Ultimate magazine theme for WordPress.

Presidency Denies Allegations Linking Tinubu To June 12 Annulment.

144

The Presidency has dismissed claims by Alhaji Sule Lamido, former Governor of Jigawa State, asserting that President Bola Tinubu supported the annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election.

Lamido alleged that Tinubu only gained prominence through the formation of NADECO, and accused Tinubu’s mother, Alhaja Abibatu Mogaji, of mobilizing market women to support the annulment.

In a statement released Sunday in Abuja, Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, called these allegations a distortion of history and a regrettable attempt at revisionism.

Onanuga clarified that Alhaja Mogaji never endorsed the annulment in fact, had she done so, she would have lost her position as a market leader in Lagos. While she had a personal acquaintance with President Babangida, this occurred before the annulment crisis.

He noted that Lamido, as Secretary of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) whose candidate, MKO Abiola, won the June 12 election failed to challenge the military’s actions. According to Onanuga, Lamido and SDP Chairman Tony Anenih “wrote their names in the book of infamy by surrendering the people’s mandate without resistance,” collaborating with the National Republican Convention to block Abiola’s victory.

“In sharp contrast,” the statement continues, “Senator Bola Tinubu spoke out decisively even before General Abacha dissolved political institutions following his November 17, 1993 coup.”

On August 19, 1993 days after Babangida’s announcement to hand over to an interim government,Tinubu addressed the Senate, condemning the annulment as “another coup d’état.” He urged Nigerians to reject injustice and lawlessness:

“My question is, when are we going to stop tolerating injustices, coup d’état, and abuse Without the annulment of the June 12 election, there would be no crisis like this. The present military administration has committed a crime.”

Records confirm Tinubu supported upholding the June 12 outcome, contrary to Lamido’s claims.

The statement continues: Abiola was abroad when Babangida made his announcement; he returned in September 1993. Shortly afterwards, Abacha seized power on November 17, 1993, dissolving democratic institutions. Tinubu, alongside other senators, reconvened in Lagos in defiance of the junta. He was arrested and detained at Alagbon, yet continued to fund pro‑June 12 protests in Lagos, including a blockade of the Third Mainland Bridge.

As Abacha’s anti‑democratic intentions became evident, Tinubu and Abiola joined forces to challenge the regime’s refusal to restore Abiola’s mandate. Their efforts culminated in the formation of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) on May 15, 1994, bringing together Nigerian democrats demanding Abacha step aside for the winner of the June 12 election.

On the first anniversary of the election, Abiola declared himself the duly elected president in Epetedo, Lagos and was arrested ten days later. Following increased repression, many activists, including Tinubu, fled Nigeria. Tinubu lived in exile for nearly five years; while he was away, agents of the regime bombed his home in Victoria Island.

The Presidency commended Lamido for acknowledging Tinubu’s role in NADECO, noting that Tinubu also provided funding for Professor Wole Soyinka’s NALICON bolstering the struggle both at home and abroad.

The statement emphasized that Tinubu’s leadership in opposing the annulment and supporting democratic activism is well-documented. By contrast, Lamido and his allies “capitulated in the face of military oppression.”

The Presidency urged Lamido to verify his facts before making public statements, warning that “revisionism does not serve the cause of truth or our national interests.” It suggested Lamido’s attacks may stem from “tall-poppy syndrome,” adding that Tinubu’s democratic credentials remain unassailable.

“We maintain that President Tinubu was and remains a steadfast advocate for democracy, unlike those whose legacies are marked by compliance and compromise in the face of military rule.”

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.