General Ibrahim Babangida, Nigeria’s former military ruler, has opened up about the circumstances surrounding the removal of Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd) from power in 1985. In his recently published book, *‘A Journey in Service’*, Babangida sheds light on the events that led to the palace coup which ended Buhari’s leadership after just 20 months. The revelations offer a rare glimpse into the inner workings of military governance during one of Nigeria’s most tumultuous periods and provide insight into the motivations behind the decision to depose Buhari.
Buhari, who first came to power as part of the military junta that overthrew President Shehu Shagari in December 1983, was widely seen as a disciplinarian leader determined to cleanse Nigeria of corruption and indiscipline. However, according to Babangida, this approach ultimately alienated key stakeholders, including the military establishment and the general populace, leading to a growing sense of unease across the nation. Babangida claims that Buhari’s leadership style—characterized by what he describes as a “holier-than-thou” attitude—created divisions within the armed forces and jeopardized national unity.
In his book, Babangida recounts the atmosphere in Nigeria during the early months of 1985, painting a picture of a country teetering on the brink of collapse. He writes, “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.” As he reflected on these developments while traveling through Lagos en route to Bonny Camp, Babangida grappled with the realization that the initial objectives of the 1983 coup—to rescue Nigeria from economic decay and political instability—had largely failed under Buhari’s watch.
One of the central criticisms Babangida levels against Buhari is his perceived personalization of leadership. According to IBB, Buhari adopted policies and practices that distanced him not only from the civilian population but also from his own constituency within the military. This disconnect, Babangida argues, created an environment where dissent festered, and factions began to emerge within the armed forces. “Divisions of opinion within the armed forces had come to replace the unanimity of purpose that informed the December 1983 change of government,” he notes. These divisions, if left unchecked, posed a grave threat to the cohesion of the military—an institution Babangida viewed as the last bastion of national stability.
Babangida further elaborates on the precarious state of affairs at the time, stating that the armed forces were becoming increasingly polarized. This factionalization, he warns, could have led to catastrophic consequences for the nation. “If the armed forces imploded, the nation would go with it, and the end was just too frightening to contemplate,” he writes. For Babangida, the stakes were clear: preserving the integrity of the military—and by extension, the unity of Nigeria—required decisive action. Thus, the decision to remove Buhari from power was framed not merely as a political maneuver but as a preemptive measure to avert potential disaster.
Another critical factor Babangida highlights is the deteriorating relationship between Buhari’s administration and the Nigerian public. While Buhari’s anti-corruption campaigns and War Against Indiscipline (WAI) program initially garnered support, they eventually drew criticism for being overly punitive and insensitive to the needs of ordinary citizens. Babangida suggests that Buhari’s rigid enforcement of policies alienated large segments of the population, exacerbating tensions rather than fostering reconciliation. “The citizenry had become apprehensive about the future of our country,” he recalls, underscoring the widespread disillusionment that had taken hold by 1985.
The role of Buhari’s deputy, the late Brigadier Tunde Idiagbon, is also examined in Babangida’s narrative. Together, Buhari and Idiagbon were portrayed as embodying a strict moral code that often clashed with prevailing realities. Their uncompromising stance, Babangida argues, contributed to the perception of arrogance and inflexibility that undermined their leadership. By positioning themselves as morally superior to others, they inadvertently fostered resentment among colleagues and subordinates alike. This “holier-than-thou” attitude, Babangida contends, eroded trust and sowed seeds of discord within the ranks of the military.
Despite the gravity of the situation, Babangida insists that the decision to oust Buhari was not made lightly. On the contrary, he portrays it as a calculated response to mounting pressures and a genuine desire to steer Nigeria away from the precipice. Reflecting on his own position at the time, Babangida acknowledges the weight of responsibility that fell upon his shoulders. “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,” he writes. His account conveys a sense of inevitability, suggesting that the coup was less about personal ambition and more about averting chaos.
Looking back, Babangida’s reflections invite comparisons between Buhari’s first tenure as head of state and his later years as a democratically elected president. Critics of Buhari’s presidency have often cited similar concerns about his leadership style, particularly his reluctance to engage constructively with opposing viewpoints and his tendency to prioritize loyalty over competence. Whether or not history repeats itself remains a matter of debate, but Babangida’s insights serve as a reminder of the delicate balance required to lead a nation as complex and diverse as Nigeria.
For many Nigerians, the events of 1985 remain a contentious chapter in the country’s history. Some view Babangida’s intervention as a necessary step to prevent further fragmentation, while others see it as yet another example of military interference in governance. Regardless of one’s perspective, Babangida’s account provides valuable context for understanding the challenges faced by Nigeria’s leaders during that era. It also underscores the enduring importance of inclusivity, dialogue, and adaptability in navigating crises—lessons that remain relevant today.
As Nigeria continues to grapple with issues of leadership, accountability, and national unity, Babangida’s recollections offer food for thought. They challenge readers to consider not only the decisions made by past leaders but also the broader implications of those choices for the nation’s trajectory. Ultimately, his explanation for removing Buhari from power serves as both a cautionary tale and a call to action—a reminder that leadership, whether military or civilian, must always prioritize the collective good over individual agendas.
