By Muazu Elazeh

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s legacy is frequently reprehended for being overly vindictive, impulsively despotic, and notorious for holding petty political grudges. His actions during and after his presidency smack of personal malice that often supersedes national interest.

Obasanjo has once again ignited political controversy, this time with a familiar target: his former vice president, Atiku Abubakar. In his latest vituperation, Obasanjo claimed that Atiku gave the late Ghali Umar Na’Abba, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, N5 million to facilitate his impeachment while they served together.

The timing of Obasanjo’s accusation seems more suspicious. Coming over twenty years after the alleged bribery related to impeachment (Na’Abba served as Speaker from 1999-2003) and nearly three years after Na’Abba’s death, it raises more questions than it answers. Our law is clear. Any man charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Atiku has not even faced charges. Yet Obasanjo wants us to believe he is corrupt.

Between Obasanjo and Atiku, Nigerians know who the corrupt individual is. We remember today, as we will always do, the report of the Ndudi Elumelu committee on power. Who was president between 1999 and 2007 when, according to the committee, 13.2 billion dollars were said to have been spent on power? Where is the power? Who has questions to answer? Certainly not Atiku. Another reason why we must emphasise the teaching of history in our schools.

To understand why Obasanjo continues to level accusations against Atiku, one must look back to the defining political battle of their relationship: the failed third-term agenda. Many Nigerians today, particularly the Gen Z, who constitute more than 45% of the country’s population, know very little about that episode. Some were too young to remember it, while others had not yet been born.

Yet, it remains one of the most significant moments in Nigeria’s democratic history. A president elected for two constitutionally permitted terms attempted to remain in office beyond the eight years allowed by law. Constitutional amendments were proposed to achieve that. Nigerians of conscience opposed the move, and the plan failed.

That defeat bruised many egos, but none more than Obasanjo’s. Ironically, this was a man whose political career had been revived after surviving imprisonment under the late General Sani Abacha. Following Abacha’s death, Obasanjo was given the presidential ticket of the newly formed Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and subsequently became Nigeria’s democratically elected president in 1999. Having returned to power, however, he seemed unwilling to relinquish it.

Through proxies, efforts were made to amend the Constitution and create space for tenure elongation, which many Nigerians described as a third term. However, the National Assembly refused to yield.

The House of Representatives, under Speaker Aminu Bello Masari, and the Senate, led by Senator Ken Nnamani, remained resolute. They were supported by many distinguished Nigerians, including Vice President Atiku Abubakar, whose opposition became one of the defining moments of that struggle. The attempted tenure elongation failed. Obasanjo never forgave those who obstructed it.

Masari paid the political price. Despite being the leading contender for the PDP governorship ticket in Katsina ahead of the 2007 election, he was denied the nomination. Instead, Ibrahim Shehu Shema emerged as the party’s candidate after Obasanjo reportedly persuaded his chosen presidential successor, the late Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, to withdraw support for Masari.

Atiku suffered even more. The relationship between the President and the Vice President deteriorated after they secured a second term and worsened further following the third-term controversy. Atiku brought several court cases against the government as institutions were deployed against him. When he defected to the Action Congress, his office was controversially declared vacant, a decision later overturned by the courts.

Many legislators who opposed the third-term agenda also paid a heavy price. Several were denied return tickets by the PDP. It is against this backdrop that Obasanjo’s latest allegation should be viewed. Why did he wait until Ghali Umar Na’Abba was no longer alive before making such a grave accusation? Why remain silent for over twenty years if, indeed, the alleged bribery took place?

Those questions cannot simply be ignored. As I said earlier, the timing is equally curious. With the 2027 presidential election drawing closer and Atiku once again emerging as one of the leading contenders, Obasanjo’s allegation appears more like another attempt to damage the political reputation of the man he believes frustrated his greatest political ambition.

Let me digress. Had the third-term amendment been introduced under the current National Assembly, it would have sailed through effortlessly. Thankfully, it happened when Nigeria had a legislature that understood its constitutional responsibility and was prepared to defend it.

It is evident that Obasanjo’s repeated criticisms of Atiku reveal a man who has never truly moved past the defeat of his third-term initiative. His autobiography, My Watch, devotes several pages to criticising Atiku, accusing him of disloyalty, corruption, and poor judgment. Nearly every allegation of corruption against Atiku is traced back to that same book.

Curiously, however, the man who had the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) at his beck and call and was never reluctant to deploy state institutions against perceived political opponents did not prosecute Atiku.

If Obasanjo had credible evidence of corruption against Atiku, would he have hesitated to use it? I doubt it. The fact remains that, despite years of accusations, no court has convicted Atiku, nor has any anti-corruption agency initiated or successfully prosecuted him for the allegations repeatedly made by Obasanjo.

Atiku has consistently challenged anyone with evidence against him to present it in court. No one, not even Obasanjo – who has accused Atiku of corruption – has done so. This reality makes Obasanjo’s latest accusation even more difficult to accept without scepticism.

Nigeria’s laws are unambiguous. Offering or receiving a bribe to facilitate the impeachment of a sitting president constitutes a serious criminal offence. If Obasanjo truly believed such a crime had been committed, why did he not invoke the law against either Atiku or Ghali Umar Na’Abba?

Obasanjo has often positioned himself as Nigeria’s moral conscience, writing open letters to successive presidents whenever he believes the nation is heading in the wrong direction. Curiously, despite the severe economic hardship Nigerians face today, he has remained largely silent on the Tinubu administration and seems more preoccupied with Atiku.

The economy continues to struggle. Poverty is worsening. Unemployment remains high. It is now July 2026, yet the country is debating the implementation of the 2025 budget despite repeated claims of improved government revenue and ongoing borrowing. These are issues that require the attention of statesmen.

Contrary to the perception in certain quarters, I do not believe Obasanjo is trying to assist President Tinubu. He does not like Tinubu, and that is undisputed. I also believe his occasional endorsements of Peter Obi are a ruse. Obasanjo knows the 2027 presidential race will be between Atiku and Tinubu, both men he dislikes.

Just as in 2019, when he faced the choice between President Buhari and Atiku—two men he clearly disliked—Obasanjo again finds himself approaching another election with leading contenders he does not like. His latest allegation is less about Ghali Umar Na’Abba or an alleged N5 million bribe and more about a political wound that refuses to heal. Over two decades after the defeat of the third-term agenda, Obasanjo continues to nurse the pain. That, above all, remains his real dilemma.

—Elazeh is the GMD of LEADERSHIP Newspaper. He can be reached via:@babanyesme