By Ima Niboro

“Mr. Onanuga, in his statement, praised Tinubu for subsidy removal, but Nigerians remember who stood against Jonathan when he attempted the same reform. It was Tinubu himself, alongside others, who led protests that forced a reversal in 2012. To now blame Jonathan for “allowing the economy to bleed” is disingenuous. He sought to cauterize the wound; they stopped him, and now they accuse him of not stopping the hemorrhage? Gosh!”

“Whether Jonathan runs in 2027 or not, his record remains what it is: the economy’s expansion, agricultural reform, revived rail, modernized airports, new universities, governance innovation, health gains, and deepened democracy. These cannot be erased by the flourish of anyone’s pen. Nigerians lived them. Nigerians remember.”

There is no question that whispers of a Goodluck Jonathan comeback in 2027 have swirled for months. Of course the rumour mill has been working overtime regarding this subject matter. But the man at its epicentre, former President Goodluck Jonathan, has not declared. He has neither started what we call a “mosquito campaign” in politics, nor even personally hinted at a return.

Yet on Monday, my senior brother and colleague, Mr. Bayo Onanuga, spokesman to President Bola Tinubu, launched a sweeping attack on Jonathan’s presidency, dismissing it as “dismal” and warning Nigerians not to allow him back. The question that arises is simple: why this attack, and why now?

I write as a card-carrying member of the All Progressives Congress (APC). I campaigned for this president. I supported his vision, because I saw in him the true successor to Jonathan in terms of economic policy and strategic national vision. Because of this, I will not stand by while the government I proudly served—as Senior Special Assistant to the Vice President, as Special Adviser to the President, and as Managing Director of the News Agency of Nigeria—is openly and needlessly maligned as though it achieved nothing. History, if it is to be honest, cannot be written in such cruel strokes.

Let me also be clear: I hold Mr. Onanuga in the highest personal regard. He is a respected senior colleague and my successor at the News Agency of Nigeria, NAN. Indeed, in Nigeria’s media and political history, only three of us, the late and highly regarded Mrs. Remi Oyo, Onanuga, and myself, have had the distinction of serving as presidential spokespersons and CEOs of NAN; even if Onanuga’s case happened in a little bit of a reverse order.

Till today, he is one of the few Tinubu aides who has kept his doors and ears open to colleagues and friends.

But to this statement of his, I say with all due respect: No, Sir.

Goodluck Ebele Jonathan’s presidency was not perfect. No presidency is. None will ever be. But Jonathan’s was far from the caricature of “ruin” and “cluelessness” that Onanuga now paints.

By the time President Jonathan left office in 2015, Nigeria’s foreign reserves stood at $42 billion; the Sovereign Wealth Fund held $1 billion; the Excess Crude Account was at $2.2 billion despite relentless pressure from governors who insisted on taking out all the money because they claimed it was unconstitutional.

The LNG signature bonus account had $5.8 billion. Are these numbers of economic collapse or the numbers of careful stewardship?

Jonathan’s administration presided over the rebasing of Nigeria’s economy in 2014, making it the largest in Africa, ahead of South Africa. New growth sectors, telecommunications, Nollywood, and services were properly captured, boosting investor confidence. In 2012, Nigeria’s stock market was ranked among the world’s top three performers. Foreign direct investment surged, particularly from China and other strategic partners; and CNN Money had projected Nigeria to be the world’s third fastest growing economy by 2015.

CNN had reported further: “Nigeria is set to be the first African country with an economy larger than $1 trillion, according to the latest projections from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“Africa’s most populous nation, which recently held peaceful elections, revamped its gross domestic product data in 2014 and pulled ahead of South Africa to become the continent’s largest economy with a GDP of $469 billion. Between now and 2030, experts predict annual growth rates as high as 7.92%, resulting in a GDP of $1.05 trillion.

“A lot of Nigeria’s growth will come from agriculture, and services are huge in Nigeria,” says Charles Robertson, global chief economist at Renaissance Capital. He adds that he actually expects the country’s GDP to reach $1 trillion before 2030. “Banking, retail, telecoms, and Nollywood have been an explosive growth story in the past couple of years.

“As a source of employment for 70% of Nigeria’s population in 2013, the country’s $56 billion agriculture sector currently accounts for 24% of GDP, and the country’s minister of agriculture, Akinwumi Adesina, has said “the new millionaires of Nigeria will be in agriculture.”

Indeed, Jonathan’s Agricultural Transformation Agenda, under Adesina, revolutionized food production. The e-wallet system broke decades of corruption in fertilizer distribution, delivering previously scarce fertilizer directly to millions of farmers. Dry-season farming scaled up yields in the North. Under Jonathan, a 50kg bag of Nigerian-grown and polished rice was N8,000. Repeat: Eight Thousand Naira. At that same time, Nigeria became the world’s largest cassava producer.

In infrastructure, Jonathan put in motion the revival of rail transport. The Abuja–Kaduna standard gauge railway was completed; narrow-gauge lines were rehabilitated. The second Niger Bridge was commenced. Federal roads were rebuilt across the country. Airports were modernized, including the elevation of Akanu Ibiam Airport in Enugu to international status.

I remember as clearly as yesterday what he and I discussed about the sweeping airport development and renovation programme in one of our strategy sessions. He said that the very first impressions of a country are formed right at the arrival airport, and that if we must change the world’s perception of Nigeria, we might as well start by clearing out our ramshackle airports and build new ones that tell a more compelling story to our international visitors.

In education, Jonathan established 14 new federal universities, nine of them in northern states, and built 166 Almajiri schools. He launched scholarship programmes like PRESSID to send Nigerian graduates to the world’s top universities in science and innovation.

For the younger generation who might need their memories rejigged, here is what Google AI has to say about PRESSID: “The PRESSID scholarship was a Nigerian Presidential Special Scholarship Scheme for Innovation and Development initiated by former President Goodluck Jonathan for first-class Nigerian graduates to pursue postgraduate studies at top global universities. The program was known for its competitiveness and was intended to address educational gaps and foster national development through human capital. However, reports indicate the scheme stopped awarding scholarships under the subsequent Buhari administration, leaving some beneficiaries in a difficult situation.”

Well, what Google failed to add is that Jonathan actually started this program as governor in Bayelsa State, and recreated it at the federal level when he became president.

So my question is: Are these the footprints of failure or evidence of great vision?

Jonathan’s government introduced governance reforms that remain the foundation of today’s fiscal discipline: the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS), and the Treasury Single Account (TSA). These systems, derided by some at the time, are now celebrated as central tools in fighting leakages and corruption.

In health, Jonathan’s swift response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak drew global praise. His administration reduced polio cases to a single digit before it disappeared, only to return under Buhari in yet unclear circumstances. Jonathan made powerful gains in maternal and child health, and in security, procured hardware that enabled the military to reclaim territories seized by Boko Haram.

Indeed, when US President Barack Obama, with the urging of the then opposition APC, refused to sell arms to the Jonathan government and blocked global defence transactions with Nigeria, rumours had it that money was put in private planes to get weapons into Nigeria from anyone willing to sell to break the back of Boko Haram and their co-travellers.

I doubt if anyone will contest the fact that it was Jonathan who truly deepened Nigeria’s democracy. Under him, INEC enjoyed greater autonomy; elections in 2011 were widely adjudged credible. Opposition parties won governorships and legislative seats, and their victories were respected. In 2015, Jonathan conceded defeat peacefully, a first in Nigeria’s history and a global democratic milestone. That act alone remains etched in world history.

So why, then, this rush to smear Jonathan? Is it because the mere rumour of his return unsettles those in power today?  Is it because he still commands respect across divides? Or because the memory of his governance remains far kinder than the press releases that now seek to undermine him?

Mr. Onanuga, in his statement, praised Tinubu for subsidy removal, but Nigerians remember who stood against Jonathan when he attempted the same reform. It was Tinubu himself, alongside others, who led protests that forced a reversal in 2012. To now blame Jonathan for “allowing the economy to bleed” is disingenuous. He sought to cauterize the wound; they stopped him, and now they accuse him of not stopping the hemorrhage? Gosh!

To my mind, what is past is past, and Tinubu’s record in GDP growth, inflation control, and rising reserves should be allowed to stand on its own merits. It should not require rewriting Jonathan’s presidency into a tale of ruin. Politics must be rooted in a measure of honesty. Is it not said that there must be honour even among thieves, not to speak of great patriots like our good selves!!!

Whether Jonathan runs in 2027 or not, his record remains what it is: the economy’s expansion, agricultural reform, revived rail, modernized airports, new universities, governance innovation, health gains, and deepened democracy. These cannot be erased by the flourish of anyone’s pen. Nigerians lived them. Nigerians remember.

So I say again: I respect Mr. Bayo Onanuga as a senior colleague and compatriot. But to this statement of his… this premature assault on a man who has not declared for 2027… I respond firmly, respectfully, and unequivocally: No, Sir.

Niboro, former spokesman to President Goodluck Jonathan, is the publisher of KTH Daily

By Azu Ishiekwene

On the eve of Nigeria’s 65^th independence anniversary, I reflected on Harold Smith. He’s not widely known in Nigeria. And that’s probably to be expected for a man whom the British establishment ostracised for decades for daring to be different, before his death. He was everything the British colonial authorities didn’t want him to be, and he paid for it.

But for his book, The Harold Smith Story, published by Lawless Publications four years ago, Smith would have died with the knowledge of how a promising country was sabotaged by Britain, with consequences that would last for generations.

Sixty-five years after the Union Jack was lowered, many still speak wistfully of Nigeria’s “potential” for greatness, a potential that appears no less elusive today than it was when Smith arrived in Nigeria in 1955, fresh from Oxford and one year after he joined the British colonial office as a colonial officer.

Gone, but alive!

Smith is gone now. He died 14 years ago, but lived long enough to revisit Nigeria one year before the country celebrated its 50th anniversary. On that visit, he was quoted as saying, “My 20 years in Nigeria were certainly the best years of my life. Nothing I’ve done since has equalled that.”

This article is not mainly about him, even though he would have been more than worthy. It’s about Nigeria, about how Smith’s account of his Nigerian odyssey reveals many aspects ofthe country that we often overlook or underestimate, but which we must confront and overcome to make progress.

I’ll take a few of them – the system of government, the civil service, money politics, and corruption – all of which Smith covers extensively in his book, naming names and places and giving examples in many instances.

It’s the system, stupid!

Let’s start with the system of government. There are several accounts, of course, of how the British used and exploited indirect rule to foster division by promoting the domination of one section of the country over the other, using local rulers who were easier to manipulate. But not many of the accounts explain how this technique was implemented.

Here, in his own words, was what Smith said about the state of affairs in what was then, broadly speaking, Northern and Southern Nigeria: “When the British invaded the Moslem North and realised that a stable feudal and authoritarian system of government was already in place, they decided to rule through the Emirs…the basic idea was that the Northern rulers could do as they pleased so long as they did not offend the British.

“The restrictions placed on the Emirs were not as arduous, and so long as taxes were collected and there was no disorderly behaviour, the Emirs not only had a free hand but were assisted by the British administrators and, if necessary, by the force of the British army.”

Tax and spend

The taxes did not benefit the ordinary people; they were shared between the Emirs and the colonial authorities in such a brazen manner that, as of 1947, there was not a single secondary school in the North. Ignorance enabled feudal lordship. But as long as the Emirs and the British colonial authorities were happy, the system was preserved at all costs, including delaying self-government for as long as possible.

When it became untenable, according to Smith, the British government went to extraordinary lengths to rig elections. “The British government determined beforehand to whom it would be handing the keys of the Nigerian kingdom. They were the rulers of the North, who had long been favoured by the British.”

Crooked civil service

Another point is the civil service. A common fetish is that General Murtala Muhammed’s massive purge of the civil service in 1975 is to blame for the decline. That purge had its adverse effects, no doubt, but there were others after Muhammed’s, notably in 1984 and 1999. However, it is generally believed that Nigeria’s civil service was solid and incorruptible until 1975.

Smith’s book suggests that even though we may choose to look the other way, corruption in the civil service dates back to the colonial era, often portrayed as a time of innocence. And here, Smith names names without mincing his words.

When it dawned on the British that the squalid legacy of colonial rule was no longer sustainable, they began to identify Nigerians to groom for leadership roles in the civil service, the backbone of the colonial administration.

Naming names

One of such Nigerians, according to Smith, was Francis Nwokedi, who later became permanent secretary of the Ministry of Labour and Nigeria’s foremost civil servant.

Though Nwokedi (who would later play a significant role in Ironsi’s government) was an extraordinarily brilliant and self-assured man, Smith described him as “a stooge of the British” who not only betrayed his people during the shooting of the coal miners in Enugu but also as a conduit for the illegal funding of the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons(NCNC) using government funds. This practice is still rampant today.

If complicity in politics by civil servants dates back to the 1950s, the hijacking of state resources by politicians to enrich themselves remains a persistent issue. The British could neither trust Obafemi Awolowo nor stand his independent-mindedness.

They also suspected that, left to its own, the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC)would lose the federal election of 1959. So, they used politicians like Festus Okotie-Eboh to prop up the insolvent NCNC, whose leadership had wrecked the African Continental Bank,in an alliance with the NPC.

This quote by Smith might interest those hoping for a clean election, with transparent party financing and an impartial electoral arbiter: “In 1956…the British government opened a conduit which saved the NCNC from bankruptcy…the extent of British philanthropy, or extortion, is revealed in the following figures. Between January 1957 and July 1960, that is the period which included the federal election of 1959, the NCNC had spent approximately £1.2 million. During the same period, its income from all resources had not exceeded £500,000.’”

Okotie-Eboh, whose first appointment as Labour Minister was “like a child presented with the keys of a sweet shop,” sold government assets and pocketed the money without fear of a reprimand because he was as serviceable to British political interests as he was to his own. The British handed over the reins of power to a significant number of notorious politicians who, over the years, would make a fine art of notoriety.

That Cameron joke

I’ve often joked that when former British Prime Minister David Cameron told President Muhammadu Buhari that Nigeria was fantastically corrupt, a good response might have been from Smith’s story. “I suppose the most corrupt act of all is colonialism itself…Why had the Governor General (of Nigeria) chosen such corrupt politicians?

“Why did civil servants not refuse to cooperate with corrupt ministers? It was evident that the ministers could not carry out these corrupt deeds without cooperation from the civil service…It was clearly official policy to let the ministers be corrupt.”

Of course, it’s been 65 years since, and Nigeria is only one of the over 80 percent of present-day independent countries that were colonised. How and why did other countries with a similar legacy, including India, Singapore, Brazil, and Malaysia, manage to turn things around?

Looking forward

Colonised countries that overcame setbacks usually did so because they had better institutions, more diversified economies, visionary leadership, and stronger social cohesion.

In contrast, many African countries, including Nigeria, have inherited fragile states, extractive economies, and deep divisions, which have been exacerbated by global power struggles and internal governance failures. If the British handed Nigeria a poisoned cup, the flawed and bloated federal system has not helped matters.

Yet, the Harold Smith story is not a death sentence. What we do with it might be.

Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP and author of the book Writing for Media and Monetising It.