Atiku Abubakar’s cognitive dissonance

For a man who once occupied the office of Vice President under a constitutional democracy, Atiku Abubakar’s persistent inability—or refusal—to distinguish between democratic governance and military dictatorship is no longer ironic; it is alarming. His claim at the ADC event that Nigeria under Bola Ahmed Tinubu is worse than military rule was not a gaffe but a willful distortion of history and further slide into senile dementia. It insults the memory of Nigerians jailed, exiled, or killed under decrees and firing squads so that men like Atiku could enjoy today’s freedoms. To sanitize that era simply because he is now a serial electoral loser reveals a conscience corroded by desperation.

The absurdity of Atiku’s “dictatorship” narrative collapses under minimal scrutiny. In the same republic he brands tyrannical, he moves freely, convenes political meetings at will, grants interviews, and attacks the President daily—under full constitutional protection. These are liberties military regimes extinguished without hesitation. For Atiku to sit comfortably in Abuja, shielded by democratic rights, while romanticizing the “efficiency” of military rule is not dissent; it is cognitive dissonance bordering on historical vandalism.

This is not a one-off lapse but a chronic condition. Atiku has perfected post-election grievance, recasting himself every four years as the chief mourner of his own defeats. He conveniently forgets the era when dissent meant exile or death—perhaps because he was insulated by elite privilege. By equating the economic adjustments of the Renewed Hope reforms with military repression, he exposes the truth: his only ideology is unfulfilled ambition. If he cannot rule, he would rather delegitimize the democracy that rejected him.

One must ask whether the Waziri of Adamawa believes his own rhetoric or if this is the flailing of a man watching his relevance evaporate. To argue that a ballot-produced government is worse than one imposed by bullets is reckless and corrosive. It insults the legacy of June 12 and flirts dangerously with democratic sabotage. His constant cries of “tyranny,” even as he shops endlessly for new party platforms, only highlight his terminal hypocrisy—devotion to democratic benefits, contempt for democratic outcomes.

At this stage, Atiku Abubakar is less an elder statesman than a cautionary tale. Having exhausted ideas and credibility, he has descended into inflammatory exaggeration, hoping chaos might succeed where voters have repeatedly said no. If he truly longs for the “order” of military rule, he should explain why he spent decades masquerading as a democrat. Nigeria has moved on. His cognitive dissonance is no longer a national issue—it is a personal implosion unfolding in public.