Personal rule in Africa is characterized by a political system in which a leader exercises absolute control over the state that circumvents democratic norms, institutions, and processes. Over the decades, personal rule has played a significant role in shaping Nigeria’s political landscape, and this phenomenon has been evident under various regimes, both military and civilian. Leaders with strong political ambitions have sought to consolidate power, perpetuate themselves in office, and sidestep constitutional limitations.
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Central African Republic), Muammar Gaddafi (Libya), Paul Biya (Cameroon), Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire), and Hosni Mubarak (Egypt) are examples of African leaders whose regimes were marked by personal rule. These leaders manipulated political structures to stay in power, suppressing opposition and eliminating any form of democratic accountability. Similarly, Nigeria has witnessed its own cycles of personal rule, most notably in the context of military and civilian governments.
In the early years of Nigeria’s post-independence history, General Yakubu Gowon’s government attempted self-succession when he postponed the 1975 handover of power, signaling a desire to maintain his hold on leadership. However, it was the Shagari government (1979–1983) that saw personal rule take a more visible form. Shagari’s administration was marked by political corruption and the political rehabilitation of cronies, where party members and allies were enriched while public trust eroded. A prominent feature of Shagari’s regime was the political purge and rehabilitation tactics used against opposition members. Those who decamped from opposition parties to join the ruling party were handsomely rewarded with juicy political appointments, government contracts, and other privileges, while opposition figures were persecuted and silenced. The case of Shugaba is handy here! This practice of silencing opposition and rewarding defectors continued through the military governments that followed.
The advent of General Ibrahim Babangida’s regime in 1985 saw the rise of manipulative tendencies in his political transition program. Babangida, as a military ruler, manipulated the political process with promises of returning the country to civilian rule. However, he also attempted self-succession by further manipulating political processes. Babangida’s regime was also marked by political purges, where opposition leaders were targeted and technically eliminated, while those who switched allegiance to the government were handsomely rewarded. A key part of his strategy was to neutralize potential threats to his continued control of power as well as ensure that only those loyal to him remained in influential positions.
In 1993, his controversial annulment of the presidential elections and eventual stepping aside led to the formation of an Interim National Government under Chief Ernest Shonekan. However, this government was swiftly overthrown by General Sani Abacha in 1993, whose five-year reign was defined by a relentless pursuit of power and attempts at self-succession. All five major political parties in the country adopted him as their presidential candidate, a clear demonstration of his control over the political machinery.
Abacha’s regime also leveraged purges to silence critics and eliminate opposition and ensured a tight grip on power. Political opponents were arrested, detained, or forced into exile. Those who showed loyalty to the regime, regardless of their past political affiliations, were rewarded with lucrative government contracts and influential positions within the state. This tactic of purging opposition while rehabilitating defectors and loyalists was a cornerstone of his personal rule. It also reflected the military’s broader use of patronage to secure loyalty.
General Olusegun Obasanjo’s second coming as president (1999-2007) was marked by a bid to extend his tenure. His attempt at a third-term bid, in which he sought a constitutional amendment to allow for his re-election, is seen as one of the most blatant examples of personal rule in Nigerian history. The National Assembly, particularly, rejected this bid, which was viewed as an attempt to subvert democracy for personal gain. However, even during his tenure, Obasanjo engaged in political purges. He targeted opposition figures by accusing them of corruption and unleashing EFCC on to them. He also used political rehabilitation as a tool, offering high-ranking government positions and lucrative contracts to former political adversaries who aligned with his government.
The subsequent presidency of Umaru Musa Yar’Adua (2007-2010) presented its own variant of personal rule. Yar’Adua’s prolonged illness and the concealment of his condition by his closest advisors raised concerns over the democratic process. His inability to govern led to the invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity, which saw Vice President Goodluck Jonathan assuming the role of Acting President. Jonathan eventually became the president following Yar’Adua’s death in 2010. Jonathan’s presidency was also marked by political purges and rehabilitations. Opposition members who defected to the ruling party were welcomed with appointments and privileges, while opposition figures within his government were sidelined or removed.
Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, however, witnessed some of the most severe levels of corruption in Nigeria’s history. His government became infamous for a lack of transparency and accountability, and Nigeria’s reputation as one of the most corrupt countries in the world became even more entrenched. But even in this climate of corruption, political purges and rehabilitations remained a constant.
In 2015, Muhammadu Buhari came to power with a promise to fight corruption, restore order, and reform Nigeria’s democratic institutions. His famous declaration, “I belong to everybody, but I belong to nobody,” initially resonated with Nigerians. However, in no time, it became apparent that a cabal within his administration exerted significant influence and manipulated state resources and amassed wealth at the expense of the broader public. Though Buhari did not attempt self-succession, his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), was able to maintain power, continuing the cycle of political control. Even under Buhari, political purges persisted, with opposition members and critics being persecuted, or silenced, while those who defected to the APC were rewarded with prominent positions or other favors including dropping corruptions charges on them.
Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s presidency marks the latest phase in Nigeria’s experiment with personal rule. From the outset, Tinubu made it clear that his ambitions extended far beyond the presidency. His statements—such as “get power, snatch it, and run away with it”—reflect an attitude that seeks to consolidate and hold power indefinitely. His children’s involvement in state affairs, exemplified by the protocol breach during his state visit to Qatar and other instances, further demonstrates the familial nature of his rule.
What is most concerning, however, is Tinubu’s strategic efforts to consolidate power by allegedly securing control over the judiciary and the National Assembly. Constitutional amendments have been proposed to create a Prime Minister position and alter the existing political structure to further consolidate executive authority. Given the precedent set by previous leaders who attempted to prolong their hold on power, it is evident that Tinubu’s ultimate aim is to ensure he remains in power for as long as possible. Moreover, political purges and rehabilitations appear to be a continuing feature of his rule, where opposition members are silenced, and defectors are rewarded with strategic positions and contracts.
Nigeria’s experience with personal rule highlights the fragility of democratic institutions in the face of authoritarian leadership. From Gowon’s aborted attempt at self-succession to the military regimes of Babangida and Abacha, and the civilian governments of Obasanjo and Jonathan, the quest for personal power has often overridden the country’s democratic processes. The use of political purges to eliminate opposition and the rehabilitation of defectors as part of maintaining power has been a consistent tactic. While Tinubu’s government appears to be following a similar trajectory, it is crucial for the Nigerian people and institutions to remain vigilant. The lessons of the past—where self-succession attempts were thwarted by coups, death, and electoral defeat—should guide Nigeria’s future as it navigates the precarious path between democracy and personal rule.
