If it is true – and there is nothing to suggest otherwise – that former military president, Gen Ibrahim Babangida suggested weakening the centre in favour of component units, as solution for this caricature federalism that Nigerians are complaining about, then we can safely agree that discomfort from delay in confessing one’s sins certainly makes the experience intense enough to deserve comparison with the relief automatically enjoyed by an ordinary criminal who confessed pronto.  Stranded on the wrong bank of history as he has undoubtedly been since public disaffection shoved him from power in 1993, Babangida, who misappropriated ample opportunity to make Nigeria truly great but opted to be fascinated with an Argentine soccer star’s moral bankruptcy, might have cashed in on the prevailing national mood to pitch for re-integration. His unsolicited argument for the national conference as the best opportunity to re-design the country to remove the over-attractiveness of the centre certainly ranks as an honest and frank suggestion that the country desperately requires. Equally commendable was his role and that of other elder statesmen in reconciliation efforts following the crisis in the ruling party.

Gen Babangida is not the first or only prominent Nigerian to have manipulated the instrumentality of the national conference as perfect opportunity to effect personal image laundry; images that may have either been thoroughly tainted or soiled beyond recognition by past misdeeds, hence the obviously desperate need for a perfect Laundromat to do image-rectification. It is not accidental that another graduate from this same school, who also desperately requires the services of a skilled image-minder, include the golf-crazy senate president, retired Brig-Gen David Mark. Mark was the first to reach the realisation that public acknowledgement of need for a national conference at this painful point in the country’s history offered the best hope for everlasting redemption for a fugitive from unfavourable public opinion. And since Mark chose this option, his rating has soared among Nigerians who had ceased to consider the national assembly as alive to the aspirations and sensibilities of citizens.

It is also not surprising that another former head of state, Gen Yakubu Gowon has similarly tapped into this so-called, self-energising fountain of goodwill to emphasise, as he did, that substantial, meaningful and beneficial recommendations should be brokered at the conference. He should know better because in addition to watching helplessly as inter-ethnic crises slowly and steadily asphyxiates his native Plateau State, he has invariably realised as foolish and short-sighted the Federal Government’s refusal to address identified inspiration for not only the 30-month civil war in the country but also other fundamental sore-points, including ugly symptoms of this sickness like the Boko Haram insurrection, among others.

For someone who managed, efficiently, the civil war without incurring a single economic liability for the country, watching helplessly as Boko Haram and other crises repeatedly violate the country’s sovereignty must be particularly distressing. In terms of symbolism, this situation is no different from the shame and disgrace of a captured general being forced to wipe shoes for or fan his irreverent captors to sleep. Which is why the former head-of-state insisted that rather than for Nigeria to be forced to endure the affliction of war a second time, every patriot should support the national conference and ensure that at the end of the dialogue, every pressure point preventing seamless unity and peaceful co-existence among the ethnic nationalities must have been eliminated from the constitution, replacing such with renewed confidence and greater patriotism.

Before Gowon, Mark and now IBB, (even if characteristically disingenuously), another former head-of-state, Gen Abdulsalami Abubakar had also booked appointment for ‘worship’ at this so-called temple of self-re-energising populism. Like Gowon who has never really suffered any serious credibility crisis among Nigerians, Abubakar also advised that the opportunity presented by the national conference should be seized to re-design the country in a manner that would command unalloyed confidence from every component ethnic nationality and banish, forever, fears of domination of one section by another. Much-respected Gen Abubakar belongs to the ultra-exclusive club of former Nigerian leaders who still command the love and respect of compatriots, especially for his gentlemanly decision to hand lover power to a civilian administration in 1999.

Compared to some other leaders, especially those with a burden of credibility crisis inherited or accumulated from presumed past misdeeds, Abubakar is something of a squeaky-clean gentleman, having never really required the services of an experienced laundromat for his image. Living with unflattering or unwholesome images, or like a cornered animal which is permanently scared to venture out, is a reality that continues to stalk some former leaders, presumably either as consequence of past personal naivety as individuals or because of over-zealousness.

For example, when rtd Maj-Gen Muhammadu Buhari left power in January 1984, he did so lionised but suddenly undermined this high rating when he, most ill-advisedly, threatened at a world press conference to make the country ungovernable for President Goodluck Jonathan. Whether that threat eventually translated into the ongoing insurgency or not, the former head-of-state has since been unable to recover from haunting by that gaffe, prompting critics to allege that it might have been a mistake to allow an alleged religious extremist to rise to a level of being able to posture as a statesman.

The case of Gen Babangida is a classic story of a former saint who became a notorious sinner; a story of the ugly possibilities that could befall a leader who may decide to deface his brilliant trajectory in power with the deficit of an unpopular decision. His reclusion is the consequences of the patently bad judgement of unilaterally annulling the freest and fairest election, more so after the nation had squandered so much to make the exercise a reality. Indeed, that controversial decision was worsened by the fact that the only explanation offered was the patronising cliché, “in the national interest”, invariably imposing the burden of having to contend with pariah status that has clung to IBB like a shadow ever since. Most regrettably, this unflattering perception of the man lingered, effectively eclipsing his undeniably glorious moments in the nation’s history.

Unarguably, some sort of historical reconstruction is required to rehabilitate IBB’s profile in history. For example, it would be difficult to rationalise his suggestion for devolution of powers if it is remembered that he did more than most Nigerian leaders to consolidate, instead of weakening this caricature of federalism that is creating so much bitterness and discontent among Nigerians. But because the downfall of a great man who admitted error immediately is usually less painful, we can ignore issues about his sincerity as well as the fact that some far-sighted citizens were sacrificed by his junta, along with superior warnings against the futility in and foolishness of refusing to recognise distinct peculiarities among Nigerians. The fact that this great Nigerian has been out so long in the cold and tormented enough by that ghost from the past (in addition to the rehabilitation of other signatories to that infamous decision by the mainstream of society), invariably confers on the self-acclaimed Maradona the right to enjoy his re-integration by society.