Chris Okpoko
According to media reports, Rt. Hon. Yakubu Dogara, CFR, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives (2015 – 2019), recently stated that President Bola Tinubu inherited nothing short of economic “debris” when he assumed office in May 2023. Dogara spoke in Abuja, while presenting a paper titled “Navigating Tax Reform in Nigeria: Insights on President Tinubu’s Policies,” at the maiden distinguished parliamentarian lecture. Dogara was a member of the PDP and served as a member of the House of Representatives for the Bogoro/Dass/Tafawa Balewa Federal constituency of Bauchi State from 2007 to 2023.
The political arena in Nigeria, much like in many democracies around the world, is often characterized by individuals who hold strong opinions about past administrations. One figure who has recently made headlines for his criticisms of former President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration is Hon. Yakubu Dogara, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives. While it is not uncommon for politicians to critique their predecessors, Dogara’s position during Buhari’s tenure—serving as both a member of the House and its Speaker—raises questions about the appropriateness of his criticisms, especially when viewed through the lens of moral authority.
To understand why Dogara may lack the moral right to disparage Buhari’s administration, it is essential to examine his role during that period. As Speaker of the House, Dogara was not just a passive observer but an active participant in legislative processes and governance. His position afforded him significant influence over the policies enacted and the manner in which the executive branch operated. Therefore, any assessment he makes about the Buhari administration must account for his involvement in shaping the very governance structures that he now critiques.
(May 28, 2017, Tribune)— “Speaker Yakubu Dogara of the House of Representatives has scored the All Progressives Congress (APC) administration of President Muhammadu Buhari highly as it marks its second year in office, saying many commendable achievements have been recorded within the period. This was contained in a statement issued and signed by the Speaker’s media aide.”
(April 24, 2019, Vanguard)— “Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, has tongue-lashed National Leader of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, over his comments that the 8th National Assembly under him and Senate President Bukola Saraki delayed and padded budgets, and hampered President Muhammadu Buhari’s lofty projects for the country. He also alleged that Tinubu was pursuing a fascist agenda of controlling all levers of power in Nigeria, asking him to come clean on his quest to install the next Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives of the 9th Assembly.”
(February 18, 2023, Tribune)— “Immediate past Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon Yakubu Dogara, has commended President Muhammadu Buhari’s efforts aimed at curbing vote-buying ahead of the 2023 general elections. The former Speaker, however, said that he is not uninformed or unaffected by the hardship caused by the Naira redesign and swap policy, but pleaded with Nigerians to endure it for a few weeks as a sacrifice for “free, fair, and credible elections.”
First and foremost, Dogara’s criticism of Buhari’s economic policies can easily be perceived as hypocritical. Moreover, it is vital to contextualize Dogara’s criticisms within the broader framework of Nigeria’s challenges. The Buhari administration grappled with a myriad of issues, many of which are rooted in systemic problems that predate Buhari’s presidency. The global oil market’s volatility, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, insecurity, and longstanding infrastructural deficits all contributed to Nigeria’s economic struggles. In this light, blaming the Buhari administration for its monetary policies and decisions to mortgage crude oil sales does not recognize the complexities involved in governance and economic management. Therefore, Dogara’s criticism seems overly simplistic and fails to acknowledge the multifaceted nature of national governance, further diminishing his moral standing.
Additionally, Dogara himself is not without responsibility in the matters he critiques. As a former leader of the National Assembly, he was part of the legislative body that had a crucial role in shaping the nation’s economic landscape. His failure to enact meaningful reforms during his tenure raises questions about his commitment to addressing the very issues he now highlights. If Dogara believed so strongly in certain economic principles, one might wonder why he did not champion those causes while in a position of power. His retrospective criticisms seem only to serve his political ambitions rather than express a sincere desire for national improvement.
In partisan politics, rhetoric can often shift dramatically depending on one’s position. For instance, Dogara’s shift from being a staunch supporter of the Buhari administration to a vocal critic poses challenges regarding consistency and authenticity. This transition could be perceived as opportunism rather than a principled stance on governance. Critics may argue that it reflects a lack of principled leadership and instead highlights a focus on self-preservation or political positioning, which undermines the legitimacy of his critiques against the Buhari administration.
Furthermore, Dogara’s recent criticisms could be seen within the context of his political ambitions. After leaving the House, he has continued to seek relevance and may be positioning himself for future political endeavors. By aligning himself against Buhari—who has become a polarizing figure in Nigerian politics—Dogara could be attempting to solidify his standing at a time when many within the populace are expressing dissatisfaction with the past administration. Such motivations invite skepticism regarding the sincerity of his critiques. Political survival strategies, especially among former leaders who seek to recast their images, colour their comments, and detract from genuine discourse about governance.
Additionally, it is essential to consider the broader narrative in Nigeria’s political landscape. Criticizing a past administration, especially one that remains powerful among its supporters, can have ramifications for national unity. With various ethnic groups and political factions deeply divided, Dogara’s remarks could exacerbate tensions rather than foster a cooperative dialogue aimed at addressing Nigeria’s myriad challenges. When leaders of Dogara’s stature engage in divisive criticism without providing constructive alternatives or taking responsibility for their past roles, they risk alienating sectors of the population and contributing to an already fragmented political climate.
Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize that all politicians, including Dogara, have the right to express their opinions and critiques. Democracy thrives on discourse, debate, and scrutiny of those in power. However, the impact of such discourse depends heavily on the authority behind the voice expressing it. In Dogara’s case, his position during Buhari’s administration evokes questions regarding the legitimacy of his criticisms. A former legislator who actively participated in the creation and ratification of policies must tread carefully when condemning those same policies. His moral authority is compromised by his previous role, and any critique should be tempered with an acknowledgment of his involvement in the legislative process.
In conclusion, while Hon. Yakubu Dogara has the right to criticize former President Buhari’s administration, his moral standing diminishes due to his previous position as Speaker of the House of Representatives. His active participation in legislative decisions during Buhari’s presidency warrants a level of accountability that seems absent from his current rhetoric. The effectiveness of critique hinges upon personal integrity and the willingness to confront one’s own past actions. For Dogara, this is a crucial consideration moving forward. If he seeks to contribute positively to Nigeria’s political discourse, it is imperative that he acknowledges his responsibilities and works towards solutions that transcend mere criticism. Only then can he reclaim the moral ground needed to engage meaningfully in the complex challenges faced by the nation.