Jimoh Ibrahim Counters Obasanjo: Nigeria Is Not a Failed State

Jimoh Ibrahim Counters Obasanjo: Nigeria Is Not a Failed State

Senator Jimoh Ibrahim, representing Ondo South Senatorial District, has stirred conversation with his response to former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s critique of Nigeria’s leadership. Speaking on Channels Television’s Politics Today, Ibrahim passionately defended the current administration led by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, rejecting Obasanjo’s characterization of Nigeria as a “failed state.”

Obasanjo’s Critique at Yale

The discourse began with Obasanjo’s recent keynote address at the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum, held at Yale University. In his address, the former president described Nigeria as being in a state of “state capture,” a term denoting the hijacking of state apparatus by private interests. Obasanjo urged Nigerians to demand credible leadership, particularly in institutions like the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), emphasizing electoral integrity as a cornerstone of national progress.

Ibrahim’s Counterarguments

While Senator Ibrahim expressed respect for the former president, he firmly disagreed with the tone and content of Obasanjo’s remarks. “The language of war in peacetime is a disaster,” Ibrahim stated, urging Obasanjo to adopt a more constructive approach in his commentary.

Ibrahim emphasized that developing countries like Nigeria face unique challenges but are not necessarily “failed states.” He argued that such labels undermine ongoing progress. “Everybody knows that developing countries are failed states. How do you define developing countries in international relations? Failed states,” Ibrahim noted, calling for a nuanced understanding of Nigeria’s status in the global context.

Progress Under Tinubu’s Leadership

Ibrahim highlighted several reforms spearheaded by Tinubu’s administration, which he believes demonstrate the country’s progress. He pointed to significant efforts to reduce dependency on external powers and implement economic policies driven by national priorities.

“IMF is going to like Tinubu for some of the reforms that he is pioneering,” Ibrahim remarked. He added, “You think America will easily say, ‘Yes, good boy, I clap for you because you are removing subsidy?’”

This independence, according to Ibrahim, is a testament to the government’s commitment to sustainable development rather than external approval.

Addressing Security and Economic Metrics

The senator also took issue with Obasanjo’s silence on improvements in the security situation under Tinubu’s government, particularly regarding Boko Haram. He argued that the focus on economic metrics, such as the naira-dollar exchange rate, is an incomplete assessment of the administration’s performance.

“Why is Obasanjo not talking about Boko Haram? Why is Obasanjo not talking about security?” Ibrahim asked. He emphasized that progress in these areas reflects a broader commitment to stabilizing the nation.

A Call for Constructive Criticism

In concluding his remarks, Ibrahim called for unity and constructive dialogue from elder statesmen like Obasanjo. “When you use the language of war in peacetime, you are doing a disservice to the nation,” he said. Ibrahim believes that the former president’s influence should be wielded to inspire collaboration rather than division.

Navigating Nigeria’s Path Forward

The exchange between Obasanjo and Ibrahim underscores the complexity of Nigeria’s challenges and the differing perspectives on how to address them. While criticisms like Obasanjo’s bring attention to systemic issues, voices like Ibrahim’s advocate for a focus on incremental progress and optimism.

As the debate continues, the nation remains at a crossroads, striving to balance critique with constructive action in its journey toward sustainable development.