Alhaji Sule Lamido, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and two-term governor of Jigawa State, in this interview with Mannir Dan Ali on Trust TV’s 30-minute programme, traced the current crisis bedevilling his party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), partly to the fallout among northern leaders in 2007 and explained why the current crop of political leaders in Nigeria must fear President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, among other things.
Starting with the PDP, you’re one of the few politicians who has been with the party since its founding, remaining steadfast without switching allegiances. Yet the PDP seems fraught with internal conflicts. Many people find it hard to understand why it’s so divided. What’s your take on the current state of the party?
Well, understanding what the PDP stands for might be challenging for those under 30. We’re talking about events from 1998 to now—nearly 30 years. Anyone who was around 10 years old back then would be in their early 30s now.
So, explaining the PDP’s philosophy is complex, which is why history matters. You can’t judge today’s party without looking at where it started and its journey. Back in 1998, Nigeria was in a serious crisis of trust and unity. As a federation, we had lost hope in one another, and the country was heavily divided. This rift was largely due to the annulment of the June 12 election, which was the fairest and most transparent election ever held in Nigeria. It demonstrated that Nigerians could unite around a shared vision: the candidate, Abiola, was a southerner, and his running mate, Baba Gana Kingibe, was a northerner—both Muslims. This unity was groundbreaking for Nigeria.
- Media owners, editors, urge Tinubu to save industry
- Tax reform: Tinubu should unite, not divide Nigeria – Bala Mohammed
Abiola won the election fairly, and Nigerians felt a sense of cohesion across regions and religions. Then, suddenly, the election was annulled. People started questioning why—was it because the Yoruba candidate won? Interestingly, many Yoruba people didn’t initially support Abiola. They felt a certain resentment toward him, likely because Abiola was a self-made man who had once opposed Chief Obafemi Awolowo under the NPN. So, despite winning, some in the Yoruba community didn’t necessarily see him as their representative.
Once the election was annulled, certain groups, like Afenifere and other Yoruba elders who hadn’t actively supported June 12, began to claim the victory as part of a ‘Yoruba agenda.’ But in reality, Abiola’s victory was about uniting Nigerians, not about regional interests. This misappropriation laid part of the groundwork for the issues we see today.
When the PDP was formed, we reflected on how to restore Nigerians’ trust, which had been shattered by the June 12 crisis. At that time, the focus wasn’t on infrastructure or economic policies; it was about rebuilding Nigeria as a united nation, a place where people could believe in one another again.
Did the PDP succeed in restoring that trust?
When we established the PDP, we decided that the first order of business was to address the crisis of confidence caused by June 12. Normally, political offices aren’t assigned to specific regions; democracy is meant to be led by the majority of votes. But we realised we needed to set aside strict democratic principles temporarily to heal our wounds. So, we decided to locate the presidency in the South West as a symbolic gesture to appease the Yoruba people for the pain caused by June 12.
At that time, Baba (Olusegun Obasanjo) was in prison, but we saw him as a figure who transcended regional interests. Among the Yoruba leaders, we had options like Olu Falae, Pa Adesanya, and Bola Ige. However, they were largely seen as tribal leaders. Obasanjo, in contrast, was widely regarded as a nationalist—someone who had fought in the civil war and helped restore democracy. We felt he could symbolise a new, united Nigeria, so he became the face of this reconciliatory effort.
Even with Obasanjo’s presidency, some Yoruba people criticised him for not prioritising Yoruba interests, as they expected him to act primarily as a Yoruba leader. But Obasanjo insisted his focus was on Nigeria as a whole, not on ethnic agendas. He served two terms but resisted attempts to extend his tenure.
During his presidency, he successfully stabilised the country within a few years. The economy began to recover, and Nigeria was on the path toward a new renaissance. The focus was on addressing fundamental human issues and development, with a genuine drive to unify the nation politically and socially. So, the PDP has done what is almost impossible in Nigeria, to restore Nigeria.
So, is this history part of the reason you’re still in the PDP, despite the current crisis?
No, no, I’ll get to that. By Obasanjo’s third year in office, the country had stabilised, and some of his former allies felt he should step down after four years, paving the way for someone else. This marked the start of internal tensions, even among close associates and former military colleagues who began opposing him.
Here was a man who had worked to restore Nigeria’s unity, only to face resistance for wanting a second term. He was undermined and, reportedly, had to humble himself just to secure that second chance. I heard he was even made to kneel and beg.
Is that factual, or is it one of those rumours?
Well, on the eve of the 2003 primaries, his vice president supposedly claimed he held full control over the PDP and could decide if Obasanjo would get a second term or not. I’m just recalling history here—there’s no intent to embarrass anyone.
How does that history relate to the PDP’s current state, which is so divided?
To understand today, you have to look back at yesterday’s events. Obasanjo ultimately secured the ticket, but under humiliating circumstances. This was a former general, a past head of state—yet he was subjected to this. Given his sacrifices for Nigeria, he felt he should be allowed to complete his two terms and exit on his terms.
By his second term, he might have thought, “If I almost didn’t get through my first term, what happens when I leave?” The human instinct to secure his legacy kicked in.
Did you encourage him to pursue a third term?
No, I’m speculating here, just trying to put myself in his shoes. I believe that after all he did for Nigeria—from stabilising the country to resolving our debt crisis in Europe—he deserved recognition.
But Obasanjo has since distanced himself from the PDP, while you’ve remained, despite the party not measuring up.
Yes, he did attempt a third term. I heard he justified it by saying, “If I leave now, with just four months left, I’ll be betrayed by those I considered allies”. Maybe that’s why he tried for a third term. But it collapsed, and he brought in Yar’Adua.
Yar’Adua had strong leadership qualities, and he came from a respected family. And those who contested against him were northerners, allies of his late older brother. In 2007, the PDP was powerful, controlling over 25 states, while Buhari had no stronghold. Yet, Buhari claimed he won against the PDP and challenged the results up to the Supreme Court. We started seeing cracks in the North from that point.
Are you saying these cracks in the North are behind the PDP’s current weakness?
That’s part of it. Yar’Adua won but passed away, and then we saw crisis after crisis, much of it from within. By 2014, prominent PDP members had defected to the APC, attacking the PDP as corrupt and divisive. They were former governors, ambassadors, and even past presidents.
If you look at the election results from 1999, 2003, 2007, and 2011, the PDP outperformed all other parties combined. But it was these former PDP members, who switched to the APC that defeated the PDP in 2015.
Today’s APC crisis stems from PDP issues. Many key APC figures were once influential PDP members. So, in a way, the APC is itself a product of the PDP’s internal conflicts.
But the current president was never in the PDP.
True, but about 90% of today’s APC members came from the PDP. Just look at the National Assembly—the Senate president, his deputy, the Speaker of the House, key figures in the Assembly, and many governors. Almost anyone significant in the PDP back then is now in the APC.
Some might say this is ancient history. People expect the PDP, as the main opposition, to deliver more.
Ancient? How about those in the federal government, those leading the National Assembly? They aren’t ancient; they’re current. But they form a paralysed half, the APC. The only way forward is for both sides to set aside their grievances. They should reflect on how Nigeria has helped them and reconcile for the country’s sake. Otherwise, how can the PDP stand strong when a chunk of it is in the APC?
Do you mean like the current FCT minister, a former PDP member, now serving the APC and possibly dividing the PDP?
Leave Wike alone. Wike is a very small boy in PDP history. Where was he in 1999? Everything he’s doing, he learnt from others—betrayal, treachery. There have always been PDP members fighting the party from within. But, frankly, Wike is now inconsequential. I’m more focused on PDP leaders who understand the party’s history and mission. If they return, we could unify the PDP and offer a credible alternative to the APC.
For me, the PDP that governed from 1999 to 2014 was the real PDP. We had a good PDP and a bad PDP. The government we’ve had from 2014 to today is a bad PDP. Yet I believe those who called PDP corrupt and left to join the APC should reconsider and work together to solve Nigeria’s problems.
Do you see that happening before the next election?
God can touch their hearts and restore their sense of dignity and responsibility to see that their actions affect Nigeria’s history and future. I believe it’s possible.
Are you doing anything to promote this?
We’re working, but we’re keeping our strategies private. We are praying and working underground for the PDP’s restoration—not for personal gain but for Nigeria’s sake. The Nigerian people are suffering because of PDP’s past failures.
So, you have no personal political ambition? You once wanted to be president—has that dream passed?
For now, we must focus on restoring and uniting the PDP. Any personal ambition should follow that goal. We should rebuild the party first, then talk about individual aspirations. The party should come first, for Nigeria’s sake. Once it’s stable, then people can declare their intentions.
What about the current president’s approach to governance?
I’ve known him since the days of the SDP, and I know his political style and his skill for getting what he wants, even when it’s questionable. His rise is remarkable. Look at his history, from Chicago to Nigeria. His strategies, some of which have left many astounded, reflect a calculated persistence. For example, in 2003, PDP swept the western region but couldn’t defeat him. Then, when Buhari was struggling, he called him, offering support and saying, “I’ll make you president.” And he did. Now, it’s “his turn.”
Is that why you think Nigerian politicians should fear the president?
The fear isn’t of him, but rather his capacity to stand firm for the wrong reasons. That’s the real worry.
But he says he’s made courageous decisions for Nigeria.
No, no. Every decision he’s made has been for his interests. Just look at the government—it’s essentially an extension of him.
But aren’t all politicians like that? Don’t you all look after your interests?
That’s exactly my point. Those in the APC have essentially empowered him. If you’re part of a group that relies on deception, there’s always a “con boss” who outdoes everyone else. They’ve been conned.
Meanwhile, you’re wallowing in a divided opposition, seemingly stuck.
I’m not “wallowing.” I’m simply saying that Nigeria has given me so much—a space to grow and achieve what I have. So, my focus is on how to give back, to create opportunities for others. This isn’t just personal. No Nigerian leader gets where they are alone; it’s about building something meaningful for future generations.
So, are you saying that past leaders, whether Ironsi, Gowon, Murtala or even Obasanjo and Buhari, were shaped more by the institutions or constituencies that backed them rather than their own personalities?
Exactly. None of them were made by their personality alone; they came from institutions, from contexts that empowered them. Tinubu, however, is different. He’s defined largely by his personality, not any institutional backing. Buhari tried four times and couldn’t win alone, which shows it wasn’t just about him.
But isn’t that something to admire—being able to rise on personal merit?
If it were for the country’s benefit it would be worth celebrating. But this feels different. It is pharaonic—a rule that’s about consolidating power, like a pharaoh.
Are you saying that we need a “Moses” now?
Yes, a leader who can truly guide people towards positive change. But the question remains—are Nigerians willing to follow a “Moses” figure and make the necessary sacrifices? Honestly, I doubt it. The people here are, in a sense, like Pharaoh’s people—resistant to the changes we need.
Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.
