*Alleges his predecessor was monitoring his calls

*Says Buhari’s policies, leadership style too rigid
*Discloses some governors elected in 1992 asked him to postpone presidential poll, yet allege sit-tight
*Regrets leaving Abacha behind to work with ING
*Ohanaeze demands FG’s apology, reparation over killing of 3m Igbo during Biafra war

Former military president, General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida, has disclosed that one of the reasons he led the overthrow of General Muhammadu Buhari as Head of State in 1985 was his holier-than-thou posturing.
Babangida, commonly called IBB, also alleged Buhari’s decision to spy on his calls, among other reasons, in his new book, “A JOURNEY IN SERVICE – An Autobiography.”
Babangida was Chief of Army Staff to Buhari, who had also ousted Shehu Shagari’s civilian government in the December 31, 1983 coup.

He said in the book that Buhari’s policies and leadership style also made him dissatisfied with the government.
Babangida alleged that Buhari and his then deputy, Brigadier Tunde Idiagbon, carried themselves as saints and monopolised power to the exclusion of the rest of the military.

The book read, “After the military coup that replaced the civilian government of Shehu Shagari with a military regime led by Major General Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Babangida assumed the role of Chief of Army Staff.
“However, he became increasingly dissatisfied with the Buhari government’s policies and leadership style, which he believed were detrimental to the nation’s progress. This dissatisfaction eventually led to its ouster in 1985, and he took office as the military president.”

Babangida said tension had begun to build up since the start of the year in which Buhari was overthrown, and a change in leadership had become necessary.
The former Nigerian leader further said the coup that brought Buhari into office, which he described as a “rescue mission”, had derailed, with the military at the risk of splitting.

In his 1985 maiden address to the nation, reproduced in the book, Babangida said Buhari was “too rigid and uncompromising in his attitudes to issues of national significance”.
He added that Idiagbon “was similarly inclined in that respect” and “a combination of these characteristics in the two most important persons holding the nation’s vital offices became impossible to contend with”.
Babangida said action had to be taken so as to rebuild the hopes of Nigerians, hence, the ousting of the Buhari military regime.

Explaining the justification, Babangida said, “The change in leadership had become necessary as a response to the worsening mood of the nation and growing concern about our future as a people.
“All through the previous day, as we flew from Minna and drove through Lagos towards Bonny Camp, I was deeply reflecting on how, we, as a nation got to this point and how and why I found myself at this juncture of fate.

“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. We now stood the risk of having the armed forces split down the line because our rescue mission had largely derailed.

“If the armed forces imploded, the nation would go with it, and the end was just too frightening to contemplate. Divisions of opinion within the armed forces had come to replace the unanimity of purpose that informed the December 1983 change of government.
“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.”

Continuing, he explained, “My predecessor in office, Major General Muhammadu Buhari, and his deputy, Brigadier Tunde Idiagbon, had separated themselves from the mainstream of the armed forces by personalising what was initially a collective leadership.

“They both posted a ‘holier than thou’ attitude, antagonising the civil populace against the military. Fundamental rights and freedoms were being routinely infringed upon and abused.
“As a military administration, we were now presiding over a society that was primarily frightened of us. 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.

“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.”
Talking about the economy, Babangida said essential goods and supplies were scarce, “Yet arbitrary controls in all aspects of economic life and an ancient resort to barter in international trade meant that the nation’s financial woes would not end soon.

“Draconian decrees led to the abuse and severe limitation of basic freedoms as people were clamped into indefinite detention, most times for minor infractions. Punishment for crimes against the state had led to the pursuit of mechanical legalistic justice against the dictates of natural justice.
“As the Chief of Army Staff, I was under undue pressure from the rank and file to seek ways of reconnecting the government to society lest we lose the nation itself.”

He also stated that the “queue culture” economic policies of the Katsina-born ex-military ruler collapsed because he failed to address fundamental economic principles.
Babangida argued that while Buhari and his boys maltreated Nigerians as they queued for essential items, which were rarely available, he did not resolve the issue of supply of these commodities.
Buhari was generally regarded as having floated the “War Against Indiscipline” mantra in his first coming as military leader between December 31, 1983 and August 27, 1985, when citizens were made to queue for basic items, like milk and cooking oil, at the stores.

Babangida said when he tried to raise the issue, he was regarded as an enemy of the regime. He stated that he felt personally assaulted that some Nigerians who possessed little quantities of foreign currencies were picked up by the government at the airports.
According to the book, “A considerable propaganda project was born. Under the War Against Indiscipline (WAI) programme, people were compelled to wait patiently in queues, even for services and goods we knew were in inadequate supply. Our people obeyed the queue culture and became generally orderly in public places.

“On the surface, this attracted temporary populist acclaim. It was an achievement, some of whose benefits have survived, but it did not address the economy’s fundamental supply and demand crisis. It was and remains my belief that queues will disappear when you adequately supply the market.
“While some appearance of order was achieved in the short run, the fundamental social anarchy remained untouched because its economic root cause remained unaddressed.

“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.
“Scarcity of essential goods had remained the order of the day from our intervention in December 1983. The stores of the National Supply Company (NSC) had been forced open by the government, and the contents auctioned off to the people. There was no alternative strategy to replenish these stocks. Acute scarcity was nationwide.

“Endless queues continued at distribution centres for essential goods like sugar, cooking oil, baby formula and grains. Reports from major population centres indicated that soldiers and police officers were ill-treating people in these queues even if they could not be assured of getting the supplies even after waiting for hours.
“As a government, all my predecessor and his deputy could offer the people was a forced queue culture. An orderly queue with no incentive or reward at the other end was a ritual in futility. Those of us who pointed out this futility were regarded as regime enemies. Therefore, I was convinced that a more fundamental solution and decisive change were required.”

While Nigeria’s economic problems required reflective thought, rather than knee-jerk populist reflexes, Babangida said under the Buhari military regime, the nation’s economy was based on government and public sector dominance.
He said there was excessive control of the major sectors of the economy, from retail trade, shipping, aviation, banking, to even social services, with the government becoming the effective driver of economic life.
A common characteristic of the many government-owned and controlled companies, he said, was that they were loss-making and wasteful.

He wrote, “Essential goods and supplies were scarce. Yet arbitrary controls in all aspects of economic life and an ancient resort to barter in international trade meant that the nation’s financial woes would not end soon. Draconian decrees led to abuse and severe limitations.

“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. The cases of the famous musician Fela Ransome Kuti and Chief Harold Shodipo were of particular public interest.

“We reviewed all such cases and set those wrongly held free. People could now access foreign exchange and source goods at the prevailing market rate. Manufacturers, traders and general providers of goods and services took advantage of the liberalised environment. That was how we solved the problem of scarcity of essential commodities and ended the queues. It was a hard choice.”  
Discussing the integrity of the armed forces at the time, he said, “On several occasions and instances, even the very integrity of the armed forces was being called into question.
“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. I confided in some senior colleagues that I would rather resign my commission than continue in office as Chief of Army Staff without input into decisions that concern the careers of personnel under my command.”