Obasanjo Cannot Rewrite History: How His Political Cowardice Helped Lay the Foundation for Nigeria’s Present Insecurity By Chief Malcolm Emokiniovio Omirhobo

PRESS RELEASE
Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s recent remarks defending the right of Nigerians to seek assistance from the United States and other foreign nations in resolving Nigeria’s worsening security crisis would have been commendabl if they were not dripping with the deepest form of irony.

Nigeria’s insecurity did not arise from thin air. It is a product of decades of governmental negligence, dangerous political compromises, and constitutional violations. Unfortunately, Obasanjo played a central and undeniable role in shaping this trajectory

Today, as he speaks with the confidence of an elder statesman, Nigerians must remember the decisions he made in office decisions that directly weakened national cohesion, fuelled extremism, and created the parallel legal systems that still threaten our unity and security.

One of the most consequential political events in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic was the adoption of Sharia criminal justice systems by twelve northern states between 1999 and 2000.

Rather than defend the Constitution he swore to uphold , a Constitution that defines Nigeria as a secular state , Obasanjo chose silence. He watched as:
A parallel criminal justice architecture was created;
Constitutional uniformity was undermined;
Citizens’ rights under the Nigerian legal system were eroded;
Religious extremism was emboldened.
Rather than confront the governors involved, Obasanjo famously dismissed the development as a “political Sharia” that would “soon fizzle out.”
It did not fizzle out.
It became institutionalised.

His refusal to act decisively was not a statesman’s tolerance, it was a self-serving political compromise designed to protect his second-term ambition. In the process, he surrendered the supremacy of the Constitution to political expediency, effectively pushing Nigerians under the bus.

The consequences of Obasanjo’s decision or refusal to act have echoed for over two decades:

1. The rise of extremist ideologies that no longer feared confrontation from the federal government.
2. The emboldening of non-state actors who saw that political pressure could bend the Constitution.
3. Deepening religious polarisation that continues to shape national discourse.
4. The weakening of federal authority, especially in matters of law enforcement and national security.
5. The creation of fertile ground for insurgency, militancy, and banditry.

Today, Nigeria is battling an unprecedented level of insecurity kidnappings, banditry, terrorism, rural invasions, and sectarian conflicts. These seeds were planted when leaders like Obasanjo chose political survival over constitutional responsibility.

It is hypocritical for Obasanjo, who helped institutionalise the legal and ideological fractures troubling Nigeria today, to now claim moral authority on the subject.

Leadership requires courage.
Courage requires sacrifice.
In the early 2000s, Obasanjo displayed neither.
Instead, he permitted the foundation of today’s insecurity to harden while Nigerians hoped for a leader who would uphold the law without fear or favour.

Obasanjo cannot now pretend to be a spectator or a neutral adviser. His decisions shaped the path Nigeria is walking today.

Nigeria is in crisis. But what the country does not need is historical revisionism.

As Nigerians struggle with insecurity, we must speak plainly:
The instability we see today is partly the fruit of the compromises Obasanjo made yesterday.
He can offer advice, but he must also accept responsibility.

Going forward Nigeria must:
Reaffirm the supremacy of the secular Constitution;
Strengthen federal institutions;
Dismantle systems that encourage parallel legal orders;
Hold past and present leaders accountable for actions that weaken national security;
Commit to justice, equity, and national unity.
Only then can the foundations of genuine peace be rebuilt.