Buhari Death: What He Left Behind
# Buhari’s Legacy: Eroding Freedom of Expression, The Rule of Law, and The Free Press
As of July 19, 2025, the discourse surrounding governance in Nigeria continues to grapple with the enduring impact of past administrations.Among these, the legacy of former President Muhammadu Buhari remains a subject of intense scrutiny, particularly concerning its effects on fundamental democratic pillars: freedom of expression, the rule of law, and the free press. While Buhari’s tenure was often characterized by a promise of integrity and security, a critical examination reveals a troubling pattern of actions and policies that appeared to systematically undermine these essential freedoms, leaving a complex and often contentious legacy. This article delves into the specific ways in which these democratic cornerstones were challenged during his presidency,exploring the implications for Nigeria’s democratic trajectory.
## The Erosion of Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression is the bedrock of any democratic society, allowing citizens to voice their opinions, criticize their government, and engage in open debate without fear of reprisal. During President buhari’s administration, numerous incidents and policies raised meaningful concerns about the state of this fundamental right in Nigeria.
### Suppression of Dissent and Protests
One of the most visible manifestations of the erosion of freedom of expression was the handling of dissent and public protests. The administration was frequently criticized for its heavy-handed approach to demonstrations, frequently enough deploying security forces to disperse peaceful gatherings.
#### The Lekki Toll gate massacre and its Aftermath
A pivotal moment that underscored these concerns was the Lekki Toll Gate incident on October 20, 2020. During widespread #EndSARS protests against police brutality, unarmed demonstrators were met with live ammunition by security forces. While the exact casualty count remains disputed,the event sent a chilling message to those who dared to voice their grievances.The subsequent investigations and the government’s initial responses were widely perceived as attempts to downplay the severity of the incident and shield perpetrators, further stifling open dialog and accountability.
The government’s narrative surrounding the event, frequently enough characterized by denials and attempts to shift blame, contributed to an atmosphere of fear and discouraged further public assembly. This response was not isolated; similar patterns of excessive force and intimidation were observed in the handling of other protests, including those by the Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN) and Biafra secessionist groups.
### Restrictive Social Media Policies
In an era where social media serves as a crucial platform for public discourse and political engagement, the Buhari administration’s approach to online expression was particularly contentious. The government’s attempts to regulate or outright ban social media platforms raised alarms about its commitment to free speech in the digital age.
#### The Twitter Ban of 2021
Perhaps the most significant action was the indefinite suspension of twitter in June 2021. The government cited the platform’s alleged use for “activities capable of undermining the corporate existence of Nigeria.” This ban, which lasted for several months, was widely condemned by human rights organizations, international bodies, and Nigerian citizens as a direct assault on freedom of expression and access to data.
The ban not only limited citizens’ ability to communicate and share information but also had economic repercussions for businesses and individuals who relied on the platform. It signaled a willingness by the government to control the digital public square, a move that is antithetical to democratic principles. The subsequent re-lifting of the ban came with conditions that continued to raise concerns about potential government overreach.
### The Use of Sedition and Hate Speech Laws
The administration also faced criticism for its perceived use of existing laws, such as those pertaining to sedition and hate speech, to stifle legitimate criticism. Critics argued that these laws were frequently enough selectively applied to target political opponents and dissenting voices, rather than being used to genuinely address incitement to violence.
The broad interpretation and application of these