Menu

On Buhari’s legacy 07 Aug 2025

Nigeria’s second-longest-serving head of state, General Muhammadu Buhari (Rtd), passed away in a London hospital on Sunday, 13 July 2025, at the age of 82. The late President had understood, perhaps too late, that his legacy would be contentious, especially after bungling the last chance for his political redemption by failing to ensure a credible election for his successor in February 2023. Therefore, five weeks before serving out his second term as President, he asked for forgiveness from those he might have hurt during his long years of occupying leadership positions in the country, in the belief that it is human to err.

But as soon as the former president’s death was announced, controversy about his legacy erupted on the Nigerian corners of the social media. Unsavoury facts about Buhari’s maladministration were relentlessly shared by those who chose not to be silent about it, disregarding the tradition of respecting the dead. The vocal critics tried to construct Buhari’s legacy on the bigotry and insecurity that flourished during his administration; the massacre of Shiite Muslims in the North; the killing of young, peaceful EndSARS protesters in Lagos, the siege on the Southeast, and the monumental economic mismanagement and corruption under his watch.

This facts-based, although negative, narrative did not have a free pass. It couldn’t have. Buhari was one of three Nigerian late political leaders who enjoyed cult-following to the extent that their affectionate followers adopted their names, a la Buharists for Buhari, Awoists for Chief Obafemi Awolowo, and Zikists for Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe. The Obidients now leave Mr. Peter Obi as the only living Nigerian politician enjoying such a level of devotion. So, the Buharists mounted a counter-narrative about the legacy of the late leader. They talked up his long years of service to the country, frugality, and revival of infrastructural development by his administration, all of which are plausible claims. 

It could, therefore, be argued that Buhari left a mixed legacy. For a political leader, that would be expected. It reveals the divisive nature of politics. But a mixed legacy for Buhari must overlook the different weights of his actions and inactions and their impacts on the nation and its economy. It could also emanate from a kind or selfish heart. On the latter, politicians wanting to inherit Buhari’s political machinery or voters have been outdoing themselves in mourning and eulogising the former president. Those who have enjoyed more than a fair share of the welfare provided by the Nigerian state but offered far less in return are also interested in paying tribute to Buhari, presumably to earn their own gratuitous positive – or mixed – legacies.

Buhari was a phenomenon. Although he came from a humble background, he was not a self-made man. Rather, Buhari’s rise was shaped by his military career, a devout political following, and ultimately by a dysfunctional democratic system. As a presidential aspirant in 2023, the incumbent President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, also claimed he made Buhari president in 2015. Ultimately, the fate and actions of the individuals that 'made Buhari may decide what may end up being his more enduring legacy.

Already, the Tinubu administration has vilified the Buhari administration for leaving it a “dead economy”. This is despite the possibility of needing the late leader’s political structure to secure second term for President Tinubu. If Tinubu retains power in 2027, he would likely move to decimate Buhari’s political machinery. He would become more invested in his own legacy, which would necessarily entail a systematic de-emphasis and reversal of the current performative respect for Buhari. 

But should Buhari’s proteges remain politically relevant after 2027, which would require that they at least play a major role in defeating Tinubu in that year’s election, Buhari’s legacy as an impactful political leader would endure. But if, after coming back to power they resume the plundering of the state like many of them did during the Buhari administration, it would further dent the notion that Buharism – the amorphous political ideology that may encapsulate his leadership – is connected to social progressivism. Many would argue that we have already seen enough to know what this ideology entails or is devoid of.

Finally, how the North votes in 2027 would weigh heavily on Buhari’s legacy. As President, Buhari largely ignored his devoted voters as extreme poverty rippled across the country. If the legendary 12 million Northern block votes the late president had commanded further splinter in 2027, as they did in 2023 because he was no longer on the ballot, it would mean a departure from Buharism had very well been underway. His devotees would, therefore, scurry for new political identities, ending the debate over Buhari’s legacy.

However, it is right to humanise Buhari, not just because he had tried to do that by himself by admitting he was not inerrant. It would be the right thing to do because the so-called ordinary citizens want a leadership that humanises them. The citizens should not hold their leaders to a different standard than they are ready to exhibit. As I argue in my forthcoming book, due for release in Q2 2026, the citizens – especially the youth – have to take on the exemplary roles. They have to become the standard bearers, since the current political establishment has refused to play the role. That is the path to the country’s political liberation and redemption.

We should, therefore, continue to wish sweet repose for former President Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR.