The release of General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida’s memoir, A Journey in Service: An Autobiography, has continued to spark intense debate over the former military ruler’s motivations for publishing the book. At The Toyin Falola Interviews, a virtual intellectual forum held on Sunday, scholars, journalists, and political analysts scrutinized whether Babangida’s account was an honest reflection of his years in power or a calculated attempt to control public memory.
Wale Lawal, a publisher and one of the panelists, argued that the memoir was less about personal introspection and more about shaping how future generations perceive Babangida’s controversial tenure. According to him, the former military ruler’s attempt at self-narration was not so much about reckoning with history as it was about managing perception. “In many ways, history is the last frontier of justice,” Lawal stated. “The way Nigerians have felt about him will remain the same irrespective of what he has written. This book is not about correcting history—it is about controlling public memory.”
Lawal pointed to Babangida’s role in the annulment of the June 12, 1993, election and his alleged complicity in the events leading to the execution of the Ogoni Nine, suggesting that these pivotal moments were likely manipulated in the memoir to serve the author’s preferred narrative. “Babangida was present at the beginning of the movement that led to the murder of the Ogoni Nine. This book is an effort to reshape how those events are remembered,” he said. He dismissed the idea that Babangida’s memoir was a genuine attempt at redemption or reconciliation with the Nigerian public. “I don’t necessarily see this as some form of reformation or an attempt to correct things,” Lawal added. “It is very difficult to process it as that. I don’t think we are that naïve as a country.”
Professor Moses Ochonu of Vanderbilt University suggested that Babangida’s memoir is an effort to reclaim control over his historical image, particularly as perceptions of his leadership have evolved over time. He noted that it is a common tendency for former leaders to rewrite history in a way that minimizes their failures while magnifying their perceived achievements. “As humans, we are naturally disposed to controlling the stories about our lives,” Ochonu said. “We don’t want others to define us; we want to define ourselves.” He likened Babangida’s memoir to Achille Mbembe’s concept of Africa’s mode of self-writing, where political figures attempt to inscribe themselves favorably into history, often at the expense of truth.
The professor explained that Babangida once thrived on the air of mystery surrounding his leadership, but in retirement, this very ambiguity has become a liability. “When he was in power, this aura of mystery served him. But in retirement, that same mystery has become a burden on his legacy,” Ochonu observed. “This book is his attempt to demystify himself and create a controlled archive of how he wants to be remembered.” He further suggested that what Babangida omits in the book may be more revealing than what he includes. “You share what you are comfortable sharing, and you omit what you do not want to be remembered for,” he explained, implying that readers should be just as critical of what is absent from the memoir as they are of what is present.
Former journalist and senator Babafemi Ojudu took a more personal approach, describing A Journey in Service as “a tortured book from a troubled mind.” He revealed that he had visited Babangida twice since the former leader left government, and on both occasions, Babangida was adamant that he would never write a book. “The question is: what changed?” Ojudu asked, hinting at the possibility that the memoir was written either under pressure or as a means for Babangida to grapple with regret. He speculated that Babangida, once regarded as one of Nigeria’s most enigmatic rulers, might now be struggling with his legacy. “Babangida himself is a victim,” Ojudu remarked. “He is troubled, and he will be so till the end of his life. You can imagine the kind of global image he would have cultivated if he had allowed the June 12, 1993, election to stand. But he annulled it, and now he lives in regret.”
Veteran journalist Azubuike Ishiekwene criticized Babangida’s memoir for failing to acknowledge his repressive policies against the press. He recounted how, under Babangida’s rule, the media suffered one of its worst periods of censorship and intimidation. “In 1993 alone, Babangida shut down 25 newspaper houses,” Ishiekwene recalled. “The year before, he shut down 41.” He argued that A Journey in Service conveniently glosses over Babangida’s use of military resources to suppress dissenting voices. “He wants the media to accept this book at face value? There are too many gaps,” Ishiekwene stated, adding that the memoir fails to address critical aspects of how Babangida maintained his grip on power.
Ishiekwene cited evidence from Richard Joseph’s Soldiers of Fortune, which revealed that Babangida allocated significant portions of the national budget to secure military loyalty. “If adjusted for modern figures, he spent about 178 billion naira just to keep the military on his side. How does he address that in the book?” Ishiekwene asked, implying that Babangida’s selective recollection of events could not be trusted as an accurate account of history.
As the discussion progressed, it became clear that many panelists were skeptical of Babangida’s attempt to frame his legacy on his own terms. The consensus was that while Babangida may control the narrative within the pages of his book, he cannot dictate how Nigerians ultimately remember his years in power. “History is a relentless master,” Ishiekwene concluded, quoting J.F. Kennedy. “It has no present, only the past rushing to the future. No matter how many books Babangida writes, the facts of his rule cannot be erased.”
ALSO READ TOP STORIES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
and then