Reveals how Lamido, SDP betrayed Abiola
By Eshiorameh Sebastian, Abuja
The Presisency has launched a fierce counterattack on former Jigawa State Governor, Sule Lamido, accusing him of historical revisionism regarding the June 12, 1993 political crisis while defending President Bola Tinubu’s pro-democracy credentials.
In an official statement signed by Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Tinubu described Lamido’s recent television comments as “patently false” and challenged his version of events surrounding the annulled presidential election won by Chief MKO Abiola.
The statement specifically refuted Lamido’s claim that Tinubu’s mother, Alhaja Abibatu Mogaji, mobilized market women to support the election annulment, declaring: “Alhaja Mogaji never mobilized market women to support the unjust annulment. Had she done so, she would have lost her position as market leader in Lagos.”
Rather, the Presidency turned the tables on Lamido, portraying him as part of the SDP leadership that failed to defend Abiola’s mandate. “The SDP leadership, including Lamido and chairman Tony Anenih, wrote their names in the book of infamy by surrendering the people’s mandate without resistance,” the statement read.
Official records from Senate proceedings on August 19, 1993 were cited to demonstrate Tinubu’s early opposition to the annulment, quoting his floor speech: “We have a situation that suggests that the abortion of the June 12 election is another coup d’etat… This is a self-inflicted crisis because, without the abortion or annulment of the June 12 election, there would be no crisis like this.”
The statement provided detailed chronology of Tinubu’s pro-democracy activities, including his arrest with other senators for opposing the Abacha regime, financial support for protests, and eventual exile. It contrasted this with Lamido’s alleged cooperation with military rulers, asking: “While Tinubu was away, agents of the junta bombed his home in Balarabe Musa Crescent, Victoria Island. What was Lamido doing at this time?”
The Presidency dismissed Lamido’s narrative as politically motivated, asserting that “revisionism does not serve the cause of truth or our nation’s interests.” The statement concluded by reaffirming Tinubu’s democratic credentials while questioning Lamido’s motives, suggesting they stem from “what psychologists call tall poppy syndrome.”
This robust defense comes amid renewed national discourse on Nigeria’s democratic history and the legacy of the June 12 struggle, with the current administration seeking to establish Tinubu’s position as a consistent democracy advocate versus what it characterizes as compromised political actors from the 1990s.
Lamido had alleged that Tinubu only gained prominence after the formation of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) and claimed that Tinubu’s mother, Alhaja Abibatu Mogaji, mobilized market women to support the annulment. The Presidency, however, refuted these claims, stating, “Alhaja Mogaji never mobilized market women to support the unjust annulment. Had she done so, she would have lost her position as market leader in Lagos.”
The statement further accused Lamido and other SDP leaders of complicity in the betrayal of Abiola’s mandate, saying, “The SDP leadership, including Lamido and chairman Tony Anenih, wrote their names in the book of infamy by surrendering the people’s mandate without resistance. To their eternal shame, Lamido and Anenih teamed up with the defeated National Republican Convention to deny Abiola his mandate.”
In contrast, the Presidency highlighted Tinubu’s unwavering stance against military rule, recalling his bold condemnation of the annulment on the floor of the Senate on August 19, 1993. Quoting directly from Senate records, the statement noted Tinubu’s declaration: “We have a situation that suggests that the abortion of the June 12 election is another coup d’etat. My question is, when are we going to stop tolerating injustices, coup d’etat and abuse by the people on whom we invested so much resources—the public funds of this country?”
The statement also referenced Tinubu’s close association with Abiola during the crisis, including his presence in photographs with Abiola and General Sani Abacha before Abacha’s coup against the Interim National Government (ING) led by Ernest Shonekan. It noted that after Abacha dissolved democratic institutions, Tinubu was among senators who defied the junta, leading to his arrest and detention.
“While in police detention, Tinubu continued to fund pro-June 12 protests in Lagos, including the blockade of the Third Mainland Bridge,” the statement read. It further detailed Tinubu’s role in NADECO, where he provided financial and logistical support to pro-democracy activists, both in exile and at home.
The Presidency dismissed Lamido’s claims as politically motivated, stating, “It is thus disappointing that Alhaji Lamido, despite acknowledging Tinubu’s NADECO role, would attempt to rewrite history for political reasons and being a member of the Coalition of the Disgruntled.”
The statement concluded with a sharp rebuke, advising Lamido to verify facts before making public statements. “Revisionism does not serve the cause of truth or our nation’s interests,” it said, adding that Tinubu’s democratic credentials remain unassailable compared to Lamido’s record of alleged capitulation to military oppression.
Discussion about this post