Former Nigerian Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar (retd.), has made a startling revelation about one of the most critical periods in Nigeria’s political history, disclosing that some leaders of the pro-democracy movement, including prominent members of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), privately appealed to him to extend military rule despite years of agitation against military governments.
The revelation has added a fascinating new dimension to the narrative surrounding Nigeria’s transition from military dictatorship to democratic governance in 1999, exposing the complexities, fears, uncertainties and political calculations that shaped the country’s return to civilian rule.
Abubakar made the disclosure in his autobiography titled Call of Duty, which was formally unveiled during events marking his 84th birthday celebration held at the Presidential Villa in Abuja. The book provides a firsthand account of some of the most significant moments in Nigeria’s political evolution and sheds fresh light on decisions that ultimately shaped the nation’s democratic future.
According to the former military ruler, the same pro-democracy activists who had spent years confronting military administrations and demanding an immediate return to civilian governance later approached him with a surprising request once they became convinced that he genuinely intended to hand over power to elected civilians.
Abubakar explained that many members of NADECO initially doubted the sincerity of his transition programme because they had experienced repeated disappointments under previous military governments. For years, Nigerians had watched various military leaders announce transition plans only to postpone, alter or abandon them altogether. As a result, skepticism was widespread when he assumed office following the sudden death of General Sani Abacha in June 1998.
The late General Abacha had ruled Nigeria with an iron grip and had come under intense criticism both locally and internationally over human rights concerns, political repression and the prolonged delay in restoring democratic governance. During his administration, opposition groups, civil society organisations and pro-democracy activists mounted sustained pressure on the government, demanding an end to military rule.
Among the most prominent of these groups was the National Democratic Coalition, popularly known as NADECO, which became a powerful symbol of resistance against military dictatorship and a vocal advocate for the restoration of democracy.
However, Abubakar revealed that circumstances changed dramatically after he took office and began implementing a credible transition timetable.
According to him, within a few months of his administration, several NADECO leaders became convinced that he was serious about handing over power as promised. Ironically, this realization created anxiety among some members of the movement, who felt they were not adequately prepared for the political realities of democratic competition.
“Two to three months into my administration, some NADECO members realized that I was sincere about the handover date,” Abubakar recounted.
“They felt they had missed the train and wanted more time to organize themselves politically. They came to me as a group and requested that the transition programme be extended.”
The revelation paints a picture of a political environment where years of resistance had not necessarily translated into readiness for governance. While many activists had focused on fighting military rule, the prospect of participating in a democratic political system required a different set of preparations, structures and alliances.
Abubakar said he listened to their concerns but ultimately rejected their request, insisting that he could not reverse a commitment he had already made to the Nigerian people and the international community.
According to him, extending military rule was never an option because Nigeria had reached a critical point where democratic governance was not only necessary but unavoidable.
To determine how strongly the activists felt about their request, he proposed a simple condition.
He challenged them to publicly acknowledge their demand.
“I told them that if they wrote to me and publicly announced that they had requested an extension, I would grant it,” he revealed.
“But they never did. I knew they would not.”
The former Head of State explained that the activists understood the political implications of such a move. Having spent years campaigning against military rule, publicly asking for its continuation would have severely damaged their credibility and standing among supporters.
Beyond domestic pressures, Abubakar disclosed that some foreign leaders also encouraged him to remain in office for a longer period.
At the time, Nigeria was emerging from years of political turmoil and international isolation. Following Abacha’s death, tensions had begun to ease, sanctions were gradually being lifted and relations with foreign governments were improving.
Several international stakeholders reportedly believed that Abubakar’s administration had restored a measure of stability and therefore suggested that additional time under military leadership might consolidate those gains.
Nevertheless, Abubakar insisted that he never entertained the idea.
According to him, his mission from the outset was clear: to oversee a credible transition and return power to civilian authorities within the agreed timeframe.
The former military ruler also disclosed that resistance to democratic transition did not come only from politicians and activists. Within the military itself, there were officers who opposed the idea of handing over power to civilians.
Many military personnel, he said, were reluctant to relinquish political control after years of dominating Nigeria’s governance structure.
Abubakar noted that before his death, General Abacha had already announced plans for a transition programme that was expected to culminate in civilian rule by October 1, 1998.
However, the process lacked credibility in the eyes of many Nigerians and international observers.
Legislative elections had been conducted and winners declared, but crucial stages of the transition remained uncertain.
Governorship elections had not been held, while the process surrounding the presidential election remained largely unclear.
Even more controversial was the fact that all five political parties in existence at the time had adopted Abacha as their sole presidential candidate despite the fact that he was not formally a member of any of them and had not publicly declared an intention to contest.
The arrangement fueled widespread speculation that Abacha intended to transform himself from military Head of State into a civilian president through a carefully orchestrated political process.
Abubakar explained that one of the reasons he abandoned Abacha’s transition programme after assuming office was because he believed it lacked legitimacy and public confidence.
Instead, he initiated a fresh transition process designed to be more transparent, credible and acceptable to Nigerians.
That decision ultimately paved the way for the elections that brought former President Olusegun Obasanjo to power on May 29, 1999, marking the beginning of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic.
Political analysts who spoke to DOYA News described Abubakar’s revelations as a remarkable insight into the behind-the-scenes negotiations and tensions that characterized Nigeria’s democratic transition.
According to observers, the disclosure highlights the irony of a period when some of the loudest advocates for democracy briefly became concerned about whether they were adequately prepared for the very democratic system they had fought to establish.
Others believe the revelation underscores the importance of leadership and political courage during moments of national transformation.
For many Nigerians, the peaceful transfer of power in 1999 remains one of the most significant milestones in the nation’s history, laying the foundation for more than two decades of uninterrupted democratic governance.
As reactions continue to trail the publication of his autobiography, many historians and political observers say Abubakar’s account provides valuable lessons about leadership, national interest and the difficult choices that often accompany historic transitions.
According to analysts monitored by DOYA News, the former Head of State’s decision to reject calls for an extension of military rule ultimately altered the course of Nigerian history, ensuring that the country returned to democratic governance at a time when many feared another prolonged period of military domination.
More than twenty-seven years later, the story serves as a reminder that the journey to democracy was far more complex than many Nigerians may have imagined and that some of the most important decisions were made behind closed doors, away from public view, by individuals faced with choices that would determine the future of an entire nation.