The release of A Journey in Service, the long-anticipated memoir of General Ibrahim Babangida, has reignited discussions about the former military ruler’s legacy.
The book, which reflects on Babangida’s years in power, has drawn mixed reactions from scholars, journalists, and political analysts.
Speaking at The Toyin Falola Interviews, a widely followed intellectual forum held virtually on Sunday, veteran journalist and former senator Babafemi Ojudu questioned the motivation behind the memoir. H
e suggested that Babangida, who had previously stated he would not write a book, may now be reflecting on past decisions. “I have visited him twice since he left government, and he always insisted he would never write a book,” Ojudu said. “The question is: what changed?”
Ojudu, a longtime critic of military rule and a former political detainee under Babangida’s regime, noted that the former leader’s legacy remains shaped by key decisions, particularly the annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election, widely regarded as the freest and fairest in Nigeria’s history. “You can imagine the kind of global image he would have cultivated if he had allowed June 12 to stand,” Ojudu remarked. “But he annulled it, and that decision still defines his legacy today.”
He further described A Journey in Service as a defensive narrative that lacks depth. “The book does not offer the kind of genuine reflection many had hoped for,” he said. “It feels like something written under pressure rather than an honest reckoning with history.”
Political analyst Wale Lawal, who also spoke at the event, shared a similar perspective, asserting that the book is more about managing perception than setting the record straight. “This is not about truth-seeking,” Lawal argued. “It is about shaping how Babangida is remembered before others define his legacy for him.”
Lawal noted that Babangida’s political career was built on strategic ambiguity, earning him the nickname Maradona for his ability to outmaneuver opponents. However, this same ambiguity, he said, has now become a challenge in shaping his historical image. “When he was in power, being elusive worked for him. But outside power, it has made his legacy harder to defend,” he explained.
Professor Moses Ochonu of Vanderbilt University provided a historical perspective, likening Babangida’s memoir to what Achille Mbembe describes as Africa’s mode of self-writing—an attempt by political figures to influence how they are remembered. “There is always anxiety around legacy, especially for leaders whose rule was marked by contradiction and controversy,” Ochonu remarked. “Babangida understands that history is not just recorded; it is shaped. This book is his way of shaping it.”
Veteran journalist Azubuike Ishiekwene also weighed in, arguing that Babangida’s selective storytelling raises more questions than it answers. “A memoir is as much about what is omitted as what is included,” he observed.
“This book carefully avoids deep engagement with the most contentious moments of his rule.” He pointed specifically to Babangida’s claim of being a champion of press freedom, despite a history of media suppression during his regime. “This was a government that shut down newspapers and detained journalists,” Ishiekwene pointed out. “It is difficult to reconcile that reality with the version of events he presents in his book.”
