Omole’s Account Of Buhari’s Opposition To Osinbajo’s 2023 Presidential Bid Mischievous — Ojudu

Former Special Adviser on Political Matters to the late ex-President Muhammadu Buhari in the office of former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, Senator Babafemi Ojudu, has dismissed the claim that Buhari opposed his deputy’s 2023 presidential ambition, Osinbajo.

Senator Ojudu stated this in response to the excerpts of a book, “Muhammadu Buhari: From Soldier to Statesman”, authored by Dr Charles Omole, which was unveiled on Monday in Abuja.

Omole claimed in the book that Buhari withheld his support from Osinbajo primarily because President Bola Tinubu was also in the race.

Citing sources close to Buhari, the author quoted the late president as saying, “I don’t know Osinbajo from anywhere; I met him only through Tinubu,” adding that it was “strange” that Osinbajo would contest against his benefactor.

In his account, Ojudu, who worked closely with Osinbajo, described the book’s accounts as “mischievous” and based on “hearsay,” maintaining that Buhari unequivocally supported his deputy on multiple occasions.

The biography also claimed that Buhari was not happy with Osinbajo for merely informing him of his ambition rather than seeking advice.

He added that a “powerful cabal” within the administration plotted against Tinubu but was thwarted by Buhari’s insistence on a fair process.

However, Ojudu, in a statement on his official Facebook page on Thursday titled, “Setting the Record Straight on President Buhari and Professor Yemi Osinbajo’s Presidential Bid,” detailed his firsthand involvement in high-level discussions between Buhari and Osinbajo from 2016 to 2022.

“At no time—explicitly or implicitly—did President Buhari suggest that Professor Osinbajo should refrain from contesting. At no time did he indicate a preference that the Vice President should defer to, step aside for, or subordinate his ambition to any other aspirant, including the eventual nominee of the party,” Ojudu wrote.

Speaking on such encounters, he stated, “On the first occasion, President Buhari advised the Vice President to reflect carefully on the prospects of a presidential bid, make up his mind, and assured him that he would support whatever decision he took.

“By the third discussion, President Buhari went further. In his considered judgment, he stated plainly that Professor Osinbajo was by far the best person for the job.

“He emphasised continuity and stability, noting that after nearly seven years in office, the Vice President had developed an intimate understanding of the workings of government, worked diligently and loyally, successfully acted as President on multiple occasions, and demonstrated the steadiness required to lead the country forward.”

The former presidential aide noted that Buhari restated at different times that he believed “Osinbajo’s candidature was best for continuity and stability, and he assured him that he would do all he reasonably could to support him.

Giving the account of the fourth engagement shortly before friends and associates obtained the presidential nomination forms on the Vice President’s behalf, Ojudu said Buhari again expressed his full support, “leaving no room for ambiguity as to his position.”

He further emphasised that Buhari’s backing extended to a Federal Executive Council meeting during the primary season, where the former president publicly commended Osinbajo’s campaigning efforts and advised him to consult governors and National Assembly leaders, an advice which he said Osinbajo followed.

Ojudu also claimed that not fewer than three governors met with Buhari at different times during which the former president affirmed Osinbajo as the “best man for the job.”

He alleged that the author failed to consult key figures involved in the 2023 presidential primary concerning the involvement of both figures, describing the book as “advocacy masquerading as biography” with reliance on “grievance and one-sided recollection.”

“Anyone who sets out to write about the Buhari presidency—and about men and women who served closely and visibly for eight years—has a basic obligation to fairness and inquiry. That obligation includes giving those concerned the opportunity to state their own case.

“To embark on such a project without seeking their account is not serious scholarship or history. It is advocacy masquerading as biography.

“Only a hack would attempt to fix the record of a complex administration by relying on hearsay, grievance, and one-sided recollection while deliberately ignoring those who were central actors in the events being described,” he said.