I have maintained an unusual silence over the past few weeks about the exposures and counter exposures between the President of Nigeria, retired General Olusegun Obasanjo and his estranged Deputy, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku. My initial reaction was dismissive because it is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. However, while I was neither fazed nor dazed by the gutter level to which their internecine warfare had descended, I must confess that I did not know that they could sink even lower and do so openly.

But like many concerned Nigerians I had recoiled into an embarrassed indifference, consequently feigning lack of interest and convincing myself that I could not care less. Dog eats dog or vulture ogling vulture - why should I care? But that was just a defensive front. What the President and Vice President of any country do affects the citizens. Government machinery is virtually paralyzed by the war between the two who seem locked in a loveless cohabitation from which they are unable to disengage.

Neither of them is catholic therefore divorce should have been easier! But Atiku has refused to jump and Obasanjo's people have been inept at pushing him. So the cohabitation falters on.

The tragic death of many Senior Army Officers in yet another air crash a few weeks ago forced a temporary truce between the two warring factions in Aso Rock, but they have now resumed public hostilities. One gets a feeling that this is some kind of Nigerian bastardized form of truth without justice. We have heard, and will hear more gory details of officials looting, squandering, comprador activities, and betrayal of public trust, but may not see the perpetrators punished or even showing any remorse.

The general public discussions seem to suggest that many people believe that the revelations are prompted not by any wish for corruption to be rooted out but by a political vendetta against political opponents. While this may be true and has a bearing on how the public perceives the official war against corruption, it smacks of public complacency.

All looters may not be caught but it is baffling to suggest that those exposed, who can be proven guilty should not be tried. Even if Obasanjo is trying only his real and imagined enemies I have no problem with their trial if they actually are guilty. However, when another administration comes to power, Obasanjo and his cronies can and should be tried too.

It is very strange that the supporters of his Deputy are not actively pleading the innocence of their Godfather but rather saying he is not alone and that his boss, the President, is also guilty. It is an unprincipled defence based on a warped logic suggesting that unless all thieves are caught, the few should not be tried. This cannot be a plea for discharge, though it could be a plea bargain in some cases if the accused fully cooperates with the court.
We need to separate the hypocrisy of those prosecuting and pointing fingers at corrupt politicians from the possible guilt of those being targeted.

If all Obasanjo’s enemies happen to be thieves they should pay for their crimes. It does not excuse Obasanjo, but since he may not be tried while he is still in power his day in court may be postponed. If we look at Latin America (in the 70s) the Generals initially got away with impunity but more than twenty years later some of them faced justice.

The other argument in support of Atiku is that he is supposed to be a very popular politician. This similar argument is used in favour of Jacob Zuma, who has populist appeal in South Africa. But should popularity be a reason for the law not to take its course? Readers may ask how these questions relate to my article (which a few critics believe to be too ‘understanding’ or even ‘adulatory’) on Winnie Mandela last week? My support of Winnie was not an endorsement of the acts for which she was convicted but rather pointing out the disproportionate attention paid to her while others were left to go scot-free. If she had not been Winnie Mandela it is doubtful she would have been treated this way. However because she is Winnie it is reasonable to expect higher standards from her. Understanding how things went ‘horribly wrong’ is not the same as conferring impunity on her. One could still admire her, not because, but despite these convictions.

Atiku is in no way a Winnie Mandela but closer to a Zuma. But if he is as popular as his supporters claim why should his conviction make a difference? Zuma has remained a serious challenger to the South African presidency in spite all kinds of acrimonious litigations and despite being fired from his post. He has survived rape charges and only had his corruption case struck off the court roll.

Atiku’s supporters are not so sure about the legal process in Nigeria. They are even more uncertain about their own party. This says a lot about the rule of law and democracy in the country. They fear that the timing of his corruption trials may prevent him from contesting for nomination for the presidency and contesting the election itself next year.

Obasanjo can try Atiku, but Atiku cannot put Obasanjo on trial, at least not in any court other than that of public opinion. Obasanjo’s crude tactics against his deputy have certainly made Atiku more popular and created a false hero for democracy to some people. His supporters are milking the goodwill claiming that his travails happened because he was opposed to Obasanjo’s third term. So great is the public disenchantment with Obasanjo’s lacklustre, arrogant government that not many people are asking what his opponents really stand for.

Obasanjo may get his pound of flesh by denying Atiku the chance to run but as he himself knows too painfully well: no condition is permanent. He has travelled full circle from presidency to prison to presidency. And he could restart the journey all over again in the near future.

The revelations have also exposed the Nigerian ruling elite as not only rotten to the core, but rotten from the core. For Obasanjo and his apologists his holier-than-thou, I- know-best messianic politics have been exposed for what they are: empty. In days gone by these revelations would have triggered a coup. But coups are out of fashion not only because of the fundamental shift in international opinion but also because internal power dynamics (unlike those recently seen in Thailand) have changed.

In any case the generals control the levers of the economy and political machineries (including even important sections of the traditional aristocracies) undisguised across Nigeria. They are able to use their looted monies to buy criminal infrastructures and therefore do not need the traditional military coup anymore. They have elected to resolve their secondary contradictions through the current democracy without democrats, a civilian regime, only in name with the generals imposing their will on the society. Welcome to the Latin Americanisation of Nigerian politics. All power to the generals!

* Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is General-Secretary of the Pan African Movement, Kampala (Uganda) and Co-Director of Justice Africa

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org