The Presidency has responded to His Excellency, Alhaji Sule Lamido’s claims about President Bola Tinubu’s role in the June 12 struggle.
The former Jigawa governor had alleged that Tinubu supported the annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election and that Tinubu’s mother mobilized market women to back the annulment.
However, the Presidency in a statement signed by Bayo Onanuga
Special Adviser to the President
(Information & Strategy), denied these claims, stating that they were “patently false” and an attempt at “revisionism.”
The Presidency asserted that Tinubu condemned the annulment on the Senate floor on August 19, 1993, describing it as “another coup d’état” and urging Nigerians to reject injustice and lawlessness.
The statement highlighted Lamido’s role in the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and his failure to oppose the military’s injustice, including surrendering the people’s mandate without resistance.
”It is important to remind Nigerians that Alhaji Lamido, as secretary of the Social Democratic Party (SDP)the party whose candidate, MKO Abiola, won the June 12 election was among those who failed to oppose the military’s injustice.
”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 sharp contrast, Senator Bola Tinubu stood firm even before General Abacha dissolved the political parties and all democratic institutions, including the National Assembly, on November 17, 1993, following his coup.
”Days after General Babangida addressed the Senate and announced his decision to step aside on August 27, 1993, the setting up of an interim government to replace him, Senators debated the speech.
”On the Senate floor on August 19, 1993, Tinubu unequivocally condemned the annulment, describing it as another coup d’état and urging Nigerians to reject injustice and lawlessness.
”The records captured his contribution, showing that he supported upholding the June 12 election, not against it, as Lamido claimed
”Alhaji Lamido’s claims represent a distortion of history and a regrettable attempt at revisionism.”
The Presidency acknowledged Tinubu’s significant role in the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) and his efforts to fund pro-June 12 protests, including the blockade of the Third Mainland Bridge.
”He alleged that President Tinubu only rose to prominence after the formation of NADECO and claimed that Tinubu’s mother, Alhaja Abibatu Mogaji, mobilised market women to back the annulment. These allegations are patently false.
”Let us set the record straight: Alhaja Mogaji never mobilised market women to support the unjust annulment. Had she done so, she would have lost her position as market leader in Lagos.
”While she once had a personal relationship with then-President Babangida, this was before the annulment crisis, ” the statement said.
”It is important to remind Nigerians that Alhaji Lamido, as secretary of the Social Democratic Party (SDP)the party whose candidate, MKO Abiola, won the June 12 election was among those who failed to oppose the military’s injustice.
”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 sharp contrast, Senator Bola Tinubu stood firm even before General Abacha dissolved the political parties and all democratic institutions, including the National Assembly, on November 17, 1993, following his coup.
”Days after General Babangida addressed the Senate and announced his decision to step aside on August 27, 1993, the setting up of an interim government to replace him, Senators debated the speech.
”On the Senate floor on August 19, 1993, Tinubu unequivocally condemned the annulment, describing it as another coup d’état and urging Nigerians to reject injustice and lawlessness.
”The records captured his contribution, showing that he supported upholding the June 12 election, not against it, as Lamido claimed.
The statement added, ”The election winner, Abiola, was out of the country when the legislators debated Babangida’s offer to step aside for an interim government.
”He returned in September 1993. And who followed him to the Abacha military group, then openly planning a coup against the Ernest Shonekan-led ING? It was Tinubu. Photographs exist today, showing Tinubu behind Abiola and Abacha.
”Abacha took over on November 17, 1993, and dissolved all democratic institutions, including governors, the National Assembly, and the state legislature.
”Tinubu and a group of senators reconvened in Lagos, defying the junta.
”Tinubu, Ameh Ebute, Abu Ibrahim, and others were arrested and kept at Alagbon.
”The police took them to court and fabricated a case against them. While in police detention, Tinubu continued to fund pro-June 12 protests in Lagos, including the blockade of the Third Mainland Bridge.
”Weeks after Abacha supplanted the ING, it quickly became clear to Abiola and Tinubu that Abacha would not be a soldier of democracy as he reneged on allowing Abiola to reclaim his mandate. ”
The Presidency emphasised Tinubu’s material support for NADECO and Professor Wole Soyinka’s NALICON, fueling the struggle against the military junta.
”Enter the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO). It was born on May 15, 1994. Comprising a broad coalition of Nigerian democrats, it called on the military government of Sani Abacha to step down in favour of the winner of the June 12, 1993, election, MKO Abiola.
”On the first anniversary of his election, Abiola made a declaration at Epetedo in Lagos, announcing himself as the duly elected president.
”Ten days after, on June 22, he was arrested, following which many pro-democracy activists also escaped from Nigeria, including Bola Tinubu.
”Tinubu lived in exile for nearly five years while Lamido and his ilk made deals with Abacha. While Tinubu was away, agents of the junta bombed his home in Balarabe Musa Crescent, Victoria Island.
”Thankfully, Lamido admitted that Tinubu played a significant role in NADECO. Indeed, Tinubu did more. He also backed Professor Wole Soyinka’s NALICON, offering material resources to fuel the struggle.
”It is well-known that Tinubu played a leading role in the agitation against the June 12 annulment. Many NADECO leaders and journalists in exile and at home openly admitted that Tinubu sustained them and provided them with funds for the struggle.
”With his narrative, Lamido appeared confused about the role of NADECO. It was an offshoot of the June 12 crisis.
”NADECO provided a platform to channel the struggle. Hitherto, all the resistance was left to civil rights groups, journalists, and a section of labour, such as NUPENG.
”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.
”We advise Lamido to check his facts before going on television to spread falsehoods. It does not help his image, and the coalition he belongs to engages in revisionism. Revisionism does not serve the cause of truth or our nation’s interests.
”We do not want to believe that Alhaji Lamido suffers from what psychologists call tall poppy syndrome.
”However, the conclusion is inevitable as it appears that Lamido is envious of Tinubu’s democratic credentials.
”The facts remain clear: President Tinubu was and remains a steadfast advocate for democracy, in contrast to the record of Lamido and others who capitulated in the face of military oppression and intimidation.”
The Presidency noted that Lamido’s claims were an attempt to rewrite history for political reasons and advises him to check his facts before spreading falsehoods.
The statement reaffirmed Tinubu’s democratic credentials and his steadfast advocacy for democracy, contrasting it with Lamido’s record of capitulation in the face of military oppression.
