The controversy surrounding former military President General Ibrahim Babangida’s memoir, A Journey in Service, has once again stirred painful memories of the annulled June 12, 1993, presidential election. The family of the late Chief MKO Abiola, the winner of the election, expressed their dismay at Babangida’s account, with Kola Abiola, the son of MKO Abiola, stating that the memoir had reopened deep wounds from that turbulent time. The Abiola family emphasized that the lessons from the annulment have not been learned, as many families, including theirs, were directly affected by the events that followed the election.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!Kola Abiola criticized the fact that it took Babangida 32 years to publicly confirm what had long been known—that MKO Abiola won the 1993 presidential election. He expressed disbelief at how long it took for Babangida to acknowledge the truth that had been evident for decades. Kola pointed out that while many people from that period are no longer alive or too young to remember the traumatic events of June 12, the release of the memoir has brought the collective pain of that time back to the forefront. He emphasized that the impact of the annulment went far beyond his family, leading to significant loss of lives and stalling Nigeria’s development and unity.
The family made it clear that they were taking additional time to respond thoroughly to Babangida’s account, citing the complex nature of the events and their far-reaching consequences. They felt the public needed a detailed response, especially given the ongoing debates about the legitimacy of Babangida’s version of history.
Meanwhile, a former commander of Nigeria’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Major General Ishola Williams (rtd), contradicted Babangida’s claims in the memoir. In his response, Williams refuted Babangida’s portrayal of the military’s reactions to the annulment. Babangida’s memoir had described outrage within the military leadership over the annulment, with figures like Williams allegedly alarmed at the decision. However, Williams offered a different perspective, asserting that Babangida had already been preparing General Sani Abacha to succeed him before the annulment. He explained that the entire process, including the formation of an interim government, was orchestrated to facilitate Abacha’s ascension to power. Williams recounted how Babangida had privately referred to Abacha as the “Khalipha,” a term meaning a leader with competence and wisdom, showing his support for Abacha’s future leadership.
Williams also discussed his personal interactions with Babangida, recounting a conversation in Minna where he asked the former president if he had made a blood oath with Abacha to ensure his succession. Babangida refused to answer the question. Williams further alleged that a meeting in which the interim government was discussed was aimed at ensuring Abacha’s eventual takeover, a claim that paints a different picture from Babangida’s narrative in his memoir.
In contrast, former Minister of Culture and Tourism, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, defended Babangida’s account, arguing that Babangida had shown humility and remorse for his actions. Fani-Kayode contended that Babangida’s public reflection on the annulment and the pressures he faced, particularly from General Abacha, was an effort to provide historical context, rather than an attempt to make excuses. Fani-Kayode stated that Babangida’s willingness to take responsibility for the annulment should be praised, especially since he acknowledged the role of military figures like Abacha in influencing the decision. Fani-Kayode dismissed criticism that Babangida was a “coward” for revealing the internal dynamics that led to the annulment, stressing that Babangida was caught between a difficult decision and chose what he believed was in the best interest of Nigeria’s unity.
The publication of Babangida’s memoir has reignited the debate over one of Nigeria’s most controversial political events, with various parties offering conflicting interpretations of history. As the debate continues, the country is left grappling with unresolved questions about the true motivations behind the annulment of the June 12 election, and whether the painful lessons from that period have truly been learned.
