Obasanjo’s Verdict On Atiku: A Political Statement That History Does Not Fully Support
By
Ola Olateju
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s recent declaration that choosing Atiku Abubakar as his running mate in 1999 was the “greatest mistake” of his presidency has once again reopened one of Nigeria’s longest-running political rivalries. The remark, made during a public event in Lagos, has generated intense political debate.
The statement may satisfy political emotions, but history deserves a more balanced assessment than personal disappointment.
The first question Nigerians should ask is simple: If Atiku was indeed Obasanjo’s greatest mistake, why was the administration’s first term (1999–2003), when the partnership between both men was strongest, widely regarded as the most productive period of Obasanjo’s civilian presidency?
The Obasanjo-Atiku government inherited a nation emerging from military rule. Democratic institutions were weak, investor confidence was low, and the economy required urgent restructuring. During that period, Atiku chaired the National Economic Council and the National Council on Privatization, playing significant roles in economic reforms, institutional restructuring, and public-sector modernization. Whether one agrees with every policy or not, few observers deny that Atiku held one of the most influential positions in advancing the administration’s economic agenda.
Ironically, it was Obasanjo’s second term, not the first, that became overshadowed by the controversial constitutional amendment widely known as the Third Term Agenda. That controversy consumed national attention, divided the ruling party, strained the Presidency’s relationship with the National Assembly, and permanently altered Obasanjo’s political image. The proposal ultimately failed after strong opposition from politicians, civil society and many within the PDP.
Many political analysts have long argued that the breakdown in the Obasanjo-Atiku relationship accelerated during this period because Atiku emerged as one of the prominent political figures resisting tenure extension. Whether or not one accepts that interpretation, it is historically accurate that their relationship deteriorated sharply during the second term amid disagreements over succession and constitutional amendment.
This raises another important question.
If Atiku was truly incapable of serving as vice president, why did Obasanjo retain him throughout two constitutional terms? Why did he continue to entrust him with major national responsibilities instead of removing him politically long before 2007?
Leadership is measured by judgment. If appointing a deputy becomes one’s “greatest mistake,” that judgment inevitably reflects not only on the deputy but also on the person who selected, trusted and repeatedly empowered him.
There is also the danger of evaluating history through the lens of present political disagreements. Political relationships evolve. Allies become rivals. Rivals sometimes become allies again. Yet historical performance should not be rewritten simply because political friendships collapsed.
Another claim frequently repeated in Nigerian political circles is that during General Sani Abacha’s incarceration of Obasanjo, Atiku Abubakar quietly contributed to the welfare of Obasanjo’s family. This allegation has circulated for years in political discussions. However, there is no publicly verified documentary evidence confirming it, and it should therefore be treated as an unverified political claim rather than established historical fact.
What remains indisputable is that the Obasanjo-Atiku ticket successfully stabilized Nigeria’s return to democratic governance after decades of military rule. Their administration completed eight uninterrupted years, strengthened several democratic institutions and oversaw significant economic reforms, even though many of those reforms remain subjects of legitimate debate.
History should therefore distinguish between political disappointment and historical performance.
Personal grievances, however deeply held, should not become substitutes for objective historical evaluation. The successes of the first Obasanjo administration were products of a team effort, just as the controversies of the second term—including the Third Term saga—were products of political choices made during that later period.
Statesmen earn greater respect when they acknowledge both the strengths and weaknesses of those who once stood beside them.
Obasanjo is entitled to his opinion. But Nigerians are equally entitled to judge that opinion against the evidence of history rather than the passions of politics.
