being hijacked by a cabal. Sadly, that’s not the case in Nigeria. The governance of this country, like its economy and wealth, is concentrated in a few hands; individuals who operate outside the cabinet, but act as “gate-keepers” in the policy process.

This is why Aisha Buhari’s intervention is a public service. First, it helps us to understand the inner workings of the Buhari government. Questions about the inclusiveness of the governance process, and about who the president listens to, are not trivial; they are central to Nigeria’s democratic system. Secondly, Mrs Buhari’s intervention helps reveal not only the president’s prejudices, but also his attitude to governance and, thus, to the notion of a legacy, his legacy! Take the first point.

We know – don’t’ we? – that President Buhari’s inner circle is made up of individuals, who, as the president himself said, were with him through “trying times” and, therefore, were rewarded for their “dedication and suffering”. We also know that those in the president’s inner sanctum are not representative of Nigeria’s ethnic mix. They are almost exclusively from his ethnic group, Hausa/Fulani! President Buhari justified the “Northernisation” of his inner circle by saying that the appointees were “people who will work closely with me”. He said that while he would, as constitutionally required, appoint his cabinet from the whole country, his inner circle would be filled with people he knew and could trust.

But, as I asked on this page at the time: “Why is it that, over the course of the president’s long political career, only fellow Northerners are trustworthy, loyal and competent enough to join his inner circle?” Surely, with Mrs Buhari’s intervention, the question of who forms the inner sanctum of the Buhari administration is no longer academic.

For if, as she said, the president’s cronies have hijacked the government, then it means that the country is actually being ruled by a clique from just one section of the country. Although there is a cabinet, which reflects the country’s ethnic diversity and is, constitutionally, Nigeria’s highest policy-making body, but, in truth, it is a weak and ineffectual organ; real decision-making power resides with a small sectional clique in the presidency.

Some ministers can’t even see the president without the say-so of some powerful “gate-keepers”. Elsewhere, such cabals would be identified and subjected to parliamentary scrutiny, but, under Nigeria’s powerful presidential system, the buccaneering president and his cronies are virtually untouchable! Yet nothing undermines democracy and good governance more than shadowy people who wield so much power but are unaccountable.

Now, what about the president’s response to his wife’s allegations? Well, sadly, it was dismissive and patronising. As widely reported, President Buhari told journalists in Germany, “I don’t know which party my wife belongs to, but she belongs to my kitchen and my living room and the other room”. This toe-curling comment has caused waves across the world, viewed by many as sexist and misogynistic. It was all the more embarrassing because President Buhari made the remarks in the West and while standing next to the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, a woman, and Europe’s most powerful political leader! Presidential wives are, in other climes, seen by their husbands as assets and indispensable complements.

Think of President Obama and his fiercely intelligent wife, Michelle, or Bill Clinton, who, in 1992, told Americans that if they elected him as president they would get two for the price of one, referring to his clever wife, Hillary. But, beyond being consorts, women are leaders in their own rights. For instance, come January next year, if Hillary Clinton is elected president on November 8, as widely predicted, she, Angela Merkel and Britain’s Theresa May would be the three most powerful leaders in the world. So, how then, in the 21st century, could the president of Nigeria, one of the world’s major countries, say that his wife belongs to his kitchen?

Even after widespread criticism, President Buhari was unrepentant, insisting that his wife belongs to the kitchen and “should stay out of politics”. Mrs Buhari, a politically-minded woman with a master’s degree, said in her BBC interview, “I have my own rights, you know”. But, apparently, her husband doesn’t seem to agree.

How antediluvian! President Buhari’s riposte to his wife is also interesting for its policy and political implications. In dismissing his wife’s criticism, Buhari said that, having run for president three times and succeeded the fourth, “I can claim superior knowledge over her and the rest of the opposition because, in the end, I have succeeded”. This is significant and tells us a lot about the president’s mindset.

Surely, if a leader thinks that he has superior knowledge over others he would easily dismiss what they say.

Little wonder, then, that President Buhari is hardly listening to anyone on the governance of this country! Hear Mrs Buhari on her husband’s obduracy: “Sometimes when one is doing something wrong without him knowing, but people talk to them, they should listen”. When asked whether she told her husband all her concerns, she replied, with a tone of frustration and resignation, “Yes, he knows, he knows”! Isn’t this familiar? President Buhari’s “superior knowledge” and obstinacy extend to policy issues; to the economy, institutional reform and political restructuring!

The president dismisses experts, with put-downs, such as “the so-called economists”. His approach to governance is headmasterly and didactic! Yet, as a recent BusinessDay front page screamed, “Buhari (is) running out of time on economy”.  

So far, the president’s “superior knowledge” hasn’t lifted the economy out of recession or improved the lives of ordinary Nigerians. Mrs Buhari says she wants her husband to “leave a legacy”. In a recent article, titled “The Buhari legacy project”, the columnist and former presidential aide, Reuben Abati, said that the president’s handlers “have taken their eyes off the legacy project”.

But I submit that Buhari himself is probably not interested in a legacy. We were told during last year’s election that Buhari would be Nigeria’s Charles de Gaulle or General Eisenhower or Nelson Mandela. But all that have turned out to be mere hypes. Nearly two years in office, President Buhari has done nothing to transform the economic and political landscapes of this country. Surely, if President Buhari wants to leave a legacy, as his wife wishes, he will need to listen to her.

This means a number of things. First, he must rein in his cronies; second, he must replace the current lacklustre cabinet with a strong one; and, third, he must provide leadership and build consensus across the country, including through bi-partisan collaboration, to deliver real economic and political transformations. The question, though, is: does Buhari really care about leaving a legacy? Well, the jury is still out. But the signs are currently not good, and time is running out!