Former President Olusegun Obasanjo was again in his element on Friday when news broke that he had done one of the things he is best known for in Nigeria’s political space: descending heavily on the man who served as his vice president for two terms spanning eight years, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. In his latest onslaught, Obasanjo described his decision to pick Atiku as his deputy as his biggest mistake.

For many Nigerians who have followed the relationship between the two men over the years, the latest criticism came as no surprise. Rather, it appeared to be another chapter in a political feud that has refused to go away.

Nigeria has witnessed many political rivalries, but few have endured as long—or generated as much public interest—as the strained relationship between Obasanjo and Atiku. More than two decades after they jointly occupied the nation’s two highest offices, the wounds of that broken partnership appear far from healed.

The two men were indeed political partners who jointly won the presidential elections of 1999 and 2003. Their administration is widely believed to have played a significant role in stabilising Nigeria’s return to civilian rule after years of military dictatorship. Their relationship was initially cordial, with both men appearing united in pursuing the business of governance. However, that cordiality gradually gave way to mistrust, political disagreements and open confrontation. As events later unfolded, one of Nigeria’s strongest political partnerships became one of its deepest and most enduring rivalries.

What continues to intrigue many Nigerians is that while Atiku repeatedly extends what appears to be an olive branch through visits, consultations and public gestures of respect, Obasanjo has remained one of his fiercest critics. Interestingly, these criticisms often seem to become more pronounced whenever another presidential election approaches and Atiku once again expresses interest in seeking the country’s highest office.

Where exactly did things fall apart for these two men? The two camps will almost certainly continue to provide different answers to that question. Atiku has repeatedly maintained that his former boss’ problem with him stemmed from his opposition to the alleged third-term agenda by resisting moves to amend the Constitution to allow the president to remain in office beyond the constitutionally prescribed two terms. Obasanjo, on his part, has attributed the breakdown in their relationship to what he has described as Atiku’s alleged moves to facilitate his impeachment and subsequently replace him as president. Political analysts have also offered different interpretations of what caused the final breakdown. Whatever the true story may be, the principal actors themselves probably know better than anyone else where things really went wrong.

The pattern that some Nigerians claim to have observed is that whenever Atiku prepares for another presidential race, Obasanjo frequently grants interviews or issues statements that are critical of the former vice president. The questions, therefore, are these: Is this merely a coincidence? Is it simply Obasanjo’s genuine political assessment of a man he once worked closely with? Or is it the continuation of an old political disagreement that has never truly been resolved?

One interesting aspect of the relationship is that Atiku has continued to visit Obasanjo at his Abeokuta residence in Ogun State for what are usually described as courtesy visits or political consultations. He still appears to accord the former president considerable public respect despite the repeated criticisms directed at him. Even during previous presidential campaigns, Atiku found time to visit his former boss. One cannot say with certainty whether such visits are driven more by political calculation, respect for an elder statesman or a genuine hope that reconciliation may one day be possible.

Can genuine reconciliation ever happen between these two men? History suggests that nothing is impossible in politics. Many political enemies have reconciled after years of hostility. Nigeria itself has witnessed several unlikely political alliances that many once considered impossible. President Bola Tinubu readily comes to mind as one political leader who has welcomed back into his fold several former associates, critics and even perceived political enemies. It was for this reason that one of his former critics, who later became his aide, likened him to Jesus Christ because of his willingness to forgive and reconcile. Can the Obasanjo-Atiku relationship ever follow a similar path? Is their disagreement fundamentally different? Has too much happened over the years for genuine reconciliation to take place? Or do old political wounds eventually heal with time?

Another issue worthy of consideration is the manner in which Atiku has consistently reacted to Obasanjo’s criticisms. One school of thought believes that Atiku should simply stop seeking validation from his former boss and concentrate on selling himself directly to the electorate. According to those who hold this view, elections are ultimately decided by voters and not by endorsements or condemnations from former leaders. Another school of thought, however, argues that Atiku should continue to show respect because elders deserve courtesy regardless of political disagreements. Respect, they insist, should not be mistaken for weakness.

There is also the question of whether Obasanjo still carries significant political weight. Irrespective of what anyone may say, the former president remains one of Nigeria’s most influential political figures. He still commands considerable media attention, both within and outside the country. His opinions on national issues continue to attract widespread interest, which explains why he remains a respected voice in national and international affairs. However, whether his endorsement—or indeed his criticism—still significantly influences electoral outcomes is another matter entirely. Do younger voters still cast their ballots based on the opinions of elder statesmen? Or has Nigerian politics evolved beyond that level of elite influence?

Another question that naturally arises is whether anybody or any political group benefits from this lingering feud. Does Obasanjo’s criticism in any meaningful way weaken Atiku politically? Does it strengthen another opposition presidential candidate? Does it directly or indirectly benefit the ruling party? Or has the disagreement become so familiar that many Nigerians simply regard it as another recurring episode in the country’s political theatre?

Whether one agrees with Obasanjo’s criticisms of Atiku or sympathises with the latter’s repeated efforts at reconciliation, one fact remains undeniable: Nigeria has lived with this political disagreement for far too long. Disagreements, whether political or otherwise, are perfectly normal in every democracy, but personal feuds that endure for decades are hardly healthy for the political system.

Democracy is better served when political leaders disagree over policies, programmes and competing visions for national development rather than sustain personal battles that outlive the offices they once occupied.

If reconciliation is still possible, it would send a powerful message that political differences need not become permanent hostilities. If it is no longer possible, perhaps both men owe Nigerians the maturity to let history take its natural course. Ultimately, it is neither Obasanjo nor Atiku who will determine Nigeria’s future at the ballot box. That responsibility belongs to the electorate, whose votes—not endorsements or denunciations—remain the true currency of democracy.