·
The statement attributed to Olusegun Obasanjo, “Abiola is not the Messiah,” remains a significant remark in Nigeria’s political history. To fully understand its implications, it is essential to examine the historical context, the relationship between the two men, the political environment, and the broader national impact.
—
1. The Relationship Between Obasanjo and Abiola Before Politics
Before politics, Chief MKO Abiola and General Olusegun Obasanjo had a complicated relationship.
Both men were Yoruba from Ogun State, but their personalities and ambitions were vastly different.
Abiola was a wealthy businessman, philanthropist, and media mogul, known for his generosity and deep ties with the military elite.
Obasanjo was a former military head of state (1976-1979), known for his disciplined, no-nonsense approach to leadership.
Despite being from the same region, there were long-standing tensions between them. Some reports suggest that Obasanjo once blocked Abiola from receiving a government contract when he was in power.
Abiola, who initially supported military regimes, later turned against them when his own presidential ambition was thwarted.
This rivalry may have influenced Obasanjo’s reluctance to fully support Abiola’s quest for power after the annulled June 12, 1993, election.
—
2. The Political Implications of Obasanjo’s Statement
Obasanjo’s “Abiola is not the Messiah” comment carried deep political undertones:
It suggested that Abiola, despite his election victory, was not necessarily the solution to Nigeria’s numerous problems.
Some interpreted the statement as an indirect endorsement of the military’s decision to annul the election, even though Obasanjo was no longer in government at the time.
Others saw it as a personal attack on Abiola, implying that he was not competent to govern Nigeria.
It reinforced the notion that Nigeria’s problems were bigger than one individual, implying that Abiola’s presidency would not have been the magical fix some of his supporters expected.
Obasanjo’s refusal to fully align with the pro-democracy movement fighting for Abiola’s mandate made many Yoruba politicians distrust him. This distrust persisted even when Obasanjo became president in 1999.
—
3. How Obasanjo’s Presidency (1999-2007) Compared to What Abiola Might Have Done
Abiola never got the chance to govern, but Nigerians often speculate on how his administration would have compared to Obasanjo’s:
While Obasanjo had eight years to govern, Abiola’s leadership remains a “what if” scenario, making it difficult to compare directly.
—
4. The Reaction of Nigerians to Obasanjo’s Statement
When Obasanjo reportedly made the “Abiola is not the Messiah” remark, it sparked strong reactions:
Many pro-democracy activists saw it as an insensitive and dismissive statement, especially at a time when Abiola was fighting for his mandate.
Some Yoruba leaders felt betrayed, accusing Obasanjo of being too close to the military establishment that had annulled the election.
The military government may have welcomed the statement, as it indirectly justified their refusal to hand over power to Abiola.
Some neutral observers, however, agreed that no single leader could magically solve Nigeria’s deep-rooted problems, even if Abiola had taken office.
Despite the backlash, Obasanjo never openly apologized for the statement or changed his stance on June 12.
—
5. Was Obasanjo’s Statement Justified?
Looking back, there are arguments for and against Obasanjo’s claim that “Abiola is not the Messiah.”
Arguments Supporting Obasanjo’s Statement:
✔️ Nigeria’s problems were too complex for one leader to fix alone.
✔️ Political instability, corruption, and military influence would have remained challenges.
✔️ Abiola’s victory, though significant, did not guarantee immediate transformation.
Arguments Against Obasanjo’s Statement:
❌ The statement downplayed the importance of democracy, making it seem like the annulment did not matter.
❌ Abiola was denied the chance to prove himself, so the claim was unfair.
❌ The remark appeared to justify military rule, which prolonged Nigeria’s instability.
—
6. Broader Lessons and National Impact
The controversy surrounding Obasanjo’s remark and Abiola’s annulled election teaches several lessons about Nigerian politics:
Democracy is bigger than any individual. While leaders matter, institutions and systems are more important.
Ethnic identity does not always translate to political loyalty. Obasanjo, despite being Yoruba, did not automatically support Abiola’s cause.
Military interference in politics has lasting effects. The June 12 crisis shaped Nigeria’s democracy and trust in leadership.
Political statements have long-term consequences. Obasanjo’s words are still discussed decades later, affecting how he is perceived in Nigerian history.
—
Final Thoughts
Obasanjo’s “Abiola is not the Messiah” statement remains one of the most controversial remarks in Nigerian political history. While he may have meant that no single leader could solve Nigeria’s problems, the timing and context of the statement made it deeply unpopular, especially among Abiola’s supporters.
Despite this, both men remain significant figures in Nigeria’s history:
Abiola as the symbol of Nigeria’s struggle for democracy, and
Obasanjo as the leader who eventually restored civilian rule—even though many believe his emergence in 1999 was part of an attempt to bury the June 12 movements.