The return of General Buhari
President Muhammadu Buhari returned home from his medical treatment in London, United Kingdom, after 104 days on August 19, 2017, evidently in much-improved health. He had departed Nigeria on May 7. The last series of pictures of Buhari in the days preceding his return as various politicians visited him indeed showed a healthier, more robust president whose treatment, rest and recuperation had, at least on the face of it, been quite successful. My sense of the president’s return as I mentioned on a CNBC Africa interview was that it was probably better politically for Nigeria for Buhari to return in one piece so that the political tensions that a contrary outcome promised could be defused and accompanying political risk de-escalated.
Several developments, such as the notorious October 1, 2017 quit notice to Igbos in Northern Nigeria, could be linked to political calculations and simulated pretexts in the event that power passed to a president from Southern Nigeria. I do not regard it as a co-incidence that the ultimatum was duly withdrawn once Buhari returned. There has also been a significant upsurge in “Boko Haram” terrorism and scenario projections from our firm RTC Advisory Services suggested that things might have gotten worse on that front if a presidential absence had occurred! It is noteworthy that just like during the first presidential medical vacation in UK, killings by so-called “Fulani herdsmen” significantly reduced while Buhari was away-it will be interesting to observe if the murderous activities of the “herdsmen” will resume their alarming tempo now that Buhari is back!
While it is uncontestable that Buhari’s return is positive for political risk de-escalation, it is not so clear that it is so in relation to economy and policy! There is no doubt on the evidence that Buhari’s two medical vacations and the acting presidencies of his deputy Yemi Osinbajo have produced better outcomes on the economic policy front domestically! Both absences have seen better exchange rate policy (based on pressure on the CBN from the National Economic Council led by the Vice President) and lower exchange rates; positive measures on ease of doing business and enabling environment; improved capital market performance; greater economic growth and investment; more appointments into important policy and economic positions; and generally better economic confidence. It was during Buhari’s first treatment abroad that the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) was released in February 2017.
One may observe however that Osinbajo was less active on the policy space during the second presidential absence (except notably in respect of appointments!) relative to the first, evidence that there was a substantive intent to circumscribe his role to that of “coordinator” as Buhari’s letter transmitting power to him indeed forewarned. It was sad that the acting president could not act on the important matters involving the $48million cash alleged to belong to the NIA and the suspended SGF David Babachir Lawal. He couldn’t even swear in and allocate portfolios to ministers already cleared by the Senate for several months! It is probable that the relationship between Buhari (and his kitchen cabinet!) and Osinbajo may be more constricted going forward. Already upon his return, Buhari has held meetings with security chiefs and with the economic team without the Vice President (who had been touted as leading economic policy!) present. The Vice-President has also loudly resisted an attempt to saddle him with the dirty work of leading negotiations with striking university lecturers!
Public commentary has been righty focused on Buhari’s national broadcast on August 21, 2017 after his return. The speech was uncharitable and probably arrogant, and amounted to an attempt to intimidate the Nigerian people. In a way, the person that returned from London and made that address was not an elected civilian democrat, but the military general who ruled in 1984! Or at least that was the intention behind the speech in the minds of those who drafted it and the person who read it. I am happy that Nigerians, with the exception of regime apologists, have by-and-large refused to be intimidated.
I must put on record my observations on the speech-the president should have started with a discussion on his health and the issues around it; we reject the president’s attempt to constrain freedom of expression by prescribing “national red lines” in public discourse. Only the law defines boundaries for our fundamental human rights, not any president and security agencies; the relentless hints about a regime intent to constrain free speech and muzzle social media under the pretext of hate speech is anti-democratic and will not be accepted; it was unfortunate that Buhari attempted to leverage a private conversation with a dead individual, late Biafran leader Odumegwu Ojukwu, to which others were not privy, as a replacement for the required national conversation on our federation-even if his account of the discussion with Ojukwu was accurate, when did Nigerians cede their democratic rights to the two?
Nigeria’s unity is NOT settled and it is negotiable! Indeed all the crises we continually face as a nation since independence is evidence of the fact that our unity is unsettled. The only way to perfect our union is through negotiation. We all want a united Nigeria, but we also want a peaceful, fair, just and equitable nation, under a federal structure. And we want development and prosperity, not unity with retrogression! The evidence suggests that “Fulani herdsmen” are the aggressors in their disparate conflicts with farmers virtually all over the country-the president was wrong to speak of “farmers versus herdsmen clashes”. Finally Nigeria’s problems will be resolved by a national conversation by all Nigerians not a club of ex-leaders, most of them unelected military dictators and one of the key issues we must resolve is indeed the structure, composition and powers of our National Assembly!
Opeyemi Agbaje