Why we toppled Buhari – IBB

Former Military President General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (rtd) has explained the reasons for the overthrow of General Muhammadu Buhari’s regime in 1985 as well as the subsequent drastic economic reforms, including the devaluation of the naira.

Babangida, who served as the Chief of Army Staff under Buhari and played a key role in the 1983 coup that brought him to power, provided a detailed account of the events in his autobiography, A Journey in Service.

The 420-page book, released on Thursday, has sparked controversy, particularly regarding key issues that shaped Babangida’s eight-year rule, including the annulment of the June 12 presidential election; the assassination of foremost journalist, Dele Giwa; and the execution of Major General Mamman Vatsa over an alleged coup plot.

SPONSOR AD

‘The 1985 coup was a necessary intervention’

In Chapter Six, titled Mounting the Saddle, Defining a Military Presidency, Babangida justified the 1985 coup, describing it as a response to national discontent and the deteriorating state of affairs.

“By the beginning of 1985, the citizenry had become apprehensive about the future of our country. The atmosphere was precarious and fraught with ominous signs of clear and present danger. It was clear to the more discerning leadership of the armed forces that our initial rescue mission of 1983 had largely miscarried,” he wrote.

He argued that failure to act would have led to a split within the armed forces, which he believed would have had disastrous consequences for the country.

“If the armed forces imploded, the nation would go with it, and the end was just too frightening to contemplate,” he stated.

He noted that while the military had initially taken over in 1983 with a shared sense of purpose, divisions had begun to emerge within the ranks.

“In state affairs, the armed forces, as the only remaining institution of national cohesion, were becoming torn into factions; something needed to be done lest we lose the nation itself. My greatest fear was that division of opinion and views within the armed forces could lead to factionalisation in the military. If allowed to continue and gain root, grave dangers lay ahead,” Babangida added.

He accused Buhari and his deputy, Brigadier General Tunde Idiagbon, of isolating themselves from the military establishment and adopting a rigid, authoritarian approach to governance.

“They both posited a ‘holier than thou’ attitude, antagonising the civil populace against the military. Fundamental rights and freedoms were being routinely infringed upon and abused,” Babangida wrote.

According to him, the Buhari administration ruled by fear rather than foster trust and hope among the people.

“We were supposed to improve their lives and imbue the people with hope for a better future. Instead, we ruled the nation with a series of draconian decrees. An administration intended to reflect the collective will of the armed forces as a national institution came to be seen as the private personal autocracy of a stubborn few,” he wrote.

‘Buhari’s resort to ancient barter trade system worsened economic hardship’

Babangida also cited worsening economic conditions and public dissatisfaction as factors that made the coup inevitable.

“Like most military coups, our leadership change was informed by widespread disquiet among the civil populace. Ordinary people were experiencing severe economic hardship. The general economic and social conditions the people lived under were worsening by the day. Essential goods and supplies were scarce. Yet arbitrary controls in all aspects of economic life assnd an ancient resort to barter in international trade meant that the nation’s financial woes would not end soon,” he wrote.

Draconian decrees, he said, had severely restricted individual freedoms, while justice was often mechanical and harsh.

“Punishment for crimes against the state had led to the pursuit of mechanical legalistic justice against the dictates of natural justice,” he noted.

As Chief of Army Staff, Babangida said he was under pressure from junior officers to take action to prevent further erosion of the military’s credibility.

“On several occasions and instances, even the very integrity of the armed forces was being called into question,” he wrote.

He described how disciplinary actions were taken against senior officers without due process, which led him to consider resigning.

“A disciplinary case involving allegations of divided interest against some senior officers was decided without due recourse to the Army Council. Instead of waiting for a report and investigation from the Army leadership, the affected officers were unceremoniously relieved of their commission, and their military career of so many years was abruptly ended without any input from the Army as their institution of origin. I objected to this arbitrariness and disregard for due process,” he wrote.

His decision to oppose these actions, he said, led to him being placed under surveillance “with the privacy of my communications and those of my family constantly monitored.”

“This tense atmosphere culminated in the unanimous decision of a broad spectrum of senior and middle-level officers to change the nation’s leadership. The processes associated with this change were completed without bloodshed by midnight on August 26, 1985,” Babangida stated.

A Washington Post report on August 27, 1985, quoted Babangida as saying that the Buhari government had been “too rigid and uncompromising,” had failed to end “economic mismanagement,” and had caused “intolerable suffering.”

Why we devalued the Naira

One of the most controversial decisions of Babangida’s regime was the devaluation of the naira. In Chapter Seven, titled Reforming the Economy: Privatisation, IMF, SAP, and other Matters, he explained why his government implemented this policy.

Babangida argued that the Buhari administration’s approach of setting an artificial exchange rate had severely distorted the economy.

“The primary cause of the crisis in the economy itself was a total mismatch of supply and demand. The shortage in the supply of essential goods was occasioned by uncertain access to foreign exchange,” he wrote.

He criticised Buhari’s policy of fixing the exchange rate at a subsidised level, saying it created unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles for businesses and individuals.

“Importers, manufacturers, government goods and services, and the general public could only access foreign exchange through the red tape of a bureaucracy that needed to be more transparent,” he wrote.

He also criticised Buhari’s crackdown on individuals carrying foreign currency, referencing the arrests of musician Fela Kuti and businessman Chief Harold Shodipo.

“I must confess that I felt assaulted and hurt that my predecessor had arrested, detained and harassed some prominent Nigerians because they were found at the airport travelling with a few dollars or pounds sterling,” he wrote.

According to him, his government needed to “quickly remove the government from the role of an enormous money changer to that of an enabler of the appropriate economic environment.”

To address these challenges, Babangida’s administration introduced a deregulated foreign exchange market.

“We decided to deregulate the foreign exchange market by floating the exchange rate instead of fixing it at a predetermined level by government fiat,” he explained.

Although the naira weakened in value, Babangida maintained that the policy allowed for a more realistic exchange rate based on market forces.

“We were satisfied that the demand and supply of foreign exchange determined the exchange rate. At least foreign exchange stopped being a deity to be worshipped by all and sundry since it could now be accessed more liberally,” he wrote.

IBB justifies privatisation and economic liberalisation

Babangida also defended his government’s decision to privatise state-owned enterprises, arguing that excessive government control had stifled economic growth.

“On a macroeconomic level, we needed to free the commanding heights of economic activity from the stranglehold of government so that competition among players could engender a more excellent supply of goods and services among competitive players,” he wrote.

He noted that government-run enterprises had become “massive drains on the economy” and were not profitable.

“If we could free the economy from excessive regulation and government control, the economy would operate more efficiently,” he argued.

Babangida said his administration believed Nigerians would prefer to pay higher prices for goods rather than face persistent shortages and long queues.

“Our perception of the familiar feeling among most Nigerians was that they would prefer to pay a little more for essential goods and services and be spared the humiliation of endless queues and incurable scarcity,” he wrote.

By liberalising access to foreign exchange and reducing government control, Babangida said his administration ended commodity shortages and queues.

“It was a hard choice. Our people had to choose between waiting endlessly in queues for goods that needed to be more forthcoming or paying a little more for instantly available supplies of goods and services. The logic of the open market prevailed,” he concluded.

When contacted for reactions to the allegations by Babangida, the former Senior Special Assistant to former President Muhammadu Buhari on Media and Publicity, Malam Garba Shehu, could not be reached on his mobile telephone line. He also did not reply a text message sent to him.