Buhari didn’t name successor to save life, keep APC intact

• Ex-president’s biography reveals why he didn’t overrule Osinbajo

Former President Muhammadu Buhari’s maturity, restraint, tact and wisdom shaped the succession politics within the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Facts around these were made public yesterday through a book on the life and times of the late President, presented in Abuja.

The 600-page book: “From Soldier to Statesman: The Legacy of Muhammadu Buhari,” was written by Dr Charles Omole.

Omole is the Director General of the Institute for Police and Security Policy Research (IPSPR).

In the book, former Director General of the DSS Yusuf Bichi sheds light on why the late former President refused to openly anoint a successor ahead of the 2022 Presidential primary of the ruling APC.

He states that Buhari did not reverse decisions taken by then Vice President Yemi Osinbajo during his time as acting president.

Bichi says Buhari refrained from endorsing a successor to avoid exposing the candidate to danger and to maintain unity and cohesion in the party.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his counterpart from The Gambia, Adama Barrow, governors, ministers, political leaders, diplomats and traditional rulers joined the family and associates of the departed leader for the book presentation at Aso Villa.

Bichi, who reflected on the former leader’s much-debated refusal to openly name a preferred successor during the intense intra-party contest, says that he made a wise decision.

Bichi says Buhari’s silence was not a sign of detachment, but a deliberate security decision informed by intelligence assessments at the time.

He says the former president privately expressed concern that publicly endorsing a successor could expose the individual to grave danger, including the risk of assassination, given the volatility and high-stakes rivalries within the political environment.

Bichi says by choosing not to anoint anyone, Buhari sought to protect lives and prevent further destabilisation within his party – the APC –  and the broader polity, not minding the cost of enduring criticism for being aloof.

He stresses: “In those months, knives were out; politically and, as security professionals know too well, sometimes literally.

“To name an anointed heir would be to paint a target on a human being and to foreclose a process that, for all its imperfections, was designed to distribute risk.

“Buhari chose silence, and in doing so, absorbed the criticism that he was aloof. He was not.

“He was shielding a life and preserving a fragile equilibrium inside a party whose factions (tendencies) could as easily burn down the house as surrender the nomination they coveted.”

President Bola Ahmed eventually won the primary with a wide margin and won the election to become Buhari’s successor.

Giving an insight into the leadership style of the late president, the DSS  boss also explains why  Buhari did not overturn the decision of his deputy, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, to remove Lawal Daura as DSS DG during the period Buhari was abroad on health grounds, and Osinbajo was acting President.

Bichi says Buhari’s refusal to reverse Osinbajo’s decision to sack Daura was rooted in his deep respect for institutional order and constitutional authority.

He recalls that when Osinbajo exercised executive powers as Acting President and removed Daura, there were expectations in some quarters that Buhari would overturn the decision upon his return.

Buhari, however, declined to interfere.

Bichi explains that Buhari believed reversing the action would undermine the legitimacy of the acting presidency and constitute an affront on the chain of command.

He adds: “Having lawfully delegated authority to his Vice President, Buhari considered any attempt to countermand that decision as injurious to institutional stability, a stance that reinforced discipline within the security architecture and affirmed the principle that executive authority, once properly transferred, must be respected.”

Bichi also discloses that the presidential response to Daura’s removal reflected Buhari’s restraint in power and refusal to personalise governance, even when political pressure mounted.

He stresses: “One of the earliest tests of Buhari’s restraint came during the removal of Lawal Daura as DG DSS, an episode that could easily have devolved into a battle of egos. When the then Vice President Yemi Osinbajo was acting president, he decided to remove Daura.

“Pressure followed for a presidential reversal. Buhari refused to interfere.

“He had handed executive authority to his vice president while away; to countermand Osinbajo would be an ‘insult to his vice,’ and an injury to institutional order.

“We can also reveal that the First Lady, Aisha Buhari, was a major instigator for the removal of the DSS boss.

“In a political culture where loyalty is often confused with pliancy, this mattered. Buhari’s stance validated the chain of command and the legitimacy of the acting presidency.

“It signalled to the security services that leadership transitions could be orderly; that the presidency would not bend the law to rescue allies or punish opponents for sport.

“The lesson for the DSS was clear: act within your lawful remit, and the Commander-in-Chief will stand back; step outside it, and he will not rescue you from consequences.”

Bichi sheds light on Buhari’s security philosophy, describing him as a leader who prioritised evidence, institutional restraint and professional autonomy over political theatrics.

He says the former president deliberately avoided micro-managing the nation’s security services, adding that he granted commanders “the freedom of the battlefield,” while demanding accountability and results.

Bichi recalls that  Buhari, who consistently resisted acting on rumours or political pressure, insisted on verifiable intelligence before approving arrests, sanctions or disruptive operations.

He says Buhari usually asked: “Where is your proof?” noting that the former president believed actions not anchored in evidence would ultimately collapse under legal and public scrutiny.

Bichi says that approach shaped intelligence operations during Buhari’s tenure and allowed security professionals to make operational decisions without fear of sudden political reversals, while also holding them responsible for outcomes.

He also recounts how Buhari backed decisive security interventions once operational logic was clearly established, including moments when intelligence chiefs acted swiftly to avert potential threats to the President himself.

In such instances, Bichi says Buhari validated the initiative taken in good faith and urged security agencies to “sustain the pressure” where public safety was at stake.

Beyond operations, Bichi alludes to Buhari’s personal discipline and frugality, noting that he was wary of converting state privileges into private comforts and often questioned the source of gifts and expenditures around him.

He says Buhari’s restraint extended to politics, where he consistently resisted suggestions to deploy state power against opponents, preferring instead to target enabling networks of violence rather than suppress dissent.(The Nation)