Until the factuality surrounding his mysterious demise is unraveled, the big question will continue to stare the nation in the face: who killed Bashorun Moshood Kashimaawo Olawale (M.K.O) Abiola?

Almost 24 years after, the controversy over the sudden death of the winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential election in detention remains unresolved.

Former Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, recently exacerbated the conundrum. He said Abiola died after an illness. He rejected the popular assumption that the life of the business mogul was surreptitiously terminated.

Was Abiola given adequate medical attention in detention? How often did the military rulers – General Sani Abacha, who detained Abiola, and Abdulsalami, under whose watch he died – allow his doctors to see him? If someone was held captive for winning a democratic, free and fair election, did it not amount to psychological torture?

If Abdulsalami, who was party to the military leadership that incarcerated Abiola, had released him after he succeeded the late General Abacha, perhaps the story would have been different.

Until he passed on, Abiola’s physician, Dr. Ore Falomo, always insisted that the Aare Onakakanfo of Yoruba was killed in detention.

The puzzle: was there an autopsy? Where is its report?

The remark by former Chief of Staff, Lt.-Gen. Ishaya Bamaiyi, that the eminent politician did not die of natural causes has fueled the suspicion that some forces decided to get rid of him because he had insisted on the revalidation of the annulled poll results.

Few weeks before Abiola’s sudden death was announced, the nation was hopeful about his release. He had been sighted, though a bit emaciated, in a group photograph taken when a former American Assistant Secretary of State, Susan Rice, visited him in detention. Also sighted in the photograph was the late Admiral Mike Akhigbe, former Chief of General Staff.

His shocking demise came a week he met with the then United Nations (UN) Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, who claimed that Abiola “had promised to forswear his claim to the presidency and work toward a smooth transition to democracy,” according to The New York Times of July 8, 1998, a day after Abiola’s death.

It appears that Abiola was in high spirit and full of expectation. He was hale and hearty. He had hoped to regain his freedom.

But, few days after, a bewildered nation was jolted by the news of his death, which occurred a month after General Sani Abacha also died mysteriously.

Abiola died in the hand of his military tormentors. What they did after was to regroup and anoint one of their own for the 1999 succession battle.

In his book, titled: The Vindication of A General, Bamaiyi attributed Abiola’s death to a sort of inexplicable conspiracy within the military government that succeeded the Abacha re gime. Abacha incarcerated Abiola. However, Bamaiyi emphasised that he died when Abdulsalami was in the saddle.

“I believe only General Abubakar and those he used to handle Abiola’s death can tell Nigerians how Chief M.K.O Abiola died. Abiola could not have died the way he reportedly died,” he said.

However, the former Army chief also blamed the pro-democracy movement for advising the proscribed Social Democratic Party (SDP) candidate to reject the bail conditions reeled out by his captor, Abacha. The bail conditions were to tie Abiola’s hands and sentence him to self-liquidation.

According to the terms, the symbol of the struggle, who had declared himself President at Epetedo on Lagos Island, was expected to recant and give the military regime an assurance that he would abandon his mandate. Predictably, the bail was turned down by Abiola’s compatriots in the now defunct National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), not only because the late Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu was a wrong envoy, but because a conditional bail at that stage of the struggle was considered illogical.

Read Also: How MKO Abiola died, by Abdulsalami

Abiola knew that his life was in danger. He wrote several notes to the pro-democracy crusaders. In one of the letters, he stated that “Abacha has dug a grave for me and all that is left is for him to cover it”. Pro-democracy leaders who were not captured, including Pa Anthony Enahoro, Prof. Wole Soyinka, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, Honourable Olawale Oshun, Commodore Dan Suleiman, Chief John Odigie-Oyegun, Chief Ralph Obiora, Dr. Amos Akingba, Lt.-Gen. Alani Akinrinade and Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi, ran into exile.

Many Nigerians had expressed fears for Abiola’s safety, especially when Abacha unfolded a self-succession agenda. The signs were ominous. Even the anti-June 12 detainee, General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, who had influenced the 1994 National Conference to set a terminal date for the military regime, was later allegedly injected in the prison where he died. Mrs. Kudirat Abiola, who had sustained the struggle for the actualisation of her husband’s mandate, was murdered on the street of Lagos.

Indeed, some NADECO elements had a premonition that an ugly incident was about to occur. Unfortunately, they could not avert it.

In his book, titled: Clapping With One Hand: June 12 and the Crisis of A Nation State, Third Republic House of Representatives Chief Whip and one-time NADECO Secretary Olawale Oshun said: “It was on June 28, 1998 exactly that information reached some key elements within the democratic movement that the President-elect, Bashorun M.K.O. Abiola, would be murdered soon, and in any case, not later than September 1998. The information came via a document from a source we knew, respected and trusted.”

Despite the information, certain elements in the movement did not believe it. Although the Radio Kudirat had been previously used to disseminate information about the planned attempts on Senator Abraham Adesanya’s and General Yar’Adua’s lives, the handlers of the station dismissed the planned attempt on Abiola’s life as a wild rumour.”

On page 268 of the book, the sensitive document available to the pro-democracy movement reads as follows: “Abdulsalam Abubakar: He is an active member of the ‘die hard’ Northern oligarchy. Well respected in the military circle and a bridge between the military cultic group groomed and nurtured by the late General Sani Abacha and the liberals in the Army.

“He was chosen to be the Head of State, not because he was the next high ranking officer, but because the way had been pre-paved for him -remember ‘The Plot Against Diya?’ He is still not acceptable to Buhari, Gumei and Gwarzo, who together asked the ‘Dare Devil Cultic Group’ to obtain written pledge from him to ‘consolidate Northern domination of political power,’ which unfortunately, he wrote and signed before he was approved.

“He asked to be surrounded by new ‘Yoruba’ friends, which unfortunately would include some of the recently released political detainees. The new regime is working tirelessly to secure the friendship of this new group.

“The only ADDENDUM the new regime and its collaborators has is to: ensure that Chief M.K.O. Abiola does not become the President of Nigeria in whatever form and Hausa/Fulani domination of the presidency is not compromised.

“The new regime is: Totally against Chief M.K.O. Abiola’s mandate; Proposing a new transition to democracy by 2000 – 18 months programme to be announced on October 1, 1998; Although would include some released detainees in his Cabinet, it would still be intolerant of opposing political views and hence be as repressive as ever before; The regime is thinking of compensating the families of the slain Ogoni activists and granting amnesty for the 19 Ogoni youths as a way of placating the Ogoni people; NECON (National Electoral Commission of Nigeria) would be dissolved and a new electoral commission formed; New parties to be registered; Negotiated amnesty for Diya and co likely, but not soon.

“According to the reliable source, this regime would fight the press with all its power. An impeccable source said that all proposed elections are to be postponed. New election dates would be announced by the newly formed electoral commission.

“Let me state here categorically that this is not a prediction at all. It is the pre-conceived plan of the new regime, exposed by an insider. What is absolutely necessary now is to mount relentless and forceful pressure on the regime and drum it to its ears that anything less than the immediate restoration of a democratic government would not be acceptable to Nigerians and the international community and that the opposition is battle ready to take the bull by the horn this time round and would be ready to give all it takes to drive the military out.

“Another very important thing is that Abiola’s mandate should not be compromised at all. NALICON (National Liberation Council of Nigeria) and NADECO should rally round pro-democracy forces so as to reach a common goal.

“The important report sent to me today: A notorious gang in the Nigerian Army has completed their plan to assassinate Chief Moshood Abiola as a ‘final settlement of the Abacha/Abiola war in a “no victor, no vanquished way.’ Believe it or not, if the report given to me is anything to go by, Chief Abiola’s death would be a matter of days or before the end of September. This may look ridiculous, unthinkable or like an outright fabrication. But, believe it or not, it is true. Tell other pro-democracy groups, both abroad and home, to mount very intensive pressure on Abdulsalami Abubakar to release Chief M.K.O. Abiola now.

“The new regime will fail to protect Chief Abiola from assassins because it has not been able to persuade them to rethink the Nigerian national question. They might even seize power from Abdulsalami in order to achieve their destructive (plan). People are hell-bent (on) destroying the corporate existence of Nigeria than see Abiola become President.

“NOTE: Please, take immediate action on this report…”

Was the report embellished or exergerated? What was the degree of authenticity? Also, was there any ground to believe or doubt it?

The zoning war is raging. But chieftains of the two major parties – the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) – appear unperturbed by the ruination the political blaze could educe. They continue to continue to hide in the cocoon of an inexplicable prevarication. When will the two main parties face the reality?

The battle cry was first sounded by the Southern Governors’ Forum. Led by Ondo State Governor Rotimi Akeredolu, the forum’s chairman, the governors emphasised during their meeting in Lagos that power shift from the North to the South was non-negotiable.

But some northern governors felt upset by the position of their southern counterparts. Led by Plateau State Governor Sam Lalong, the chairman of the region’s governors’ forum, they called for power retention in the North so that the region could call the shots for unbroken 16 years.

By next year, the North would have ruled Nigeria for almost 45 years of the 61 years since Independence.

Other northern groups supported the region’s governors. But they only backed their clamour with feeble explanations. The National Publicity Secretary of Pan-Igbo socio-cultural group, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Chief Alex Ogbonnia, observed that the resolution of the northern governors smacked of gross insensitivity. He said it also portends a bleak future for the country.

The constitution of the APC tends to support the push for zoning, although it is usually denied. It states that “without prejudice to Article 20(2)(iii) of this constitution, the National Working Committee shall, subject to approval of the National Working Committee, make rules and regulations for the nomination of candidates through primary elections.

“All such rules, regulations and guidelines shall take into consideration and uphold the principle of federal character, gender balance, geo-political spread and rotation of offices, to as much as possible, ensure balance within the constituency covered.” For the presidential poll, Nigeria is the constituency.

Also, zoning is not alien to the PDP. The six positions – President, Vice President, Senate President, House of Representatives Speaker, Secretary to the Government of the Federation and the party’s National Chairman – are often rotated between the North and the South. This is understood by its founding fathers, who frowned at the attempt by President Goodluck Jonathan to recontest in 2015, claiming that the ticket ought to be zoned to the North.

In fact, Article 7 of the PDP constitution specifically states that it will adhere to zoning of elective offices among the various regions.

In the past, no categorical pronouncement was made about zoning. But the party’s caucuses knew how to make it happen, unlike now. In 2015, APC had zoned the presidential ticket to the North, based on the understanding and agreement that it would shift to the South in eight years.

While the APC seems to be adjusting to the inevitability of zoning, the PDP appears to be confused about the way forward. The party is divided on the vexed issue. PDP governors who were part of the Lagos Declaration cannot recant. Their northern counterparts, particularly Sokoto State Governor Aminu Tambuwal and his Bauchi counterpart, Senator Bala Mohammed, are vehemently opposed to the agitation. There is no meeting point yet.

Few days ago, Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike threatened fire and brimstone. He maintained that the next PDP presidential flag bearer should come from the South or the party would be boxed into a risk. His position has upset Tambuwal, Bala Mohammed, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and ex-Senate President Bukola Saraki, who are eyeing the presidency. Former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido also chided Wike, saying his position is not backed by law.

Also, during the week, Ijaw Leader, Chief Edwin Clark, picked up the gauntlet, firing salvos at the northern political elite for lack of accommodation and sensitivity. He said the retention of the presidency in the North would violate the principles of justice, equity and fair play. In his letter to Atiku, Saraki, Mohammed and Tambuwal, the elder statesman advised the northern aspirants to shelve their presidential ambition in the spirit of understanding, balance, national spread and equity.

The mere mention of zoning underscores a serious problem. Nigeria is a marriage of incompatible social formations lumped together by British interlopers. Its federalism is premised on unitarism. The distribution of power and resources is skewed. The tribes are a multitude. Their differences are pronounced. The races do not subscribe to the same religion, ideas and values. There is fear of domination within each of them. There is fear of marginalisation. There is permanent suspicion.

The presidency has not been a unifying factor. The antagonistic ethnic groups only feel comfortable when a son of soil occupies Aso Villa in Abuja, the seat of power. To mitigate any conflict, the idea of ‘turn by turn’ has been a big issue. It sounds logical, persuasive and convincing. It seems to make zoning or rotation between the North and the South a plausible strategy to reassure the regional units that they are not excluded.

But, zoning does not seem to have a strong constitutional backing. There is no direct or specific provision for it in the 1999 Constitution. The constitutions of political parties are inferior. Zoning is a product of political experience. It is a convention that political parties have come to embrace. The assumption is that rotation could foster a sense of inclusion, participation, belonging and national unity and the numerous federating units.

Yet, not all party members have respect for zoning. Again, the position of such people is constitutionally defensible. The conditions for eligibility for the highest office in the land, as outlined in the constitution, do not include zoning. If the President of Nigeria can acquire a national outlook instead of decking the ethnic lenses, if he can redress injustice and promote equity and fairness in governance, his place of origin would not matter.

Also, if Nigeria is run as a true federation and states are allowed to substantially control their resources, there would be less acrimony and more of hard work, healthy competition and unity in diversity.

Too many resources at the centre breed a too powerful President and Commander-in-Chief who is not perceived as a national and unifying figure,

but as a product and representative of his tribe, despite being sustained by votes of the six zones but only in office to promote mainly the interest of his tribe.

Since Nigeria is not one, and the ethnic groups must compulsorily co-exist – as it now appears – the elite have championed power rotation to facilitate their access to power and resources. The masses across the tribes sometimes delude themselves into thinking that their zones will savour relative prosperity when their kith and kin are in the saddle. While the North has produced Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Gen. Yakubu Gowon, Gen. Murtala Mohammed, Alhaji Shehu Shagari, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, Gen. Sani Abacha, Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua and now President Buhari, the Northern Region, minus Abuja, is not better than the South.

But, there is sense in believing that in a plural society like Nigeria, where integration is a challenge, rotating the presidency may foster a sense of inclusion and belonging.

Instructively, the arguments for zoning also have historical basis and justification. In the Second Republic, the leaders of the ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN) knew that another northerner would not have succeeded Shagari in 1987, if the military had not toppled the civilian regime. What was not certain was whether the ticket should be zoned to the West or East.

The ill-fated Third Republic did not begin on the note of zoning. Babangida, who had designed the transition programme to fail, threw it open. After a lot of hurdles, the late Chief Moshood Abiola of the proscribed Social Democratic Party (SDP) won the June 12, 1993 presidential election. It was criminally annulled. The zoning agitation started afterwards, during the Abdulsalami Abubakar transition programme. Although zoning was meant to serve as compensation for the injury of June 12, it became a mechanism for resolving marginalisation and building trust and stability.

The pattern was set in 1999 when Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, from the Southwest, became President on the platform of the PDP. His challenger in the Alliance for Democracy (AD/All Peoples Party (APP), Chief Olu Falae, also came from the West.

The trend was sustained in 2007 when the PDP picked Yar’Adua as its presidential candidate. The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), in throwing up Atiku as its flag bearer, also considered zoning. The pattern was truncated by Yar’Adua’s death when Vice President Goodluck Jonathan assumed the reins in 2009 and contested in 2011. In 2015, he was stopped as agitations for power shift filled the air. In 2015, when Buhari contested, the PDP fielded Jonathan. He had the constitutional right to contest. But zoning was violated. So, he lost. But in 2019, when APC also fielded Buhari, the PDP corrected its mistake by fielding a northerner in the spirit of zoning. In those times, when the ticket was understandably zoned to the North, Southern politicians knew their boundaries and cooperated fully as loyal party members. They never joined the presidential race.

If the three regions in the South are united in the pursuit of rotation, it is most likely they will achieve the goal. If there is any crack in the wall, the North, as usual, would exploit the division.

However, zoning is not the end, if the tickets are zoned to the South. The three regions -Southwest, Southeast and Southsouth – must still cross the hurdle of micro-zoning.

Today, the argument about merit has been employed to whittle down considerations for zoning. It is misplaced. Is there any zone in Nigeria that does not parade competent Nigerians with intimidating credentials? If the ticket is zoned to any region, there is no shortage of experienced, patriotic and competent aspirants who can lead the country.

The onus is on the two major parties to deepen political practices that can engender unity, cohesion and equity among the regions, instead of playing up the ethnicity and religious factors to gain advantage, create mistrust and suspicion, and deepen disunity that would be detrimental to the future survival of the federation.