From Yar’Adua to Buhari, Tinubu, and Lagbaja: Breaking the Culture of Secrecy in Leadership Health Disclosures, by John Egbeazien Oshodi

From the moment Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Lieutenant General Taoreed Lagbaja fell ill, Nigerians were met with the familiar refrain of an “undisclosed illness,” a term that has become synonymous with the opacity surrounding the health of public officials. His passing is a profound loss to the nation, and while we extend our heartfelt sympathies to his family, colleagues, and the military community, it is important to reflect on the broader issues his death underscores. Even after his death, the specifics of his condition remained concealed, leaving the nation to contend with speculation and unanswered questions. This culture of secrecy has persisted for far too long, creating a pattern where critical information about leaders’ health is only revealed in the face of unavoidable crises such as gunshot wounds, car accidents, or airplane crashes. Lagbaja’s passing shines a spotlight on a deeper systemic and cultural issue—one where the deliberate withholding of information not only fuels misinformation but also erodes public trust and confidence in governance, perpetuating a cycle of doubt and disengagement.

Lieutenant General Taoreed Lagbaja’s death is a stark reminder of the troubling pattern of secrecy surrounding the health of public officials in Nigeria. From the moment Lagbaja became ill, the public was informed only that he was suffering from an “undisclosed illness.” Conflicting media reports about his whereabouts—claims of medical trips overseas contradicted by assertions that he was back in the country—only deepened the confusion and unease. Why such ambiguity? Unlike the prolonged secrecy surrounding former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s illness and eventual death, Lagbaja’s passing could not be hidden. Yet, even after his death, details of his condition remained cloaked in mystery, leaving Nigerians to grapple with unanswered questions and rampant speculation.

This lack of transparency not only denies citizens the opportunity to connect with their leaders on a human level but also undermines the trust and confidence necessary for effective governance. It reflects a governance style that prioritizes projecting an illusion of invincibility over fostering openness and accountability. This habitual concealment alienates the populace and weakens the critical relationship between leaders and the people they are meant to serve. Transparency, rather than secrecy, is what builds trust and ensures a governance structure that respects and values its citizens.

Transparency in public leadership, particularly in Nigeria and across Africa, is critical for fostering trust, accountability, and stability. The case of Lieutenant General Taoreed Lagbaja, who passed away recently, 2024, underscores the urgent need for openness in governance. While this writer sympathizes deeply with the military and, most importantly, with Lagbaja’s family during this time of profound loss, the central issue here is the persistent lack of transparency that has become entrenched in leadership culture.

The persistence of secrecy around leaders’ health can be traced to political dynamics, cultural stigma, and weak institutional frameworks. Politically and governmentally, leaders are often viewed as symbols of stability, and any admission of frailty is perceived as a sign of vulnerability that could embolden opposition or destabilize governance. Culturally, in many African societies, illness and mortality are often shrouded in stigma and superstitions, particularly for figures of authority. This discourages open discussion and transparency, reinforcing a belief that such admissions undermine their standing. Institutional weaknesses compound this issue, as the absence of formal protocols for health disclosures allows leaders to avoid accountability while keeping citizens in the dark.

The concealment of leaders’ health fosters political instability and hinders effective governance. The case of  Yar’Adua, whose illness remained hidden until his death created a constitutional crisis, is a stark example. The lack of transparency delayed necessary actions and exposed weaknesses in the nation’s governance structure. Such secrecy perpetuates a cycle where public office is treated as personal territory rather than a position of accountability to the people.

When leaders and their handlers withhold critical health information, it erodes public confidence in governance. Citizens are left in the dark, fostering an environment ripe for misinformation and speculation. This lack of trust undermines the social contract between the government and the governed, weakening the democratic fabric of the nation.

The absence of clear information fuels rumors, which can exacerbate social tensions and create unnecessary unrest. Secrecy feeds into conspiracy theories, diverting attention from pressing national issues and further destabilizing the political landscape.

Leaders, as human beings, are inherently vulnerable to illness and mortality. This is a simple truth, yet one that remains obscured in Nigerian and African governance due to a culture of secrecy. Public acknowledgment of health challenges does not weaken a leader’s standing; rather, it underscores their humanity and fosters empathy, creating a stronger bond between leaders and citizens. Transparency about a leader’s health yields significant benefits, including building public trust through openness, ensuring accountability with regular updates affirming a leader’s fitness for office, and enabling informed, data-driven decision-making.

However, this transparency is hindered by deep-seated cultural and systemic barriers. Stigma and superstitions surrounding illness discourage openness, as illness is often perceived as weakness. Security concerns over the misuse of sensitive health information further complicate the matter. At the institutional level, a lack of mechanisms for oversight perpetuates this opaque culture. These challenges were glaringly evident in Lagbaja’s case, where months of public curiosity and speculation about his health were met with silence, reflecting a pattern of concealment that deeply undermines public confidence.

The trend continues with President Bola Tinubu, who has been periodically absent from the country for medical reasons. Despite his administration’s stated commitment to openness, the lack of transparency regarding his health has perpetuated mistrust and fueled rumors, mirroring the secrecy surrounding the Yar’Adua’s prolonged illness, which culminated in a constitutional crisis. Tinubu’s absences, like those of past leaders, exemplify the entrenched culture of secrecy that Nigeria has yet to confront.

To break this cycle, Nigeria and Africa must adopt a more transparent approach to leadership health disclosures. Such transparency should not be seen as a vulnerability but as a testament to accountability and respect for the public trust. Public officials must prioritize regular updates about their health, ensuring that governance remains stable and trustworthy. Institutional reforms are needed to implement clear guidelines for health disclosures, alongside cultural shifts that destigmatize illness and mortality among leaders.

Lagbaja’s case, like those of many before him, should serve as a wake-up call. Transparency in leadership is not merely a governance tool; it is a moral obligation and a cornerstone of democratic accountability. Only by embracing openness can Nigeria restore public faith in its leaders and build a governance system rooted in trust, empathy, and integrity.

The pervasive secrecy surrounding the health and death of public leaders in Africa, particularly in Nigeria, stems from deep-rooted political dynamics. Leaders are often seen as symbols of stability, and any acknowledgment of frailty is perceived as a sign of vulnerability. In political systems where rivalries are intense and succession plans remain ambiguous, disclosing a leader’s illness or death can trigger fears of unrest, coups, or loss of control. This leads to a deliberate culture of concealment, where information is tightly controlled to maintain the facade of strength and authority.

In Nigeria, this culture of secrecy is magnified by a history of political instability and widespread mistrust between citizens and those in power. Leaders prioritize the preservation of an image of invincibility, fearing that transparency might embolden opposition or weaken their grip on power. This approach, however, deepens public skepticism, leaving citizens to rely on rumors and speculation. Institutional weaknesses, such as the absence of clear protocols for health disclosures and accountability, further enable leaders and their handlers to operate in secrecy, avoiding public scrutiny.

A significant cultural aversion to openly discussing illness or death also perpetuates this secrecy. Leaders, often viewed as “anointed” figures, are shielded by beliefs that revealing vulnerabilities diminishes their status. Stigma surrounding illness fosters a reluctance to engage in open communication, while superstitions and societal norms discourage transparency. These cultural factors intersect with institutional gaps, creating an environment where secrecy becomes the default approach to handling leaders’ health crises.

Transparency in leadership health disclosures offers far-reaching benefits. It builds public trust by demonstrating accountability and openness. Regular updates about a leader’s health ensure the public remains informed and reassured about governance continuity. By reducing speculation, transparency fosters a stable political environment, allowing leaders to focus on effective decision-making rather than crisis management.

Addressing this entrenched culture of secrecy requires institutional reforms and a cultural shift. Governments should establish clear guidelines for health disclosures, ensuring that public officials are held to the same standards of accountability as other democratic institutions. Public awareness campaigns can help reduce stigma surrounding illness, encouraging leaders and citizens alike to embrace openness.

Health transparency is a cornerstone of democratic governance, reflecting leaders’ respect for the people they serve. For public and military officials, openness demonstrates ethical oversight and integrity. It signals that leadership is a responsibility to the public, not a shield for personal privacy or unchecked authority. By prioritizing transparency, leaders can reinforce the principles of accountability and trust that underpin effective governance.

A cultural and systemic shift toward transparency is not only overdue but essential. Nigeria and Africa must recognize that openness fosters trust, stability, and public confidence in leadership. Leaders must treat public office as a position of accountability, understanding that transparency about their health is not a weakness but a testament to their commitment to democratic principles. Only through this shift can governance systems in Nigeria and beyond become truly representative, stable, and trustworthy.

Transparency in health is fundamental for fostering trust, accountability, and effective leadership, particularly among public and military officials. Open communication about health challenges reassures citizens of their leaders’ fitness to govern while reducing speculation and mistrust that often destabilize governance. Despite these benefits, African nations, including Nigeria, have developed a troubling pattern of secrecy surrounding leaders’ health and deaths. This practice, rooted in political, cultural, and institutional issues, continues to erode public trust and impede governance, as seen in the cases of Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, Muhammadu Buhari, and, most recently, Lieutenant General Taoreed Lagbaja.

The habit of concealing health-related issues has long plagued Nigerian leadership. During Muhammadu Buhari’s presidency, the public was left speculating about the state of his health as he embarked on prolonged medical trips abroad without clear communication about the nature of his condition. While Buhari eventually addressed the issue in limited terms, his administration never provided full transparency, leaving a legacy of suspicion and unanswered questions. Similarly, the current administration under President Bola Tinubu has continued this culture of secrecy. Tinubu’s periodic absences for medical reasons, without detailed explanations or consistent updates, have perpetuated mistrust and fueled public skepticism. From Yar’Adua’s undisclosed illness, which led to a constitutional crisis, to Buhari’s medical journeys and now Tinubu’s unexplained health-related absences, the narrative remains consistent: Nigerians are kept in the dark until speculation becomes unavoidable.

The culture of concealment carries significant consequences for governance. Secrecy around leaders’ health erodes public trust, as citizens become increasingly skeptical of those in power. It also creates political instability, as uncertainty about a leader’s fitness for office can provoke unrest and governance crises, as seen during Yar’Adua’s illness. Furthermore, secrecy feeds speculation and misinformation, shifting focus away from pressing national issues and fostering a climate of suspicion and doubt.

In contrast, global examples highlight the benefits of transparency in leadership health disclosures. In countries like the United States, regular public health reports for presidents reassure citizens of leadership stability and fitness. In South Africa, clear communication during its vaccine rollout demonstrated how openness can strengthen public trust and encourage collective action. Rwanda’s commitment to universal health coverage reflects the importance of transparency in fostering institutional integrity and public confidence. These practices emphasize the role of openness in reinforcing the bond between leaders and citizens, ensuring accountability, and enabling informed decision-making.

For Nigeria and other African nations to break free from the tiresome and unnecessary culture of secrecy, systemic and cultural reforms are not just important—they are an urgent necessity. Institutional frameworks must require leaders to disclose their health status, ensuring that updates are clear, timely, and consistent. Alongside this, public education campaigns need to tackle the entrenched stigma surrounding illness and mortality, fostering a societal shift where openness is celebrated as a sign of strength, not weakness. Transparency should be embraced not as a reluctant obligation but as a profound gesture of accountability and respect for the public trust that leadership entails.

The recurring secrecy surrounding the health of leaders—from Yar’Adua to Buhari, Tinubu, and most recently, Lagbaja—reveals a frustrating and, frankly, baffling pattern. Why all the hiding? Are leaders not human like the rest of us? Illness is an inevitable part of life, and death will come to us all, no matter our position or power. Pretending otherwise does not protect a leader’s image; it alienates the people, fuels confusion, and erodes the very foundations of trust and governance.

Imagine the transformative impact if leaders chose to shed the cloak of secrecy and embrace their humanity. By openly addressing health challenges, they would dismantle the barriers of mistrust, fostering genuine connections with the citizens they serve. Transparency would no longer be viewed as a liability but as a testament to the honesty, empathy, and integrity that underpin effective leadership. Such openness would shine as a beacon of accountability, demonstrating that to lead is not to be infallible but to be truthful and relatable.

It is time to abandon this outdated and damaging cloak of mystery. Africa deserves leaders who confront reality with courage and humility, understanding that governance is not about projecting perfection but about demonstrating authenticity and responsibility. After all, sickness is a shared human experience, and death is the ultimate equalizer. So why not let transparency shine? It is more than a policy—it is a principle, the bedrock of trust, and the foundation of legacies that inspire and endure.

Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi, born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, is an American-based police and prison scientist, forensic psychologist, public policy psychologist, and legal psychologist. He’s a government advisor on forensic-clinical psychological services in the USA and the founder of the Dr. John Egbeazien Oshodi Foundation for Psychological Health. With a significant role in introducing forensic psychology to Nigeria through N.U.C. and Nasarawa State University, he’s also a former Secretary-General of the Nigeria Psychological Association. He’s taught at esteemed institutions like Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Nova Southeastern University, and more, and is currently an online faculty member at ISCOM University,  Weldios University and Walden University.