History is a stubborn witness: Before rewriting 2003

History should not be the exclusive domain of the powerful; it belongs to all who witnessed events, including ordinary citizens, journalists, and traditional rulers, not just presidents. This principle is central to interrogating former President Olusegun Obasanjo's recent revisiting of the 2003 elections, an event in which he was a key figure but not the only one.

The article stresses that competing historical narratives require interrogation rather than blind acceptance or dismissal. It highlights the documentary record, particularly the 2018 memoir "Battlelines: Adventures in Journalism and Politics" by Chief Olusegun Osoba. Osoba meticulously recounts negotiations between the Presidency, Afenifere, and the Alliance for Democracy (AD) concerning restructuring, devolution of powers, fiscal federalism, and electoral guarantees for the 2003 elections.

Osoba's account details meetings involving prominent figures and traditional rulers, focusing on the political understandings that shaped decisions. His central argument is that the assurances given to Afenifere and the AD were ultimately not fulfilled, a serious historical claim that warrants engagement. This perspective is not isolated; Chief Bisi Akande's memoir, "The Inner Mind," also describes similar negotiations between the Presidency and Yoruba political leadership, noting the atmosphere of distrust that led to interventions by traditional rulers and clerics.

Senator Femi Okunrounmu has also independently corroborated these negotiations. The article argues that these accounts, predating the current controversy, provide a crucial counterpoint to Obasanjo's narrative, suggesting that a comprehensive understanding of the 2003 elections requires considering multiple witnesses and their documented recollections.