From an educational perspective, maintaining historical accuracy is vital. Nigerian schools and academic institutions depend on media narratives to form the basis of collective memory. If newspapers, television channels, and online platforms continue to mislabel Babangida as “President,” they risk passing on a flawed version of history to future generations.

Words have a powerful impact on how history is remembered and understood, and Nigerian media must exercise caution when choosing the titles they use. A persistent error in many news reports is referring to General Ibrahim Babangida as “Former President” despite the fact that he never won an election or received a mandate from the people. Babangida was an ex-military ruler, ex-head of state, and ex-military dictator who came to power by force after orchestrating a coup that overthrew General Muhammadu Buhari in 1985. Unlike democratically elected leaders such as Goodluck Jonathan and Bola Tinubu, Babangida’s ascent was not the result of a free and fair electoral process but was imposed through military might. His tenure, from 1985 to 1993, is indelibly marked by his decision to annul the June 12, 1993 election—a vote widely seen as Nigeria’s most credible electoral exercise and won by Moshood Abiola. This cancellation not only derailed the nation’s democratic transition but also plunged Nigeria into prolonged political and social turmoil.

The repercussions of Babangida’s actions extend far beyond the immediate political crisis of his time. Regardless of any economic improvements that may have been introduced during his rule, the fundamental truth remains that his regime was built on coercion rather than consent. His forceful coup against Buhari and the subsequent annulment of Abiola’s electoral victory underscore the reality that Babangida’s rule was a dictatorship, not a legitimate presidency. When media outlets continue to label him as “President,” they blur the crucial distinction between a leader elected by the people and one who seizes power through force. This mislabeling not only misrepresents the historical record but also confuses younger generations who might grow up without a clear understanding of the differences between democratic governance and military dictatorship.

The psychological impact of using misleading titles is profound. Language shapes thought, and when a military dictator is consistently referred to as “President,” it can lead to a collective distortion of historical memory. Young Nigerians, who rely on media narratives to understand their past, may come to accept a false equivalence between the legitimacy of elected leaders and the authoritarian rule of military juntas. This distorted understanding undermines the value of democratic processes and risks normalizing the idea that power acquired by force is acceptable. Over time, this can erode critical thinking and diminish the public’s ability to discern the ethical and moral foundations of democratic leadership.

Ethically and morally, the misrepresentation is equally troubling. By giving Babangida a title reserved for democratic leaders, the media inadvertently legitimizes a regime that subverted the very principles of free and fair elections. Such misrepresentation sends a dangerous message that might undermine the hard-won values of accountability and consent. In a society striving for democratic progress, it is imperative that the media uphold truth and precision in language, ensuring that the legacies of those who truly earned the mandate of the people—such as Jonathan and Tinubu—are not conflated with the history of military coercion and annulled elections.

From an educational perspective, maintaining historical accuracy is vital. Nigerian schools and academic institutions depend on media narratives to form the basis of collective memory. If newspapers, television channels, and online platforms continue to mislabel Babangida as “President,” they risk passing on a flawed version of history to future generations. This distorted education could lead to a diminished understanding of the struggles for democracy in Nigeria and impair the ability of young people to appreciate the sacrifices made in pursuit of genuine democratic governance. Clear, accurate language in media reporting is essential to ensure that history is taught as it truly happened, reinforcing the distinction between elected leadership and authoritarian rule.

The democratic implications of this misrepresentation are significant. Democracy thrives on transparency, accountability, and the clear delineation of power. When the media fails to accurately label historical figures, it not only distorts the past but also jeopardizes the future of democratic values in Nigeria. International media outlets like BBC, CNN, and Al Jazeera consistently use precise terms such as “ex-military ruler” or “former head of state” when referring to Babangida. Nigerian journalists must emulate these standards to help preserve the integrity of the nation’s political narrative and to ensure that the principles of democracy are not undermined by historical inaccuracies.

In conclusion, it is imperative for Nigerians and their media to confront this misrepresentation head-on. The truth about Babangida’s rise to power—a forceful seizure of control and the annulment of a legitimate democratic election—must be clearly acknowledged and communicated. While Babangida’s regime might have introduced some economic improvements, these do not alter the fact that his rule was imposed by military force and lacked the legitimacy that comes from winning an election. Moreover, you can’t even label him as a “military president,” because even that title implies a form of legitimacy he never earned. This clarification is not intended as an attack on him as a person or as an officer; rather, it is essential for preserving historical accuracy, upholding ethical and educational standards, and safeguarding Nigeria’s democratic future. Continuing to label him as “President” not only distorts history but also poses a threat to Nigeria’s ethical, moral, educational, and democratic integrity. The media must choose its words with care to ensure that the lessons of the past are not lost and that the values of free and fair elections continue to be cherished and upheld.

John Egbeazien Oshodi

Oshodi Open Door, also known as Oshodi Open Door Public Training (OOPDT, pronounced opidt), is a public awareness initiative promoting transparency, accountability, and integrity in Africa through educational articles and resources at [email protected], and offers specialized Timely Response Solutions (TRS) training at minimal or no cost.

Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi is an American psychologist, educator, author specializing in forensic clinical psychology, cross-cultural psychology, police prison science, social justice. Born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, he is the son of a 37-year veteran of the Nigeria Police Force, a background that shaped his commitment to justice, security, psychological research.

A pioneer in forensic psychology, he introduced state-of-the-art forensic psychology to Nigeria in 2011 through the National Universities Commission (NUC) Nasarawa State University, where he served as an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology. His contributions extend beyond academia into psychological health behavioral change initiatives through the Oshodi Foundation the Center for Psychological Forensic Services.

Professor Oshodi has held faculty positions at Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Broward College, Nova Southeastern University, Lynn University. He is also a contributing faculty member in the doctoral undergraduate psychology programs at Walden University serves as a virtual professor with Weldios University and Iscom University.

Beyond academia, he is a government consultant for forensic-clinical psychological services in the USA previously served as Interim Associate Dean Assistant Professor at Broward College, Florida.

He has published extensively on mental health, justice, institutional reform is the founder of the Psychoafricalysis theory, which integrates African sociocultural perspectives into psychology.

Professor Oshodi remains an influential force in advancing psychology institutional reform globally, particularly in Africa.