FELIX Nwaneri writes on the recent submission by the Catholic bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Bishop Matthew Kukah, that most Nigerian leaders found themselves in power by accident, which has triggered debate on the leadership recruitment process
If there is a major challenge Nigeria has faced in over 60 decades as an independent nation, it is inept leadership. This, perhaps, explains why the nation has continued to lag behind in an emerging world order that emphasises visionary leadership.
With a few exceptions, the country has witnessed an array of leaders, who have continually ran it aground, while less endowed nations that gained independence the same time it did, have continued to make progress.
Perhaps, it was against this backdrop that literary giant, Prof. Chinua Achebe in his book “The Trouble with Nigeria,” posited that bane of the nation’s development is leadership failure. His words: “The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely failure of leadership. There is nothing basically wrong with the Nigerian character.
The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the challenge of personal example, which are the hallmarks of true leadership.”
While Achebe was lampooned by those in government at that time, there is no doubt that the leadership question he raised way back in 1984, when the book was published, is yet to be addressed given that most Nigerian leaders, who were either railroaded to power or thrown up by circumstances, failed to demonstrate visionary leadership, which is the principal element that ensures that government serves as a vehicle for the attainment of socio-economic aspirations of the citizens.
Kukah’s submission on accidental leaders rekindles debate
While most stakeholders have persistently called for a review of the country’s leadership recruitment process, the Catholic bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Bishop Matthew Kukah, rekindled debate on the issue recently, following his description of President Bola Tinubu, his predecessor, Muhammdu Buhari, and other previous heads of state as leaders, who found themselves in power by accident.
Kukah is a religious leader, whose interventions in politics are spurred by his quest to make a difference unlike some of his colleagues, who choose to promote prejudice.
He is not just an erudite scholar but social crusader. Perhaps, his uncompromising stand on national issues, explains some critical assignments he has been part of in the past.
Among such national assignments, include serving as Secretary to the National Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission, popularly referred to as Oputa Panel, and membership of the National Political Reforms Conference; Ogoni/Shell Mediation Initiative and Electoral Reform Committee.
Kukah’s contributions to these committees prompted many to express the fear that the nation would lose his services, when he was elevated to the position of bishop in 2011. A former head of state, General Muhammadu Buhari (who was later elected president) captured the feeling, when he stated in his congratulatory message that the cleric might no longer be available for public engagements. Kukah, however, allayed his fears, saying: “No need to fear, General.
The Church has only given us a bigger platform. As long as injustice and hunger stalk this land, we shall continue with the struggle. We shall go to where the Lord sends us.
Since God is everywhere, I shall consider myself a bishop without borders A man of his words, Kukah has not wavered on this promise given the fact that he has continuously spoken truth to power and his recent submission on the country’s leadership recruitment, in which he submitted that it is evident that none of Nigeria’s past leaders were fully prepared before assuming office, especially in a world where the demands of leadership are rapidly evolving, is not one to be brushed aside.
The cleric, who noted that the fundamental element missing in Nigerian leadership is knowledge, also expressed concern that democracy appears to be malfunctioning under successive administrations.
His words: “If we are to start from the beginning, you will find that almost every leader, who came to power in Nigeria did so as a result of one accident or another. President Tinubu, who said he was prepared for the role, is struggling. We are still trying to get off the ground. He took over from Buhari, who had already given up.
“Buhari succeeded Jonathan, who thought he would retire after being deputy governor, but circumstances thrust him into power. Jonathan succeeded Yar’Adua, who had planned to return to teaching at Ahmadu Bello University after his governorship.
“Yar’Adua, in turn, succeeded Obasanjo, who was unexpectedly released from prison to become president. Obasanjo took over after Abacha, who was being positioned by five political parties to rule indefinitely until nature intervened. “Abacha succeeded Shonekan, who was a business executive at UAC before being called to serve as Head of State.
We can go on and on, but the fundamental issue in governance is knowledge. Leaders need a deep understanding of their environment.”
Kukah, who maintained that this cycle of unprepared leadership has persisted, undermining Nigeria’s governance, said: “The fundamental thing in governance is knowledge. You need to have a deep understanding of your environment. The world has changed, but the expectations of leadership remain the same.”
If we are to start from the beginning, you will find that almost every leader, who came to power in Nigeria did so as a result of one accident or another
Presidency faults reference to Tinubu
The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Mr. Bayo Onanuga, who reacted to Bishop Kukah’s submission, particularly his categorization of President Tinubu as one of the nation’s accidental leaders, said his principal was prepared for the nation’s top job before he assumed office.
“He is not an accidental leader; he is doing his best to ensure that we have a turnaround in this country,” Onanuga said, adding: “Does he look like one at all? Tinubu is not an accidental leader; he was prepared for this office.
“He even said that he prepared for it and that he is doing his best to ensure that this country is lifted higher than he met it; he is doing his best.
Because he prepared himself for the office, he is doing a lot of reform, touching every area and trying to make sure that this country is turned-around.”
Onanuga maintained that President Tinubu has shown a reformer’s attitude, noting: “Reforms are not done in quick fixes; it takes time for you to turn things around, and he is doing it.”
He added: “He is doing reforms, and he is the first to acknowledge that people will be affected, and he is doing everything possible to ensure that those who are affected are also helped, so that they will not be left behind.
“He is reforming a lot of things in Nigeria, you are talking about taxation, you are talking about the oil sector, so many reforms the man is carrying out.”
Chequered history of leaders’ emergence
There is no doubt that Nigeria has been hit by a string of accidental leaders since independence. In the First Republic, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa-Balewa, emerged as prime minister courtesy of an arrangement that he should hold forth for Sir Ahmadu Bello), who was leader of the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC).
Six years after, the five army majors led by late Chukwuma Nzeogwu, who drew the blueprint for the first military coup that sacked the First Republic on January 15, 1966, ended up in jail, while the then Chief of Army Staff, Major General Johnson Aguiyi Ironsi, became the surprise beneficiary of the putsch.
Ironsi was still grappling with the challenges of the bad blood over the coup, when a counter-coup claimed his life in July 1966 (six months after he assumed office) and General Yakubu Gowon (then a Lt. Colonel), who was not actively involved in events until that point, was named head of state.
The leader of the counter-coup, General Murtala Muhammed, later overthrew and succeeded Gowon. General Olusegun Obasanjo, who took over from Muhammed, following his assassination in a botched coup in 1976, also did not see himself being entrusted with leadership and he gave very graphic details of his lack of readiness in his book “Not My Will.” It was the same story when he emerged as a civilian president in 1999.
Obasanjo was barely out of prison over alleged involvement in a plot to overthrow the then regime of General Sani Abacha, when he was drafted by some Northern political leaders to join the presidential race.
He, however, demonstrated that he learnt some leadership lessons after he stepped down as a military ruler given the way he ran affairs of the nation between 1999 and 2007, he was in office under a democratic setting.
For Alhaji Shehu Shagari, the first executive president of Nigeria, he only wanted a seat in the Senate before he was drafted to run for the presidency in 1979. What played out, especially his inability to control some ministers in his cabinet proved that he was ill prepared for the job.
Major General Muhammadu Buhari, who was head of state between 1983 and 1985, was never in the picture of the coup that truncated the Second Republic. Arrowheads of the putsch like General Ibrahim Babangida, later toppled him in a palace coup.
Babangida, who rule for eight years, capped his reign with annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election won by business mogul, Chief MKO Abiola. Wide spread protests over the botched Third Republic forced Babangida to resign on August 26, 1993.
He, however, signed a decree establishing the Interim National Government (ING) led by Chief Ernest Shonekan. The ING was ousted three months later (November) by the then Minister of Defence, General Sani Abacha. Like most military leaders, General Abdulsalami Abubakar’s emergence as Abacha’s successor was also by chance.
The same goes for President Umar Yar‘Adua, who many believed was handpicked in 2007 by then President Obasanjo and as his successor. Obasanjo opted for the then governor of Katsina State instead of the likes of Peter Odili (then governor of Rivers State), who showed interest. It was the same case for Goodluck Jonathan, who succeeded Yar’Adua.
He was set to contest the governorship election of his home state (Bayelsa) before Obasanjo handpicked him as Yar’Adua’s running mate.
And as fate would have it, Jonathan became president three years into their fouryear tenure, following Yar’Adua’s death in May 2010. Jonathan presented himself for reelection in 2011. He was popular in the build-up to that election that he got a pan Nigeria mandate.
But the euphoria that heralded his victory waned shortly after his inauguration over what most Nigerians described as his government’s lack of vision.
This, partly explained his defeat in 2015. General Buhari, a former military ruler, who won the 2015 presidential election made history as the first to defeat an incumbent president in Nigeria’s political history.
He also became Nigeria’s second former military ruler after Obasanjo to return to the presidency through the ballot. Unfortunately, not much changed during the eight years Buhari was in power. Nigeria’s decline became more profound than before, while Insecurity and poverty ravaged the country under his watch.
Under President Tinubu, a former governor of Lagos State, who succeeded Buhari in 2023, the story of despair and frustration has assumed an alarming dimension, particularly over high-cost of living thereby painting another picture of another, who was not prepared for leadership as Kukah posited.
Tinubu is not an accidental leader; he was prepared for this office… Because he prepared himself for the office, he is doing a lot of reform and trying to make sure that this country is turned-around
Views of stakeholders
Some stakeholders, who spoke on Nigeria’s leadership recruitment process, not only described it as flawed, but insisted that attainment of socio-economic aspirations of the people will remain a mirage until the leadership question is addressed.
A chieftain of the Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Chief Chekwas Okorie, who described Kukah’s submission as a statement that reemphasised the clamour by some stakeholders for a review of Nigeria’s leadership recruitment process, however noted that it will be absolutely correct to say that all Nigeria’s leaders did not prepare for governance.
His words: “Simply put, Bishop Kukah used his choice of words (accidental leaders) to raise the issue of our flawed leadership recruitment process, which most of us have been hammering on for years.
However, to say that all our leaders did not come to power prepared may not be really be correct. The main issue is that the system we operate, Nigeria’s have not been given the opportunity to choose their leaders.
“Our electoral process should be strengthened to ensure that votes count, so that leaders would be accountable to the people. This is why the electronic voting system should be adopted in order to curb all sorts of manipulations that have continued to hinder the people from having the kind of leadership they deserve.
Chairman of Civil Society Policy Forum (CSPF), Mr. Olufemi Aduwo, who posited that the leadership Nigeria has produced in the past 25 years leaves much to be desired, said: “Nigeria has suffered for years and may continue to suffer unless it rids itself of ill-equipped leadership.”
He added: “The leadership Nigeria has produced in the past 25 years leaves much to be desired. Leadership cuts across the political parties and arms of government, and not limited to the president.
Modern governments are complex human organisations and therefore require men and women capable not only of intellectual penetration but also exhibit trust.
“Some people believe that it will take only leaders with the fear of God to take Nigeria out of the woods but do not forget that we have no aggregate perceptions of what fear of God is all about.
Some of the most tyrannous human beings, who have inflicted pain, sorrow and tears on humanity, have had no problems presenting themselves as God-fearing.
“Good governance must entail responsiveness, humanness, and human rights, pursuit of policies that address the concerns and the interests of the majority without trampling on the minority.”
Given the fact that leadership is not a tea-party, the consensus is that what the country needs at the various levels of government are leaders with integrity and exceptional organisational skills, who will perform instead of just pronounce; give expertise and competence instead of title and position; initiate bold developmental programmes instead of seeking hand-outs; respect and honour the people instead of dictatorship, control and abuse, and who will leave legendary positive impacts instead of excuses for failure.
