Abacha's death fuels crisis in Nigeria
By Chris Marsden
10 June 1998
The death of General Sani Abacha has thrown the Nigerian military
regime into crisis. Nigeria's self-appointed strongman was buried
in his hometown of Kano in the north of the country less than
24 hours after his unexpected death on Monday at the age of 54.
He is reported to have died of a heart attack.
Abacha had made few public appearances since greeting Pope
John Paul on his visit to Nigeria in March, and recently failed
to attend an official function in the capital, Lagos. Official
confirmation of his death came after his residence in Abuja was
sealed off by troops.
The military Provisional Ruling Council met in late-night session
after Abacha's funeral and appointed the defence chief, Major-General
Abdusalam Abubakar, as his successor. Abubakar is a career soldier
and a Muslim from the same Minna region of northern Nigeria as
former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida. Abubakar served as intelligence
chief under Babangida and they own homes almost next door to each
other.
It was Babangida's annulment of the June 12, 1993 elections
that plunged the country into political turmoil and paved the
way for Abacha's takeover. Abacha mounted a coup in November that
year. Having initially promised to bring the victor of the elections,
businessman Mashood Abiola, to power, he arrested him for treason
instead. Abacha then ruled through the military, drawing support
from the Muslim community in the North by portraying himself as
a bulwark against the Christian-dominated South.
Abacha has since presided over one of the most despotic regimes
on the African continent, ruthlessly suppressing all manifestations
of opposition. Most infamously the quelling of dissent amongst
the Ogoni people in Nigeria's oil-rich delta region led to the
execution of nine activists, including the internationally-recognised
writer Ken Saro-Wiwa in March 1995. Despite this, opposition to
Abacha's regime has grown throughout all social layers.
Internally the military is split into competing factions. Abubakar
is the eighth military leader of Nigeria since its independence
from Britain in 1960. He was one of several candidates competing
for Abacha's role and there is little reason to believe his appointment
will not meet opposition. His own elevation within the military
leadership was due to repeated purges and executions of Abacha's
rivals, including his deputy, General Oladipo Diya, in December
last year for a supposed coup plot.
There is simmering discontent felt by the workers and oppressed
masses over the massive disparity between the wealth of the ruling
elite and the appalling poverty they face. Once the world's fifth
largest oil producer, the annual per capita income of Nigeria's
120 million inhabitants is around $320.
The main opposition parties, grouped around United Action for
Democracy (UAD), have rejected the appointment of Abubakar and
said they will go ahead with demonstrations on Friday calling
for the end of military rule. The UAD does not represent the interests
of working people in Nigeria, but layers of the bourgeoisie opposed
to the corruption and nepotism practised by Abacha's military
regime.
The $12 billion in oil pumped out of Nigeria every year accounts
for 95 percent of Nigeria's foreign earnings. Despite oil exports
worth over $225 billion in the last three decades, however, the
country is in debt to the tune of $37 billion dollars. More than
30 percent of Nigeria's national income goes to servicing this
debt, incurred under a structural adjustment program imposed by
the International Monetary Fund. The IMF demanded sweeping economic
changes to open up the Nigerian economy to international investment,
such as abandoning the two-tier exchange rate that is manipulated
by the ruling elite.
Abacha was unwilling to tolerate such changes. He had promised
elections for August 1, but only after he created five political
parties and had them all approve his unopposed candidacy for an
elected presidency. The UAD opposition directs its appeals to
the IMF and the imperialist powers, offering its services as the
best means of implementing further structural adjustments at the
expense of the Nigerian masses.
In this volatile situation governments in America and Europe
have called for Abacha's death to be utilised in order to bring
about a "stable transition to democracy", in the words
of British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook.
Despite the verbal denunciations that followed the execution
of Sara-Wiwa, Abacha's government continued to be given tacit
support by the major powers. The only penalties ever imposed on
the Abacha regime were suspension from the Commonwealth and a
range of modest sanctions. Shell, Chevron, Mobil and the other
oil monopolies reaping massive profits from Nigeria opposed any
measure that would interfere with their operations. They had welcomed
Abacha as a strong hand against the Nigerian working class, one
of the largest and most developed in Africa.
Behind the scenes, the imperialist powers vied for control
in West Africa through the Nigerian dictatorship. Within the European
Union, Britain, France and Italy secretly courted Nigeria. But
it was America which held greatest influence due to its purchase
of almost half of the 2 million barrels of oil produced daily
in Nigeria. The US government opposed sanctions against Nigeria,
while on his recent African tour Clinton even gave credence to
Abacha's claim that he would restore democracy.
The imperialists' relations with Nigeria were epitomised in
the support they gave for its military intervention in Sierra
Leone to restore civilian rule under President Alhaji Ahmad Tejan
Kabbah in February and March of this year. In 1990 Nigerian troops
operating under the auspices of a West African peacekeeping force,
ECOMOG, had intervened into the eight-year-long civil war in neighbouring
Liberia.
The US and the European powers are happy for Nigeria to continue
to play the role of their chief enforcer in West Africa. However,
they are not prepared to tolerate the economic and social anarchy
produced by military rule acting as an impediment to the exploitation
of Nigeria's resources. This is why they are anxious for a more
stable and compliant regime to be installed in the aftermath of
Abacha's death.
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |