Yesterday morning, while watching Arise News’ flagship program “The Morning Show,” I paid particular attention to the newspaper review with Emmanuel Efeni and the “What’s Trending” segment with Ojy Okpe. The focus was ThisDay’s front‑page editorial titled “Interim Government: Perish The Thought.” Having served as Chairman of the Editorial Board of a major Nigerian newspaper for eleven years before moving into public service, I know that placing an editorial on the front page is a deliberate act of urgency—a shout, an outcry, a signal that the issue is of paramount importance. Normally, opinions are confined to the editorial pages; when they appear on the front page, the board is declaring the matter a top priority. I argued that ThisDay was correct in giving this editorial such prominence and I agreed with all its points.
The purpose of this piece is to expand on the editorial’s arguments, fleshing out points that could not be fully developed within the limited space of an editorial. ThisDay anchored its commentary on a recent declaration by Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, who warned in Ekiti that a hidden plan existed to subvert the 2023 general elections and impose an interim government. The paper wisely noted: “Although Tinubu did not name anyone or explain how the scheme would work, such a weighty allegation from the ruling party’s candidate is enough for us to warn against any attempt to scuttle the presidential election slated for February 25. Whatever lies behind the idea of an interim government, we must remind them that in today’s Nigeria, nobody can seize power through the back door or impose their will on the collective.” The newspaper further argued that (1) any attempt to short‑circuit the electoral process is unacceptable; (2) with only three weeks to the election, the notion of an interim government is a dangerous diversion; (3) the 1999 Constitution contains no provision for such a government, and the military cannot be co‑opted to support it; (4) there is no mortal threat to the 2023 elections, and any challenges must be addressed by the state, particularly the twin crises of cash and fuel scarcity; and (5) the federal government must support INEC with logistics and security while the President stands firm to protect democracy. The editorial concluded: “Let all those interested in power use the platform of electoral politics and let’s all have faith in the in‑built self‑correcting capacity of the democratic order.” I could not agree more; the editorial is timely, pungent, and deserving of further elaboration.
The idea of an Interim National Government (ING) is not new to Nigerian politics. It was introduced by General Ibrahim Babangida’s military regime after the botched June 1993 elections. In August 1993 Babangida “stepped aside” and handed power to an interim administration headed by Chief Ernest Adegunle Shonekan. The ING lasted from 27 August to 17 November 1993—less than ninety days—before General Sani Abacha, then Secretary of Defence, dissolved it and assumed power. Shonekan, a lawyer and technocrat who had led the United African Company (UAC), found himself in uncharted waters. His short tenure was marked by strikes, high inflation, a hostile media, and protests demanding recognition of the annulled June 12 mandate of MKO Abiola. A Lagos High Court declared the ING illegal, and on 17 November 1993 Abacha forced Shonekan’s resignation, ushering in a period of chaos and tyranny from which Nigeria has never fully recovered.
The 1993 ING was unconstitutional, as ruled by Justice Dolapo Akinsanya of the Lagos High Court, which struck down Decree No 61 that had created the interim government. Shonekan’s appointment lacked any legal basis; he was neither elected nor installed by a coup, and he never exercised the powers of Commander‑in‑Chief. His fall marked a turning point in Nigeria’s fraught relationship with the UAC, the successor to the colonial Royal Niger Company. The sub‑text of ThisDay’s editorial is clear: history must not repeat itself. Since the return to democracy in 1999, the impunity once enjoyed by military juntas must be rejected. Although the soldiers have left the scene, their civilian successors and the current political elite appear to share the same mindset—subverting the people’s will.
In 1993 it was alleged that then‑General Olusegun Obasanjo recommended Shonekan for the ING. Today, similar accusations surface, suggesting Obasanjo is behind the current push for an interim government. He must clarify his position. I share the view that Nigeria does not need an ING, and no individual should be used to undermine the electoral process. The military’s 1993 attempt failed; this country belongs to all Nigerians, not to a cabal.
The editorial’s underlying message is that any effort to sabotage this year’s elections amounts to treason. Nigerians have invested heavily in the process: they have queued for registration, obtained Permanent Voter’s Cards (PVCs) recognized by the Bi‑modal Voter Registration System (BVAS), and endured delays and protests over PVC issuance. A Nextier poll predicts high voter turnout, contrary to pessimistic forecasts. Billions of naira have been spent on logistics, and presidential candidates have even sought endorsements at London’s Chatham House. Campaigns have been vigorous and unprecedented since INEC’s October 2022 launch.
It would be a tragic anticlimax for the government to declare tomorrow that the election will not take place or that an interim government has been formed. 1993 is not 2023. The military may have escaped accountability then, but today’s civilian leaders must not provoke the people. Those citing fuel scarcity and new naira notes as excuses for an interim government are engaged in deliberate mischief. President Muhammadu Buhari must view these calls as attempts to tarnish his administration’s legacy. Babangida’s 1993 gambit left lasting damage; Buhari has pledged, and INEC has affirmed, that the elections will proceed as scheduled. Any deviation would be gross insincerity, a dark blot on Buhari’s tenure, and a violation of the constitutional order.
Nigeria’s Constitution is explicit: elected Presidents and Governors serve a four‑year term, renewable once, with no provision for extension beyond that period. Buhari’s term ends on 29 May 2023; he cannot remain a day longer, nor can he leave an interim government behind. Section 135(3) of the 1999 Constitution allows a six‑month extension only if the federation is at war and elections are impracticable—a condition not met. Nigeria is not at war internally or externally; Buhari’s success against Boko Haram is a testament to that. The only “war” being invoked is the socioeconomic struggle between the haves and the have‑nots over fuel and cash. The aggrieved are taking to the streets, fueling fears of a clandestine plot to derail the elections, but this does not justify invoking Section 135(3). If fuel is scarce, supply it; if cash is tight, circulate more money. Northern states (Kaduna, Kogi, Zamfara) have already sought court orders to extend the validity of old naira notes, while an Abuja High Court barred the President and the Central Bank of Nigeria from suspending or extending the new currency policy. Thirteen political parties threaten to withdraw from the election, turning Nigeria into a “Fuji House of Commotion.”
President Buhari’s tenure ends on 29 May 2023. He must not overstay, nor leave any surrogate or interim arrangement. The National Assembly must not enable any mischief concocted by Nigeria’s enemies. At a minimum, Buhari must leave the country as he found it—a civilian democracy, albeit wounded. Reuben Abati, former presidential spokesperson, writes from Lagos.
*Credit: Premium Times*
Comments are closed for this story.