The Presidency has responded sharply to recent remarks by former Jigawa State Governor, Alhaji Sule Lamido, accusing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of backing the annulment of the historic June 12, 1993, presidential election. In a strongly worded statement titled “Setting the Record Straight: President Tinubu’s Role in the June 12 Struggle,” presidential aide Bayo Onanuga described Lamido’s claims as “a distortion of history and a regrettable attempt at revisionism.”

 

Lamido, speaking in a live television interview last week, alleged that President Tinubu only gained political relevance after the formation of the pro-democracy group NADECO, and went further to claim that Tinubu’s mother, Alhaja Abibatu Mogaji, mobilized market women in support of the annulment of MKO Abiola’s victory.

 

Onanuga refuted the claims as “patently false,” stating that Alhaja Mogaji never supported the annulment and would have lost her position as Lagos market leader if she had. While acknowledging her past rapport with then-military president General Ibrahim Babangida, Onanuga insisted that it predated the annulment crisis.

 

The statement sought to contrast Tinubu’s early and consistent opposition to the annulment with what it called Lamido’s “shameful acquiescence.” It accused the former SDP secretary and other party leaders, notably Chief Tony Anenih, of failing to resist the military’s decision and of aligning with the rival NRC to suppress Abiola’s mandate.

 

Quoting a Senate debate from August 1993, Onanuga highlighted Tinubu’s vocal condemnation of the annulment on the Senate floor, describing the election’s nullification as “another coup d’état” and calling for public resistance to injustice.

 

“Without the abortion or annulment of the June 12 election, there would be no crisis like this,” Tinubu had said in his address, according to archived Senate records cited in the statement.

 

Following the military takeover by General Sani Abacha in November 1993, Onanuga noted, Tinubu was among the few politicians who defied the junta, reconvened with fellow senators in Lagos, and was subsequently arrested. He later went into exile, supporting and funding pro-democracy movements such as NADECO and Wole Soyinka’s NALICON from abroad, even as the military bombed his Lagos home in retaliation.

 

The statement pointedly accused Lamido of being part of a group that “made deals with Abacha” while Tinubu risked his life in exile to continue the struggle.

 

“Lamido’s attempt to rewrite history does not serve the cause of truth,” Onanuga asserted. “It only exposes his political bitterness and envy of President Tinubu’s democratic credentials.”

 

The Presidency further questioned Lamido’s motivations, suggesting he may be suffering from “tall poppy syndrome”—a psychological term used to describe resentment toward those who have achieved prominence.

 

“President Tinubu was—and remains—a steadfast advocate for democracy,” the statement concluded. “In contrast to the record of Lamido and others who capitulated in the face of military oppression, Tinubu stood firm.”

 

The controversy over the June 12 narrative is not new, but this latest exchange adds fresh fuel to the long-standing debate over who truly stood on the right side of history during one of Nigeria’s darkest political chapters. With the legacy of June 12 increasingly invoked in present-day politics, the clash between Tinubu’s defenders and critics shows no sign of abating.