IN DEFENCE OF YEMI OSINBAJO
The successes and failures of the Buhari administration fall properly under the ownership of President Buhari, argues
Femi Awotesu
There have been some very strident criticisms of Vice President Yẹmi Oṣinbajo since he launched his
campaign for the Presidency. The more substantive objections fall under three broad categories – One,
that his declaration constitutes a betrayal of his political benefactor; two, that he is irredeemably tainted
by the failures of the Buhari administration and three, that he failed to speak truth to the power of
President Buhari and his administration even as they implemented despicable policies. A fourth
objection is that his membership of the Redeemed Christian Church of God renders him wholly
unacceptable to Moslems in the North. The latter, based purely on religious grounds, is unreservedly
reprehensible and underserving of consideration by thoughtful Nigerians; however, as the issue has been
raised, I will also address it.
I write as an ordinary Nigerian citizen and hold no brief for the Vice President. I do not know him
personally. I do not belong to his church or to his political party. I have no links to him whatsoever apart
from our mutual heritage as Old Boys of Igbobi College, where I addressed him as Senior Oṣinbajo.
I write not simply in defence of the vice president but more as a rejoinder to pervasive commentary about his merit for the Presidency that has been, at best, insufficiently insightful or displayed misplaced
emphasis and, at worst, has ventured into demagoguery and character assassination.
Nigeria is a very
young and feeble democracy. It behoves thoughtful Nigerians to engage in political discourse with
intelligence, maturity and sober judgement, notwithstanding the frailties of our electoral process. In
fact, if we are to be guided by the wise counsel that men like Abraham Lincoln exhibited when another
young republic, the United States, was going through a perilous period in her history, the fragility of the
Nigerian republic especially warrants careful reflection and informed debate by thoughtful Nigerians.
One of the mistakes we make in Nigeria, and as Nigerians, is that we fail, repeatedly, to learn from
history. The political history of the United Kingdom, whose parliamentary model we assumed in 1960 as
well as that of the United States, whose Presidential style we subsequently adopted, is replete with
examples of contenders for political high office side-lining those who had initially facilitated their political
ascent. A crucial distinction in democratic governance from the aristocratic rule that preceded it is that
political office is the preserve of no-one. Going back to the Greek foundations of the concept, in a
Demos, everyone who is deemed qualified to run for elective office is entitled to do so, unreservedly. To
stretch the concept of citizen further, anyone who feels he or she has talents and abilities to serve the
public good and has the predilection and wherewithal to contest for elective office should stand. It is the
noble duty of a citizen in a democracy. So, the notion that Vice President Oṣinbajo has betrayed
Governor Tinubu is utter nonsense.
In July 2008, David Miliband, the incumbent UK Foreign Secretary published an article outlining his vision
for the UK’s Labour Party that made no mention whatsoever of the Leader of the party, Prime Minister
Gordon Brown, and in whose Cabinet David Miliband served. Two Labour Members of Parliament, out of
about 360, called on Mr Brown to sack Mr Miliband for his perceived disloyalty. Their petition was
ignored. When the Labour Party lost the May 2010 General Election, Gordon Brown resigned as Leader
of the party and a week later, on 12 May, David Miliband announced he would stand in the leadership
contest to elect a new Leader of the party. Two days following, on 14 May, David Miliband’s younger
brother, Ed Miliband, who was also a Minister and fellow member of the Cabinet of Gordon Brown,
announced that he too would stand. In the end, the younger brother, Ed, won the election and became
Leader of the Labour Party in September 2010. The Miliband brothers dismissed any talk of fratricide as
the younger Miliband assumed leadership of the party while his older brother, David, retreated to the
Parliamentary back benches, and eventually left Parliament to become the CEO of the International
Rescue Committee.
There are other examples in the annals of political history of political protagonists contesting against
their erstwhile “political elders”. In politics, it is a moot point, as should be the case. The objective of all
democrats should be that elections be contested by competent and qualified candidates and the best of
the breed emerge victorious after a free and fair contest. That would be a credible avenue for achieving
the best government of the people by the people and for the people. The language of “political
godfather” recalls the sordid history of opaque politics exemplified by the Chicago backroom politics of
the 1960s that was tainted with links to the mafia. Such disreputable sentiments should not be
permitted to characterise Nigerian politics at this stage of our national journey.
In fact, the proper constitutional protocols dictate that, as the second citizen of the nation, Vice
President Oṣinbajo supersedes Governor Tinubu. The proper constitutional order, therefore, would be
that no member of the APC would declare for the Presidency without first checking with the Vice
President. If the Vice President expressed his interest in contesting the Presidency, then all other
aspirants in APC, to whom he is constitutionally politically superior, would defer to him, unless they wish
to contest against him, notwithstanding his constitutional political superiority. So, contrary to the well-
publicised view that Vice President Oṣinbajo has attempted to upstage Governor Tinubu, the reverse is in
fact the case.
The second objection raised is that the vice president is irredeemably tainted by the failures of the
Buhari administration. By virtue of Oṣinbajo’s membership of the Buhari administration, he is undoubtedly sullied by the failures of that administration. A proper appreciation of the
characteristics and peculiarities of the Office of Vice President should, however, prevent the drawing of
strong conclusions about his culpability. Similarly, he should not readily be garlanded as a beneficiary of
any successes by the Buhari administration. A more accurate measure of his competence would be from
his tenure as Acting President, as opposed to merely Vice President, as well from when he served as
Attorney General of Lagos State, when he wielded real executive power. The brief period when he was
Acting President and his extensive tenure as Attorney General are a better barometer of his prowess and
unambiguously highlight the merits of his personal legacy of executive action. His achievements in
academia, at the Bar and in private legal practice, mark him as exceptionally well-equipped to lead our
nation.
Equally, his apparent inaction as vice president should not be allowed to diminish his prospects for the
highest office. The extensive history of the Vice Presidency of the United States teaches that occupants
of that office have to tread very skilfully, especially when they have strong policy disagreements with
their boss. The duties of Vice President, as laid out in the Nigerian Constitution, are implicitly at the
prerogative of the President as they derive exclusively from the duties delegated by the President. It is
an even more narrowly defined role than its American antecedent where the Vice President also serves
as President of the United States Senate with various exclusively legislative constitutional duties separate
from those in the Executive branch.
As the renowned political journalist and author Jules Witcover recounts in his book, “The American Vice
Presidency: From Irrelevance to Power”, American Presidents have historically been reluctant to
delegate governing roles to their Vice President. The limited record of executive action by Vice President
Oṣinbajo points to a similar disinclination by President Buhari. The history of American presidency points
to only three Presidents who delegated substantive duties to their Vice – Jimmy Carter to Walter Mondale, Mondale, Bill Clinton to Al Gore, and, most notably, Barack Obama to Joe Biden. It was more the case with Dick Cheney that he brazenly arrogated significant responsibility and power to himself at the
expense of President Bush’s authority. It is notable that it has been only when the governing party has
enthusiastically backed the heir apparent that the incumbent Vice President has successfully gained the
highest office. Walter Mondale and Al Gore both faced significant and prolonged on-side opposition and
lost in their bid for the presidency, while Joe Biden won with the unequivocal support of the Democratic
Party machinery.
We do not know whether the failures of the Buhari administration result from President Buhari’s failure
to heed wise counsel from his Vice President that could have helped prevent policy disasters or whether
Vice President Oṣinbajo’s input was inconsequential. It was after the Obama presidency that we learned,
for instance, that his Vice President, Joe Biden, had reservations about the military operation by US Navy
Seals that led to the capture of Osama bin Laden. It was President Obama’s sole decision to launch the
operation, given the constrained potential for success and the risk of failure.
It was a gutsy move that could have backfired, with spectacular political consequences, as President Jimmy Carter experienced
decades earlier in the Iraq hostage crisis when a previous American rescue mission failed. In short, until
memoirs are published, we will never know what counsel Vice President Oṣinbajo has given to President
Buhari regarding the various policy failures of the Buhari administration. Just as President Obama got
the plaudits for his successful military operation and won re-election, and President Jimmy Carter failed
to get re-elected, the successes and failures of the Buhari administration fall properly under the
ownership of President Buhari. Vice President Oṣinbajo should not automatically be held accountable
for them.
The final substantive criticism that has been levelled at Vice President Oṣinbajo was that he failed to
speak truth to power. Some commentators have contrasted his alleged passivity to the decisiveness of
Vice President Mike Pence in certifying the election of Joe Biden, in public defiance of the claim by
Donald Trump that he was the rightful winner of the election. This assertion fails to recognise that,
unlike all the other duties that an American Vice President may perform, which are all delegated by the
President, the role of the Vice President as President of the United States Senate is mandated by the US
Constitution. In fact, it is the only constitutionally-mandated role for the Vice President, and one of the
duties of the Senate President is the certification of Electoral College votes in a presidential election.
A previous example of a Vice President fulfilling their constitutional duty irrespective of personal
ambition was in 2000. Despite Vice President Al Gore winning the popular vote in the presidential
election, and amid widespread evidence of electoral malfeasance in Florida, he certified the election of
his opponent, George W Bush as president. A Vice President fulfilling his constitutionally-mandated role,
in allegiance to his sworn oath of office, is of a different order of magnitude to an expectation that Vice
President Oṣinbajo should have publicly condemned Buhari administration policies with which he may
have disagreed. The normal expectation is that a Vice President would express his disagreement with his
President privately. Since Vice Presidents typically have ambition for the Presidency, their natural
palliative for the inevitable criticism they suffer for supporting their President despite policy
disagreement is that they strive to attain the presidency in the hope that they will be able to make their
mark in a way the Vice Presidency does not permit.
As far as the religious criticism is concerned, the notion that Vice President Oṣinbajo is some
fundamentalist Christian bigot is thoroughly risible, an egregious slander totally beneath contempt and
that merits only complete disdain by thoughtful Nigerians. It is preposterous that Vice President
Oṣinbajo can, on the one hand, be accused of being complicit in the unconcern for Christian feeling by
the Buhari administration that has been accused of implementing an Islamisation agenda, and on the
other, be accused of wanting to impose the religious branding of his church on Nigeria. It is not only an
unsustainable contradiction; it is not borne out by the facts of how Vice President Oṣinbajo has
conducted himself in office. The behaviour and temperament of Vice President Oṣinbajo was forged
from his youth by the ethos of Igbobi College, an inclusive institution with a Christian foundation that
welcomed all, irrespective of religious affiliation, and that nurtured her pupils to aspire to excellence,
with both Moslem and Christian examples. The dignified, sophisticatedly noble persona
Oṣinbajo manifestly displays unquestionably proves that he harbours not a scintilla of ethnic or religious
prejudice. One can only hope that misplaced religious zealotry will not find fertile ground among
thoughtful Nigerians.
Much has been written about how an Oxford and Cambridge-educated elite has wielded outsize
influence in directing the affairs of the United Kingdom. The Financial Times journalist and author,
Simon Kuper, noted recently that, between 1860 and 1960, public school and Oxbridge educated British
men, among other accomplishments, governed a quarter of the planet, oversaw victory in two world
wars, created modern sports as well as Keynesianism, split the atom, discovered evolution and the
structure of DNA and helped invent the computer and the atomic bomb. American history has also been
significantly shaped by graduates of her Ivy League universities as has France’s by graduates of École
Nationale d’Administration and her other Grande Écoles, dubbed énarques. While Nigeria does not have
any comparable factory production line of a ruling elite, our nation has been blessed with diverse people
of talent and ability.
Unfortunately, however, and to our detriment, too many have been denied a significant platform on
which they could avail the nation of their laudable gifts. Objective analysts of Nigerian history still regret
that a politician and intellectual of high repute from a previous generation, Ọbafẹmi Awolọwọ, was
prevented from replicating his achievements in the Western Region onto a broader national canvas.
There is possibly no greater wastage than a student who will not even strive to attain his potential.
Similarly, notwithstanding that political success can be influenced by serendipity or providence, that
Nigeria would continue to undermine the political advancement of her best human talent is retrograde
folly that embarrasses us as a nation. It would be a tragedy if human talent as prodigious as that
displayed by Oṣinbajo were to be undermined by nefarious means and not given the
fullest universe in which to flourish and be utilised for the benefit of the nation.
Politics can be a bruising sport but the permissible weapons for deployment must be the cut and thrust
of informed debate and reasoned analysis in a spirited, but good-natured, battle of policy ideas and their
implementation. Attempts at character assassination of the sort we have been witnessing recently with
talk of betrayal and religious unacceptability are unworthy of our republic and Nigerians must reject
them.
Awotesu is a Senior Analyst at an Asset Management firm in London
