Tinubu Backed June 12 Annulment – Lamido Alleges, Presidency Hits Back Hard

Follow

( 0 Followers )

X

Follow

E-mail : *

Follow Unfollow

A fresh political storm has erupted in Nigeria following explosive allegations by former Jigawa State Governor, Alhaji Sule Lamido, who claimed that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was among those who supported the annulment of the historic June 12, 1993, presidential election.

The controversial statement, made during a live television appearance, has triggered a fierce rebuttal from the Presidency, reigniting fierce debate over Tinubu’s true role in Nigeria’s democratic struggle.

Lamido said he found President Tinubu’s constant references to his involvement in the June 12 struggle “highly entertaining,” describing the president’s narrative as theatrical and exaggerated.

According to Lamido, Tinubu only became politically relevant after General Sani Abacha’s takeover and was never in the frontline of the battle to actualize MKO Abiola’s mandate. He further alleged that Tinubu’s late mother, Alhaja Abibatu Mogaji, led market women from Lagos to Abuja to pledge support for then-military ruler General Ibrahim Babangida, the architect of the election’s annulment.

Lamido insisted that Tinubu was “hand-in-glove” with Babangida and that the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), with which Tinubu was later associated, was not formed to defend June 12 but to fight Abacha’s military regime.

In a swift and strongly worded response, the Presidency accused Lamido of historical distortion and political revisionism.

Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga dismissed the claims as “patently false” and described them as a desperate attempt to tarnish Tinubu’s legacy.

Onanuga noted that Alhaja Mogaji never mobilized market women in support of the annulment and that such an action would have cost her the respect and leadership she held among Lagos traders. While she had personal connections with Babangida before the annulment, Onanuga stressed that she never supported the subversion of the people’s will.

Setting the record straight, the statement pointed out that Tinubu, as a senator representing Lagos West, openly opposed the annulment on the Senate floor. On August 19, 1993, shortly after Babangida announced plans to step aside and install an interim government, Tinubu described the annulment as a coup d’état and called on Nigerians to reject the injustice and abuse of power.

Onanuga quoted Tinubu’s speech, where he challenged the military’s actions and emphasized that the annulment had caused a self-inflicted national crisis.

The statement also highlighted Lamido’s own complicity in the June 12 betrayal, reminding Nigerians that he was the secretary of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) — the party whose candidate, Abiola, won the election — and that he, along with then-chairman Tony Anenih, failed to resist the military’s annulment. Instead, they allegedly capitulated and collaborated with the losing National Republican Convention to rob Abiola of his victory.

The Presidency outlined a timeline of Tinubu’s resistance, from his defiance of Abacha’s dissolution of democratic institutions to his arrest, detention, and eventual exile. After the coup that brought Abacha to power, Tinubu and fellow senators reconvened in Lagos in defiance, were arrested, and detained at Alagbon.

Even while in custody, Tinubu reportedly funded pro-democracy protests, including the blockade of the Third Mainland Bridge. After Abiola’s arrest following his June 11, 1994, declaration of himself as president, Tinubu fled Nigeria and lived in exile for nearly five years. His home in Lagos was bombed by agents of the junta while he was away, further underscoring his sacrifice for the cause.

In exile, Tinubu reportedly provided material and financial support to both NADECO and NALICON, the pro-democracy coalition led by Professor Wole Soyinka. Onanuga stressed that Tinubu was not merely a participant in NADECO — he was a major financier and strategic backbone, supporting many journalists and activists both at home and abroad.

The Presidency condemned Lamido’s attempt to downplay Tinubu’s role and cast doubt on his commitment to democratic ideals. It labeled Lamido’s remarks as politically motivated and accused him of belonging to what it described as the “Coalition of the Disgruntled.” Onanuga went further to suggest that Lamido’s behavior could be likened to “tall poppy syndrome” — an affliction where people attempt to tear down those who rise above them out of envy.

The statement concluded by reaffirming that President Tinubu’s democratic credentials are undeniable and stand in stark contrast to the conduct of those who compromised under military rule. While Lamido and others allegedly made deals with Abacha, Tinubu risked his life and personal fortune to defend Nigeria’s democracy.

The Presidency called on Lamido to stop spreading falsehoods and reminded him that history cannot be rewritten to suit political grievances or personal insecurities.

The unfolding controversy has sparked a frenzy on social media, with hashtags like #June12, #Tinubu, and #Lamido dominating trending charts. As political tensions build ahead of future elections, the battle over who truly defended democracy during one of Nigeria’s darkest moments has once again taken center stage.