It is no longer news that Nigeria’s former military head of state and elected president, Muhammadu Buhari, is dead. He was given a state burial in his home town of Daura in Katsina State on the 15th of July 2025. However, his death has once again exposed the fissures which define Nigeria’s continued existence as one country. While many people have celebrated the late former president, others have condemned him in the strongest terms. Yet, the deluded among us, those who suffer from smug contamination of ethnic-phobia, have used the opportunity to cast aspersions on people from a particular ethnic group as guilty of celebrating the death of the former president. Many others have turned the occasion into a political affair. However, the celebration and condemnation of the former leader have taken place in almost equal measure nationwide. Even in northern Nigeria, where he enjoyed cult followership, people have taken to the streets to celebrate his demise. In the same Northern Nigeria and other parts of the country, people have genuinely mourned him, describing him in glowing terms. That is the inevitable way of the world.
It is impossible to achieve a celebratory or condemnatory consensus on the reputation of any human being, whether dead or alive. There is no one, living or dead, who will attract 100% praise or condemnation from people. Jesus Christ, the saviour of the world according to Christian narratives, was mocked and maligned by the same people He saved, while many people praise and adore Him till today. Therefore, it calls into question the mental state of those who insist that everyone must either celebrate or condemn Buhari’s lifetime. People should be allowed the freedom to either celebrate or condemn him. Attempting to police or attack people who freely express their emotions towards Buhari is a sort of psychological witchcraft which must be resisted. To some people, he was a saint, a signpost of morality, the incorruptible persona who would never tolerate any form of double standard. To other people, he was a disaster who plunged Nigeria into the abyss of suffering, poverty, and confusion, ushering in an administration that has almost liquidated the Nigerian dream. Many people will never forgive him for that singular act.
However, some Nigerians have once again capitalized on the death of the former president to latch onto the very offensive and stale mantra of “never speak evil against the dead”. In all of its puerile undercurrents, the expression makes a caricature of the sensibilities and intelligence of the living, exposing the myopic nature of most people. I ask a simple, innocuous question: What is the origin of the expression “never speak evil against the dead”? If critically scrutinized, the expression lacks religious and existential logic, therefore must be discarded forthwith. I will give my reasons shortly.
I do not intend to celebrate Buhari or condemn him. According to Shakespeare’s Mark Anthony during his funeral speech for Julius Caesar, “I have come to bury Caesar and not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them. So let it be with Caesar”. If Buhari did well, let it be with him. If he perpetuated evil, let it be with him too. I am more interested in interrogating the expression “never speak evil of the dead”. In human history, there have been evil persons who, in their lifetime, made the lives of millions of people miserable. So, according to the very insensitive expression, when such people die, we must sing their praises in adherence to an expression which lacks justification and substance. If someone who decimated humanity and inflicted harm on millions of people eventually answers the ultimate call, is it justifiable not to outline the person’s atrocities for the living to learn a lesson from a discredited life? Should we, in upholding the mantra of “never speak evil against the dead” sing Adolf Hitler’s praises, or celebrate Benito Mussolini? Should we indeed clap and sing in honour of Idi Amin of Uganda for living a wonderful life? Perhaps we should at once erect a monument for Lawrence Anini, the notorious armed robber who terrorised Nigeria in the 80s.
Muhammadu Buhari means many things to different people. For some people, he was a military despot who overthrew a democratically elected government and opened the gate for a prolonged military rule in the country. He was brutally sadistic and tolerated no opposition or criticism. Many journalists were arrested for criticising his government. He executed Nigerians for drug-related offences and brooked no challenge. Under his watch as one-time petroleum minister, 2 billion naira grew wings and disappeared from the coffers of NNPC. As a civilian president, he demonstrated zero capacity to govern and manifested a sectional, ethnic mindset, which Nigeria still suffers today. Although he came to power riding on the back of his sainthood and aversion to corruption, his government is rated as one of the most corrupt in the history of the country. He was clannish and promoted nepotism to statecraft. He called Nigerian youths lazy and unleashed soldiers to murder innocent youths at Lekki during the EndSARS protest. Many people died from military bullets at the Lekki tollgate. I was there in flesh and blood. It was only by the grace of God that I escaped the blazing bullets of the callous, murderous soldiers. Indeed, anyone who shares the foregoing perspectives about the departed president would ordinarily celebrate his death, and such persons are within their rights to do so.
On the other hand, Muhammadu Buhari left some indelible positive marks on Nigeria’s socio-political and economic landscape. As military head of state, he vehemently attacked the edifice of corruption by jailing criminals, those who enriched themselves from the country’s collective patrimony. He introduced the War Against Indiscipline, which, to an extent, restored order to a fractured society. As a civilian president, he achieved much in infrastructure. The Lagos Ibadan Expressway, Lagos-Ibadan Rail, Warri-Itakpe Rail, Abuja-Kaduna Rail, Kaduna-Kano Expressway, and the Second Nigeria Bridge are all testimonies to his infrastructural achievements. Under immense pressure from the World Bank and the IMF, he refused to remove the fuel subsidy to save Nigerians from hardship and suffering. Towards the 2023 general elections, many people accused him of nursing the ambition to extend his stay in power by seeking a third term. But he successfully conducted an election and transferred power to another president, thus affirming his democratic legacy.
It follows that people are justified in analysing Buhari’s life depending on their convictions and perspectives about him. To stop people from airing their views about the personality and legacies of the former leader is a bad attitude, embraced in bad faith. When Sanni Abacha died, many people took to the streets to celebrate his death, yet many were sober and recounted his major achievements as a military dictator. We must at once discard this often-repeated mantra that “we must not speak evil against the dead”. If we must speak well about the dead, we must also speak evil about them where they were evil incarnate. To turn around and sing praises of a wicked person is to indulge in deception, and God hates deceit. People are free to exercise their prerogatives to either speak evil of the dead or condemn the dead. Such dialectic is required for posterity and as a reflexive mechanism for the living.
While the celebration and mourning over Buhari’s death rage, it must serve as a humbling experience for many people, especially those in the corridors of power. Legacy is very important. His death and all the attendant emotions prove that no position is permanent. Politicians are preparing for the 2027 elections, those who will win and those who will lose. There are defections and betrayals. Public officers are busy stockpiling funds for the 2027 elections. It is all about power. But no one knows for sure who would be alive in 2027, not me or you, the reader. Buhari went to London as a former president with all the appurtenances of diplomacy and respect, but he returned to the country as a cargo. When we leave our houses every day, what is the guarantee that we will return home whole? When politicians make decisions, form alliances and plan towards 2027, how many of them will be alive to say Happy New Year in 2027? Buhari’s death must remind every living being about the transient nature of power, wealth, and prestige. But the truth is, if people’s opinion determines the fate of the dead in the afterlife, Buhari will be on the wrong side of eternity. Surely, everyone will answer the ultimate call, but legacy is important. Buhari has left positive and negative legacies. But in the eyes of the people, which side of the legacy spectrum will triumph over the other?
