By DAYO ADESULU
The legacy of Nigeria’s privatization era under the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo continues to be a subject of political debate and public scrutiny. At the center of the controversy stands former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who was directly involved in the policy through his chairmanship of the National Council on Privatization (NCP). Critics and supporters alike have offered conflicting narratives about his role, raising questions of fact and fiction.
The Policy Framework
When President Obasanjo assumed office in 1999, Nigeria’s economy was heavily state-controlled, with government ownership spanning telecommunications, power, transport, and other critical industries. To modernize and attract foreign investment, the administration launched an aggressive privatization program, with Atiku Abubakar as the head of the NCP, responsible for overseeing its implementation.
What Was Privatized
Among the enterprises slated for privatization were high-profile entities such as NITEL (telecommunications), NEPA (power), Nigerian Airways, and various steel, cement, and financial institutions. While some smaller and medium-sized state enterprises were successfully privatized, major deals like those involving NITEL and NEPA faced repeated setbacks, leaving a mixed record.
Claims of Success and Reality
Supporters of Atiku’s role argue that his leadership opened the door for liberalization and the emergence of a private-sector-driven economy. However, a closer look reveals that many of the transactions either failed, were reversed, or were marred by controversy. The privatization of NITEL collapsed multiple times, NEPA’s restructuring dragged on without significant improvement in power supply, and Nigerian Airways was liquidated rather than revived through private investment.
Allegations of Corruption
Critics point to widespread allegations of corruption, underhanded deals, and undervaluation of assets during the privatization period. Independent audits and investigative reports from the time highlighted cases where public enterprises were sold below value or to politically connected buyers, fueling public distrust. These controversies have remained a significant stain on Atiku’s political record.
Obasanjo vs. Atiku
Interestingly, both Obasanjo and Atiku have offered conflicting accounts of responsibility. Obasanjo has publicly confirmed that Atiku, as head of the NCP, was in charge of the program. Atiku, on his part, has argued that he was merely implementing the president’s directives and that the failures were systemic rather than personal. This back-and-forth has added more confusion to the historical record.
The Verdict
Based on available facts, it is clear that:
- Atiku Abubakar did play a central role in Nigeria’s privatization policy between 1999 and 2007.
- Many of the flagship privatizations, including NITEL and NEPA, were not successful.
- Allegations of corruption and mismanagement surrounding the process are well documented.
- Both Atiku and Obasanjo have attempted to deflect blame for the shortcomings of the program.
Conclusion
The privatization debate remains politically potent in Nigeria because it touches on the issues of governance, accountability, and economic management. For Atiku Abubakar, the era continues to define part of his public image—an ambitious reformer to some, and a failed steward of public assets to others. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between: a bold policy undermined by poor execution, weak institutions, and political rivalries.
