[size=18pt]Clamp-down on Studunt Unions and Nigerian Medical Association members[/size]

In a typical incident last March, the NSO broke up a press conference of the Academic Staff Union of Universities, detaining four of its officers. Many of Nigeria’s clamorous interest groups were banned, including the National Association of Nigerian Students, whose September 1984 national conference was violently dispersed.

After long-running tension between doctors and the government erupted in a strike in February 1985, the Buhari government banned the Nigerian Medical Association and another doctors’ association and arrested their leaders. Many critics who were not arrested were watched and warned by the NSO.

[size=18pt]Arbitary arrests and detention [/size]

Under this classic instrument of authoritarian domination, the Nigerian Security Organization was given a virtual blank check to arrest and intimidate critics. Some of Nigeria’s most astute social commentators were imprisoned under this measure—without trial, appeal or any indication of when they might be released. With unsettling speed, the NSO became a virtual power unto itself, introducing heretofore unfamiliar cruelties of dictatorship. After the August coup, journalists were escorted through an NSO detention center where 63 people, many of them beaten and tortured, had been imprisoned in squalid conditions. Under the Buhari-Idiagbon regime, repression had become a reflex.

[size=18pt]Sectionalism, corruption and despotism[/size]

Buhari’s fall from grace was due primarily to his anti-democratic behavior; regionalism, factionalism and economic woes also contributed to his demise. Although the announcement of investigations and trials for political corruption was highly popular, many Nigerians became concerned about the uniform severity of the penalties (a minimum of 21 years in prison). They also objected to procedures that placed the onus of proving innocence on the accused, prohibited appeal of the verdict, closed the proceedings to the public and entrusted the trials to military tribunals.

The Nigerian Bar Association boycotted the trials in protest over these provisions, even though this left many of the accused without legal representation. Nigerians were gratified when many of the country’s most notoriously corrupt politicians—including governors from a majority of the 19 states—were found guilty and sentenced to prison. Acquittals of some individuals who had not been widely suspected of venality in office suggested that the tribunals were capable of fair and independent verdicts. Consternation grew, however, over the dearth of convictions of the most powerful kingpins of the former ruling National Party, especially those from the party’s northern power base. Some of these figures remained in detention, and some remained abroad, beyond the reach of Nigerian justice, notably former Minister of Transport Umaru Dikko, who was the target of a bungled kidnapping attempt, allegedly by agents of the Buhari regime. Nigerians were also outraged at the continued detention without trial of some politicians who were viewed as honest and dedicated public servants. In a particularly notorious case, former Ondo state Governor Michael Ajasin remained in prison even though he was twice cleared of any wrongdoing by military tribunals.

The Buhari regime’s draconian internal security laws violated civil and political liberties more severely than anything Nigeria had previously experienced, even under colonial rule. Decree Number 2, imposed in January 1984, provided for the detention of any citizen deemed a security risk.

[size=18pt]Clampdown on freedom of speech and the press[/size]

Normally vigorous centers of articulate opinion fell silent in a spreading climate of fear. Journalists were among the chief targets of the regime. Although it has been marred by periods of harassment, press freedom has historically been one of the strongest bulwarks against tyranny in Nigeria. Over the past several years the print media have improved in accuracy and sophistication, and the number of serious publications has mushroomed. Particularly significant has been the growth of private newspapers like the National Concord and the Guardian (both of Lagos), which took the lead in exposing corruption and abuse of power. Private book publishers have become indispensable in facilitating social criticism and alternative formulas for socioeconomic and constitutional development.

The flowering of Nigeria’s capitalist and critical traditions in these private publishing ventures was among the most vital forms of democratic progress to survive the Second Republic (1979-1983). That the Buhari government was not serious in its promise of accountable government was apparent early when it attempted to shackle the communications media. Decree Number 4 of April 1984 forbade the publication or broadcast of anything that brought the government or any of its officials into ridicule or disrepute. Like Decree Number 2, it placed the onus of proof on the accused and stipulated heavy penalties for offenders. Under these two measures, a number of prominent journalists and editors were arrested.

Two Guardian newspapermen spent nearly a year in prison, becoming heroes in the struggle for a free press, and were adopted as prisoners of conscience by Amnesty International. Although journalists continued to test the regime’s narrowing limits, the arrests and decrees had a visibly chilling effect on news coverage and editorial commentary. In trying to impose a monolithic order on Nigeria’s irrepressibly pluralistic society, the Buhari-Idiagbon dictatorship did more than violate Nigeria’s deep commitment to personal freedom; it risked a convulsion of enormous proportions.

[size=18pt]Sectionalism and Arrogance[/size]

The danger was intensified by the perception that the Buhari government was inordinately dominated by northerners, particularly the Hausa- Fulani from the Muslim areas of the upper north, who had also been the dominant ethnic group in the Shagari government. This distressed many opinion leaders from among the Yoruba, the Igbo and the many smaller ethnic groups, and prompted a number of prominent Yorubas, such as retired Lieutenant- General Alani Akinrinade (former defense chief of staff), to propose some form of "confederal" government. Their proposals must be seen in retrospect not as assaults on Nigerian federalism and national unity but rather as warning signals that the regime itself was threatening these principles by its growing intolerance and its narrow regional power base. The coup last August 27 can also be interpreted as a pragmatic attempt by the military command to preempt an explosion, possibly a bloody coup attempt by radical junior officers.

High- level rivalry was also a factor. Without question, the coup was precipitated in part by resentment within the Supreme Military Council of the arrogation of power by Generals Buhari and Idiagbon. When they were deposed, the coup-makers denounced them for their "stubborn and ill-advised unilateral actions" and their paranoiac intolerance of debate and criticism even within the military councils. Furthermore, the continuing economic crisis contributed heavily to the public’s profound disaffection. The Buhari government’s progress toward balancing Nigeria’s external payments came at the price of deepening austerity and recession. As industries remained desperately short of raw materials and spare parts, tens of thousands more workers lost their jobs and severe shortages pushed inflation to an annual rate of 40 percent. After three years of steep decline in gross domestic product, no relief was in sight. Forecasting only one percent growth in GDP, the 1985 budget cut imports by more than half and devoted 44 percent of foreign exchange to debt service. The pervasive hardships would have threatened any government.

[size=18pt]Hypocrisy and wide spread corruption by Buhari's cronies[/size]

Finally, the Buhari-Idiagbon regime’s vows to rid the country of corruption rang increasingly hollow. A postmortem on the regime noted the Nigerian public’s "widespread skepticism . . . about the army’s claims to have reduced corruption. Not only were senior ministers alleged to be making fortunes in the time-honored fashion—from kickbacks on contracts and import license allocations—but suspicion was also aroused by big oil barter deals in which middlemen in or close to government were alleged to have made fortunes." Notwithstanding these factors, the primary reason for the coup and the primary issue in its wake was the dictatorial character of the Buhari-Idiagbon regime.

If Buhari had not been booted out 31 yrs ago, chances are he will still have been in power.

Foolishly in spite of all warnings this generation of idi0ts have foolishly given a we lease of life to this gerriatic despotic beast.

Already we have heard certain dubious characters and ardent supporters of the Buhari civilian administration clamouring for suspension of the constitution and there are moves to present a third term or tenure elongation for Buhari by his Hausa Fulani Muslim fanatics.


Buhari is abusing the powers of DSS and EFCC just as he did with the defunct NSO.

There are moves by foolish idi0ts like Falana who are aggigating for the return of military tribunals in place of the courts

Decree 4 is being proposed in the senate in the guise of social media bill.

This time around there is no banbagida to save you fools

This opoko don chop dis morning so?

Buhary is a mistake. I weep for my dear countryy

An old Leopard cannot change its spots. Buhari ran one of the most draconian military regimes in Africa. He was unceremoniously removed by Babangida in a palace coup. Having tasted power, Buhari just could not get over the fact his stay in Government house had been cut short after just two years and he vowed to return. As far as I'm concerned, Buhari came to complete his military regime.....................