Former President Muhammadu Buhari’s composure, caution, diplomacy and sound judgement played a defining role in shaping the succession process within the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Details surrounding this approach were revealed yesterday in a book examining the life and era of the late President, which was unveiled in Abuja.
The 600-page publication, titled “From Soldier to Statesman: The Legacy of Muhammadu Buhari,” was authored by Dr Charles Omole.
Omole currently serves as the Director General of the Institute for Police and Security Policy Research (IPSPR).
Within the book, former Director General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Yusuf Bichi, explains the reasons the late President declined to publicly endorse a successor ahead of the APC’s 2022 presidential primary.
He notes that Buhari did not overturn decisions made by then Vice President Yemi Osinbajo during the period he served as Acting President.
According to Bichi, Buhari deliberately avoided backing any aspirant to shield the individual from harm and to sustain unity and stability within the party.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, alongside Gambian President Adama Barrow, state governors, ministers, political stakeholders, diplomats and traditional rulers, attended the book presentation at Aso Villa, joining family members and associates of the late leader.
Reflecting on the widely discussed decision by Buhari not to openly declare a preferred candidate during the heated intra-party contest, Bichi describes the move as prudent and thoughtful.
Bichi explains that Buhari’s silence was intentional rather than indifference, describing it as a calculated security decision based on intelligence reports available at the time.
He says the former President privately feared that openly endorsing a candidate could put the person at serious risk, including possible assassination, given the tense atmosphere and fierce rivalries surrounding the political process.
Bichi states that by refraining from naming a successor, Buhari aimed to safeguard lives and avert further instability within the APC and the wider political environment, even if it meant facing criticism for appearing distant.
He emphasises: “In those months, knives were out; politically and, as security professionals know too well, sometimes literally.
“To name an anointed heir would be to paint a target on a human being and to foreclose a process that, for all its imperfections, was designed to distribute risk.
“Buhari chose silence, and in doing so, absorbed the criticism that he was aloof. He was not.
“He was shielding a life and preserving a fragile equilibrium inside a party whose factions (tendencies) could as easily burn down the house as surrender the nomination they coveted.”
President Bola Ahmed ultimately secured a decisive victory at the party primary and went on to win the election, emerging as Buhari’s successor.
Offering further insight into Buhari’s leadership approach, the former DSS chief also explains why the President chose not to reverse the decision taken by his deputy, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, to remove Lawal Daura as DSS Director General while Buhari was abroad for medical treatment and Osinbajo was Acting President.
Bichi says Buhari’s decision not to interfere stemmed from his strong commitment to institutional integrity and constitutional processes.
He recalls that following Osinbajo’s exercise of executive authority to dismiss Daura, there was widespread anticipation in some circles that Buhari would reverse the action upon his return.
However, Buhari declined to do so.
According to Bichi, Buhari believed that overturning the decision would weaken the authority of the acting presidency and disrupt the established chain of command.
He adds: “Having lawfully delegated authority to his Vice President, Buhari considered any attempt to countermand that decision as injurious to institutional stability, a stance that reinforced discipline within the security architecture and affirmed the principle that executive authority, once properly transferred, must be respected.”
Bichi further reveals that Buhari’s response to Daura’s removal highlighted his self-restraint and his refusal to personalise governance, even amid intense political pressure.
He states: “One of the earliest tests of Buhari’s restraint came during the removal of Lawal Daura as DG DSS, an episode that could easily have devolved into a battle of egos. When the then Vice President Yemi Osinbajo was acting president, he decided to remove Daura.
“Pressure followed for a presidential reversal. Buhari refused to interfere.
“He had handed executive authority to his vice president while away; to countermand Osinbajo would be an ‘insult to his vice,’ and an injury to institutional order.
“We can also reveal that the First Lady, Aisha Buhari, was a major instigator for the removal of the DSS boss.
“In a political culture where loyalty is often confused with pliancy, this mattered. Buhari’s stance validated the chain of command and the legitimacy of the acting presidency.
“It signalled to the security services that leadership transitions could be orderly; that the presidency would not bend the law to rescue allies or punish opponents for sport.
“The lesson for the DSS was clear: act within your lawful remit, and the Commander-in-Chief will stand back; step outside it, and he will not rescue you from consequences.”
Bichi also discusses Buhari’s security philosophy, portraying him as a leader who valued evidence, institutional discipline and professional independence over political showmanship.
He says the former President intentionally avoided excessive involvement in security operations, instead granting commanders what he described as “the freedom of the battlefield,” while still demanding accountability and tangible results.
Bichi recalls that Buhari consistently resisted acting on hearsay or political pressure, insisting on confirmed intelligence before approving arrests, sanctions or disruptive operations.
He notes that Buhari frequently asked: “Where is your proof?” stressing that the former President believed actions not supported by evidence would eventually fail under legal and public scrutiny.
Bichi explains that this approach influenced intelligence operations throughout Buhari’s tenure, allowing security officials to take operational decisions without fear of abrupt political interference, while remaining accountable for their actions.
He also recounts instances where Buhari supported swift and decisive security measures once operational reasoning was clearly established, including situations where intelligence leaders acted promptly to prevent potential threats to the President himself.
In such cases, Bichi says Buhari endorsed actions taken in good faith and encouraged security agencies to “sustain the pressure” when public safety was at risk.
Beyond security operations, Bichi highlights Buhari’s personal discipline and modest lifestyle, noting that he was cautious about turning state privileges into personal benefits and regularly questioned the origins of gifts and expenditures around him.
He adds that Buhari’s restraint extended into politics, where he consistently rejected calls to deploy state power against opponents, choosing instead to focus on dismantling networks that enabled violence rather than suppressing dissent.
