The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida

  • IBB salutes ‘courageous, selfless’ Tinubu at 73

    IBB salutes ‘courageous, selfless’ Tinubu at 73

    Former Military President  General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB) has praised President Bola Tinubu on his 73rd birthday, describing him as the “Asiwaju of the Universe.”

    In his heartfelt birthday message, IBB eulogised Tinubu’s leadership, stating that he has done exceptionally well. 

    According to IBB: “There comes a time in the life of a nation when an uncommon personality and courageous disposition form the basis for appreciating the essentials of problem-solving leadership.

    “With your rich background in the struggle for the emancipation of the ordinary Nigerian, coupled with your commitment to deepening democratic values in Nigeria, your history speaks for your persona.

    “At a time like this, when your birthday strikes the right chord, it is gratifying to join millions of your admirers, associates, supporters, and fellow Nigerians to celebrate you with a pat on the back.

    Read Also: Nigeria, Ghana Renew Rivalry at GOtv Boxing Night 33

    “You have come to lead Nigeria at a very trying time in our nation’s history, but your leadership intervention thus far has been very remarkable, bold, resilient, and encouraging. Only those who have been there know exactly the grit required to lead Nigeria and Nigerians,” he said.

    The former leader also commended Tinubu’s commitment to democratic values, pledging his support and solidarity with the president.

    “Mr. President, let me assure you of my support and solidarity always. Even though the challenges facing us as a nation may be daunting, you have shown equal commitment to contend with the realities that stare us in the face. I can easily recollect when our paths crossed in the late eighties when the government I ran was trying to birth democracy.

    “You have remained consistent in your ideals, principles, and democratic values till date, which is why Nigerians entrusted you with the mandate to lead them at this auspicious moment. 

    “A result-driven and utility leader like you is well-suited for the present challenges, especially with the kind of innovations and policy thrust of your administration so far.

    “You must not be tired or discouraged in providing the desired leadership to move the country forward. You have shown grit, gusto, and gravitas in your leadership emanations, and the courage you have exemplified speaks to your capacity to make uncommon decisions.”

    He prayed for Tinubu’s good health and wisdom to continue leading the country forward.

    “Mr. President and the Asiwaju of the Universe, as I fondly call you, congratulations on your 73rd birthday celebrations.

    “On behalf of Aisha, Muha, Aminu, and Halima, accept our collective felicitations on this special day. This is happening during the holy month of Ramadan, which is an indication of Allah’s abiding mercy and love for you.

    “May Allah accept our supplications and grant you good health and more wisdom to help you chart the way forward for our dear country. Congratulations, Mr. President. Many happy returns,” he concluded.

  • After Babangida’s book, what next?

    After Babangida’s book, what next?

    By Ikedi Ohakim

    It is not surprising that the revelations and admissions by former military president, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB)., in his recently released autobiography, A Journey In Service, has elicited a lot of reactions from virtually every section of Nigeria and her citizenry. The thrust of most of the reactions is that he made his revelations very belatedly, after the nation had gone, full cycle, through the agony of some of his actions while in office, key of which is the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election. In my opinion, however, it is wrong to accuse IBB of coming with his revelations belatedly simply because of June 12. IBB in his book raised other critical issues that transcend June 12.  As far as I am concerned, he came up with them at the most appropriate time since it gives us a larger ambience to interrogate other acts of perfidy that were committed against Nigerians and their country before and after June 12.

    Minus the fact that many Nigerians miss the amiable and very large-hearted Moshood Abiola – who perhaps would have still been alive today but for that annulment   – I believe that the nation has since put June 12 behind it; especially after the regime of President Muhammadu Buhari wisely decided to recognize him as a former president. We should count ourselves lucky that God kept General Babangida alive up till now. IBB would have had nothing to lose if he had preferred to keep mute till the Almighty Allah takes him away. In other words, Nigeria as a country is the beneficiary since, as I have already pointed out, the book has armed us with materials for a more transcendental interrogation of our collective existence.

    So, much as the reawakening of the emotions over June 12 by IBB’s book is quite understandable, I think that what matters now is to immediately follow up with the revelations of the retired General. We have to immediately embark on a journey towards a true and final reconciliation; to which we have paid lip service  over the years. There was an attempt at that through the Oputa Panel but the opportunity was bungled. In the light of what we now know, thanks to Babangida’s book, we should avail ourselves another opportunity and with all alacrity this time around.

    In making this submission, I am encouraged by the fact that the fellow currently at the helm of affairs, President Bola Tinubu, has demonstrated a tremendous flair for getting at the root of issues. Therefore, apart from the imperatives of his bold and courageous economic reforms, I think that providence is also saddling him with the responsibility of building a new nation.

    Let’s take the civil war, especially the circumstances that led to it. Take specifically the January 15, 1966 military coup and the counter coup of July 29, 1966. Even though a lot has been written before now about the two military coup de’tats that led to the war, I am of the opinion that IBB’s narration is the one we have been waiting for. Take the matter of whether or not the January 15, 1966 coup was an “Igbo coup”. I am of the strong belief that as far as majority of Nigerians are concerned, Babangida’s book has finally laid it to rest. Contrary to what have been bandied for nearly the past six decades, Babangida’s book has shown that it was not an “Igbo coup”, pure and simple.

    Read Also: Nigeria reaffirms commitment to Global Economic Stability at G20 meeting

    This was how IBB put it: “… as a young officer who saw all this from a distance, probably, ethnic sentiments did not drive the original objective of the coup plotters. For instance, the head of the plotters, Major Kaduna Nzeogwu, was only ‘Igbo’ in name. Born and raised in Kaduna, his immigrant parents were from Okpanam in today’s Delta state, which in 1966, was in the mid-west. Nzeogwu spoke fluent Hausa and was as ‘Hausa’ as any! He and his original team probably thought, even if naive, that they could turn things around for the better in the country … It should, however be borne in mind that some senior officers of Igbo extraction were also victims of the January coup. For instance, my erstwhile commander at the Reconnaissance Squadron in Kaduna, Lt-Col. Arthur Chinyelu Unegbe, was brutally gunned down by his own ‘brother’, Major Chris Anuforo in the presence of his pregnant wife … it should also be remembered that some non-Igbo officers like Major Adewale Ademoyega, Captain Ganiyu Adeleke, Lts Fola Oyewole and Olafimihan, took part in the failed coup. Another officer of Igbo extraction, Major John Obienu, crushed the coup”.

    Babangida further pointed out that “those who argue that the original intention of the coup plotters was anything but ethnic refer to the fact that the initial purpose of the plotters was to release Chief Obafemi Awolowo from prison immediately after the coup and make him the executive provisional president of Nigeria. The fact that these ‘Igbo’ officers would do this to a man not known to be a great ‘lover’ of the Igbos may have given the coup a different ethnic coloration…”

    I am relieved by Babangida’s disclosures. They have removed a load on my head with the realization that we can now bring a closure to one particular issue that has militated against our efforts at building a united nation since after the civil war.  Let’s not make any further mistake about it, the wrongful dubbing of the January 15, 1966 coup as an “Igbo coup” is at the very heart of our problem as a nation. That falsehood was what led to the second coup of July 29, 1966 and the subsequent pogrom which Babangida in his book described thus: “…the most horrific killing of the Igbos occurred in different parts of northern Nigeria on September 29, 1966… the killings were frightening” (page 63). If northern elements – both civilian and military – took a revenge on Igbo civilians, whose brothers in the army allegedly staged a coup that led to the death of several of their political and military leaders, the anger was total among the Igbo back home.

    Stories of the pogrom were quite disheartening. I have a personal one. A man, who was popularly known as Bekee in my home town, Okohia, had his pregnant wife killed in his presence; her stomach ripped open and the unborn baby brought out from the womb and smashed. Although Bekee managed to escape and return home, he could not survive the trauma of that experience. The story angered the youths in my area as a result of which several of them – including my very self –  rushed to get enlisted into what was then known as the Boys Company, a branch of the Biafran army. Over 70 per cent got perished in the war.

    Since after the war, caused basically by the falsity of an ‘Igbo coup”, the Igbo have been at the receiving end; and which is why there is a subsisting agitation for a separate country. What Babangida has done is calling on the leadership of the country for a final closure to what seems to be an animosity in perpetuity. If we must mobilize the entire citizenry for nation building, there must be reconciliation. So, rather than doubt his sincerity, Nigerians should see in what IBB has done through his book as a grand opportunity to pursue a new dawn. But for that to happen, some of the major dramatis personnea in that saga should take a cue from there and similarly tell the nation all that they know about that dark era of our history. Take General Yakubu Gowon, for example, who, more than any other living Nigerian, was most central in the events that ensued after the ‘Igbo Coup’.

    Essentially, I would like that General Gowon address Nigerians on the Aburi Accord; why it failed and which some narrators, including Babangida, cite as the final straw that broke the Carmel’s back; that is, the thing that finally led to the thirty-months long civil war. A well-known angle to the story has it that Lt-Col Yakubu Gowon – as he was then known – as head of state of Nigeria reneged on the agreements in the Aburi Accord upon the advice of Northern political leaders who told him that the Accord – which was that Nigeria should go for a structure of a loose federation – was not in the interest of the North.  Let’s take a look at the insights provided   by Babangida in his book:

    “The emergence of Lt-Col Gowon as the new Commander-in-Chief of the Nigeria Armed Forces marked the beginning of the tension between Gowon and Lt-Col Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu. … Ojukwu rejected Gowon’s emergence as Head of State, insisting that in the absence of Aguiyi-Ironsi, the most senior Nigerian Army officer in the person of Brigadier Babafemi Ogundipe, should be Head of State and Commander-in-Chief”.  But that was not to be; and tension rose. According to IBB, it was under these circumstances that Lt-General Joseph Arthur Ankrah, then Ghana’s head of state, “stepped in by suggesting a neutral and safe venue for an actual Reconciliation conference between Ojukwu and the federal government”. Babangida further wrote that that intervention by General Ankrah led to the famous Peace Conference in …Aburi between January 4 and 5 1967 and which resulted in the “famous Aburi Accord”. But that was where the story ended.

    Hear IBB: “in the absence of fully published records from the federal government regarding what transpired at the Aburi meetings, the details of what happened HAVE (emphasis mine) remained speculative. While the published accounts of the eastern Nigeria delegation insisted that an agreement for a loose Nigerian federation was agreed to, the federal government claimed that the agreement reached was understood and seen within the framework of a united Nigerian state… These differences in interpretations were the final trigger for the outbreak of the Nigerian Civil war”.

    Since Ojukwu is no more, it is to Gowon, who was present at the public presentation of Babangida’s book – and even made a speech – that Nigerians should now turn to with the question: “What happened?” Why was the Aburi Accord not implemented; or why did the federal government which he led choose to wallow in ambiguity over the contents of the Accord as clearly stated by IBB? Why was Brigadier Ogundipe, who was the most senior army officer then, not allowed to take over as head of state and commander-in-chief? Fast forward to 1976, after the assassination of the then head of state, General Murtala Mohammed and how almost effortlessly the military hierarchy settled for the then Lt. Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, who was Mohammed’s second-in-command, to take over as head of state and commander-in-chief.

    Babangida recalls: “We knew it would be either General Obasanjo or General Danjuma since as Lt. Generals, they were the most senior… the pendulum swung in favour of General Danjuma at the start of the deliberations. Everyone present, including Obasanjo, thought Danjuma should take over. But somehow, Danjuma cast his lot for Obasanjo, insisting that as Mohammed’s deputy and a ‘senior’ Lieutenant-General, Obasanjo should succeed Murtala Mohammed. Obasanjo refused and offered… to retire from the army to enable Danjuma to emerge as head of state. There appeared to be a momentary stalemate. But that soon faded away. Faced with the insistence of Danjuma, everyone caved in and Obasanjo accepted the challenge to succeed Murtala”.  Going by the above, was Ojukwu, not vindicated on his stance on Ogundipe in 1966?

    The next among the resource fellows in our proposed final reconciliation conference would be former civilian president, Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan. I believe that many Nigerians are aware that in a book released earlier, BOLD LEAP, an autobiography of Senator Chris Anyanwu, she made a revelation which has remained a subject of discussion throughout the country in the past two months or so. Senator Anyanwu had in her book claimed that she got approval from President Jonathan to call in the military to intervene in the 2011 governorship election in Imo state.

    On page 470 of her book, Anyanwu narrated how, at a meeting with Dr. Jonathan in his house in his home town, Otueke, in Bayelsa state, the then president, said “Ok” to her proposal to mobilize the military to Imo state in order to stop me from rigging the governorship election. And as is well known, the military invaded the state in a Gestapo style and unleashed terror on the electorate. The question Nigerians have been asking since after that revelation is, assuming that it was true that I wanted to rig the election, was drafting the military into an electoral process the best way to stop me? Up till this moment, Dr. Jonathan and his handlers are yet to respond to that claim by Senator Anyanwu, a claim that clearly defamed him and poured red ink on his democratic credentials. Like Gowon, Jonathan was present at the launching of IBB’s book. So, to him (Jonathan) also should be directed the question: “What happened”?

    However, he, Jonathan, does not have the liberty of waiting, like IBB, for thirty two years; for the simple reason that Nigerians are eager to come to a closure to the practices and individual idiosyncrasies that constitute stumbling blocks in our match to an enduring democracy. Even so, Babangida’s ‘crime’ is perhaps more pardonable since it was committed in the context of a military regime with June 12 epitomizing the determination of Nigerians to end it once and for all. On the other hand, the perfidy that occurred in Imo in 2011 came eighteen good years after Nigerians had decisively won the battle to install an enduring democracy.

    Overall, Babangida’s book may have evoked angry sentiments of an era that Nigerians would have wished never had been their lot but we now have an opportunity to go the whole log. As suggested by President Olusegun Obasanjo in his speech at the book launch, IBB should not be deterred by the knocks he is receiving for making this patriotic move in the twilight of his life. My friend and brother, Femi Fani-Kayode, who was barely six years old in 1966, could not possibly fault Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, who was twenty four years old and already a commissioned officer in the Nigerian army by the time of the incidents under review. What FFK read as history, IBB witnessed as an event. So, Femi, my brother from another mother, don’t go there.

  • Babangida’s burden

    Babangida’s burden

    By IfeanyiChukwu Afuba

    This is not a review of Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida’s memoir – A Journey in Service publicly presented on February 20. It’s an interrogation of a single item, a claim which though contained in the book, could equally have been made elsewhere, in a different setting. The basis of this engagement is national history.

    Babangida was widely reported to have expressed regret over the fiasco that took over the June 12, 1993 presidential poll. ‘I would later find out that the “forces” led by General Sani Abacha annulled the election’, Babangida wrote in an excerpt from the book. The general is entitled to his views but cannot privatise a national discourse such as the controversial assertion that the annulment of the election was forced on him, Babangida, by then defence chief, General Sani Abacha’s camp.

    Despite the claim of ultimate responsibility attached to the revelation, the narrative tends to lend extenuation to Babangida’s culpability. It stirs up a feeling of exceptional circumstances surrounding the annulment, much of it beyond the control of Babangida. The proposition conjures up image of hawkish officers holding the General hostage to accede to their demand. It speaks of a situation of helplessness on the part of the junta head at the rebellion of his loyalists. The suggestion that flows from this is that of a weak commander-in-chief, a fronted leader without the real power of office.

    This is sometimes true of the power game. Generally, the power circuit is fluid, fluctuating from competitive struggles to shared power and dominance. There comes a time when a ruler concedes some ground to his competitors. This concession, however, is a prioritisation of the stakes relevant to their continued hold on the reins of authority. This was the case in the ousting of Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe as Chief of General Staff in October 1986. Babangida sacrificed Ukiwe’s political balancing for Abacha’s military support. However, in determining to what extent circumstances influences power play, and in this instance, if Babangida was coerced into election annulment, the personality of the power wielder is of utmost importance.

    Read Also: How Oaksvale Homes is on a Mission to Blend Afro-Modern Designs with Smart Property Management in South-East Nigeria

    Babangida described himself as a man “trained to dominate my environment.” This is a statement of pride, of self-assurance, and approval, volunteered some 40 years ago, in review of his military journey. When asked who his heroes were, Babangida mentioned Shaka the Zulu and Hannibal. The answer is one that sets off a beep on the “dominating environment” keyboard. Shaka and Hannibal were historical warriors of great fame. They were renowned as much for their military strategies as their guts. They were men who dared.

    After navigating the mine field of coups and counter coups in two decades of military career, Babangida had a fair idea of what to do with power when he grabbed it. On August 27, 1985, while the tanks still rumbled in the streets of Lagos, he made history as the first coup maker to take the civilian title of president. The political subtlety was lost on many at the time. We will return to this point shortly but let it be said that the paths walked by the armoured corps general do not depict a pliable leader but a character with ambition and resolve.

    Babangida, a calculative student of power, seemed conscious of the fact that he, a fringe northerner, had deposed and succeeded a core northerner on the throne. If the perception was not strong at the time, it was bound to take hold sooner than later. To consolidate the junta’s hold on power, Babangida moved to endear his ruler-ship to the Islamic North establishment. Less than six months into the life of the regime, Nigeria secretly became a member of Organisation of Islamic Countries – as it was then called. It was a deliberate, coded message, which explains why the outrage that greeted the news was ignored.

    Far from being a docile ruler susceptible to public opinion, let alone intimidation by any quarter, Babangida proved himself a long distance runner, once he had set his sights on a target. He employed public relations practices to buy time and invest his decisions with veneer of consultation. The touch of engagement that accompanied the junta’s administration was deceptive. It was a populist hoax. The direction to travel on any issue was settled ab initio in the mind of the junta. Allow a semblance of participation; then the military government makes its pronouncement. And when the government speaks, that is final because we’re not a democracy!

    This gimmickry was at play when the junta asked Nigerians to debate the desirability of taking the IMF loan. It was followed by another futile debate on the country’s political future. On each occasion, the people’s preferences were rejected after elaborate, time and resource – consuming undertakings. This sedating of the public psyche began with the media expose of the Buhari era detention centres. But it was only a short while before the new regime went on its own spree of absolute decrees and arbitrary arrests. In no time, the same detention structures were populated by prisoners of conscience.

    Babangida’s relentless pursuit of power does not jell with the tale of someone conscripted into the June 12 conspiracy. As military head of state, his power was elastic. And he had his way on a wide range of contentious matters. The expression “game of musical chairs” gained currency in that era. It was used by the media to describe the endless shuffle and reshuffle of appointees in government. Ministers, governors, members of commissions and parastatals were hired and fired as it suited the calculation of the dictator. The dispensing and withdrawal of these patronages at will, aided the tracks of loyalty and cult following. Not even the highest governing body was free from the machinations. Decree 17 of 1985 empowered the commander-in-chief to appoint the service chiefs and members of the ruling council. And on February 6, 1989, Babangida dissolved the Armed Forces Ruling Council without a protest from any of the members. It would be dissolved again in 1992 and renamed National Security and Defence Council on reconstitution. The number and individual membership of these bodies were no longer a function of military position held but simply the commander-in-chief’s prerogative.

    By the time of the 1993 presidential election, Babangida was still the dominant power holder. General Sani Abacha had some clout but he was not a popular officer in the military. Babangida had the dual advantage of being in control of the levers of authority and the resources for getting things done. If Abacha and his “boys” bulldozed the annulment through, it was probably because they saw it in accord with both Babangida’s and their own interests. A reading of the circumstances points to the angle that the dictator did not wish a successful conclusion of the election.

    A stalemated or inconclusive poll would be in his favour because he was an unofficial candidate waiting by the wings. This is where we reconnect with Babangida’s adoption of the civilian designation of president on coup day August 27, 1985.

    There were separate disclosures by Lt Col Tony Nyiam and Major Debo Basorun that soon after he mounted the saddle, Babangida commissioned a study on Gamel Abdul Nasser’s switch from military to civilian leadership.

    Moshood Abiola’s victory in the presidential election was a surprise for some, shattering traditional voting patterns. The result was shocking for the conservative political establishment, north and south alike. Although the two party system foisted by the military regime conditioned Nigerians towards novel, alternate choices, the old guard did not expect a level of disruption that would see the NRC candidate, Bashir Tofa, losing his home state of Kano.

    The election outcome was also startling for the junta. Perhaps, there were reasonable grounds for a different expectation from the polls. The two government created parties were regarded as being of near equal strength. If there was any consideration of stronger party, it would be Tofa’s NRC which was in control of 16 states to SDP’s 14 states. Factoring in both regional and personality appeal, not a few analysts were of the view that it would be a close race. An inconclusive exercise would have suited the ‘IBB Should Continue’ campaign led by the Association for Better Nigeria at the time.

    Defending the execution of Mamman Vatsa for coup plotting, Babangida wrote: “I had to choose between saving a friend’s life and the nation’s future.” It was also his contention that the “law and the imperatives of order and national security are overriding.” Curiously, these same ideals were not invoked when it came to the matter of the June 12 election.

    Why were the instigators of annulment not resisted on the overriding grounds of political stability and national interest? Obviously, self-interest stood in the way of resisting the annulment. Abacha may have pushed for the annulment but Babangida tried to take advantage of the situation. In the end, Abacha became the prime beneficiary of the annulment. The burden lies with the duo. Perhaps, Babangida may feel a heavy weight taken off his shoulder after his apologies.

  • IBB didn’t disappoint me

    IBB didn’t disappoint me

    Former military president Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida’s book, ‘A Journey in Service’,  has, predictably, ignited heated debates across Nigeria. Critics argue that he either lied about or glossed over some contentious aspects of his rule—particularly the economic upheaval triggered by his Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), Mamman Vatsa’s killing and the June 12 annulment. His supporters laud the book as an essential account of a leader who navigated Nigeria through a complex era.

    Amid all this discourse, a peculiar sense of surprise lingers, as though Nigerians genuinely expected Babangida to pen a self-condemning memoir. This expectation ignores the very nature of political autobiographies. Rarely—if ever—do former heads of state write books that portray themselves in an unfavourable light. Across the world, such memoirs serve as instruments of legacy-building rather than confessional documents. Political leaders do not author history to dismantle their own reputations; they write to shape how they are remembered.

    Take, for example, Richard Nixon, the American president who resigned in disgrace following the Watergate scandal. In writing RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, he did not dwell on personal guilt but instead crafted a narrative of a misunderstood leader whose choices, though flawed, were rooted in patriotism. Similarly, British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’ justifies his decision to invade Iraq, despite the disastrous consequences and widespread public opposition. Closer to home, former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo’s extensive literary contributions—including ‘My Watch’—paint him as a visionary statesman, often downplaying his own missteps while scrutinising those of others.

    Babangida’s book follows this same pattern. Those who anticipated a mea culpa—an outright admission of economic mismanagement or a confession of personal interest in annulling the June 12 election—misunderstand the strategic purpose of political memoirs. Rather than reacting with shock or disappointment, Nigerians should approach Babangida’s book with the critical lens it deserves. His version of history is but one perspective—one that will inevitably be challenged, scrutinised, and debated. But expecting him to have written an account that dismantles his own legacy was always wishful thinking. If history has taught us anything, it is that it is rarely written by those who lost power in disgrace, but by those who wielded it. Babangida’s memoir was never going to be an exception.

    The excerpts from the memoir that I have read have got me thinking about ‘Badamasi’, his biopic shot some years back by Obi Emelonye. I have a strong feeling IBB or people close to him spoke with the makers of the movie off-record. The portrayal of Sani Abacha in the biopic is in sync with the book’s presentation of the late military leader as the head of the forces against MKO Abiola becoming president.

    In the biopic, initially billed for the cinema on the 28th anniversary of the celebrated presidential poll won by the late MKO Abiola, which IBB shamelessly aborted,but later quietly ‘dumped’ on Amazon Prime, Abacha came out as the ruthless one.

    A tired IBB at some point had to shout on the man he called Khalifa (successor): “Can’t you see what is happening? We have messed up?” But an adamant Abacha replied: “Whatever happens, the election remains canceled”.

    Many coups in the country’s history had this son of Niger playing one major role or the other. IBB was there when Murtala Mohammed overthrew Yakubu Jack Gowon; he backed Muhammadu Buhari to terminate the democratic administration of the late Shehu Shagari; he is also credited with foiling the Dimka coup which killed Murtala Mohammed, and he was not missing in action when Buhari was shown the exit for him to take the crown.

    When he came into power, it was like a messiah had come from unexpected quarters. He behaved as if a friend of the common man was finally manning the purse and fairness would dictate the disbursement of its goodies. He started talking about the rule of law, he was talking about ending poverty, he was talking about human rights, and he was talking about a government with a human face- an obvious criticism of the government he overthrew, which had zero respect for human rights, rule of law and many others.

    IBB followed up his talks by setting up committees to work out the implementations of his ideas. He attracted some of the best brains from the academia, the Bar, and everywhere else. Many were excited about the turn of events and natural critics of government pleaded for the man to be given a chance. It took time for it to become clear that a political Diego Maradona was in the saddle, and he would dribble Nigeria into a tight corner, which, years after, it would be trying to get itself out of. One of the populist moves IBB took was to get his Attorney-General, the respected Egba Prince, Bola Ajibola, to assemble a National Committee on Corruption and Other Economic Crimes. It was chaired by the late Justice Kayode Eso. Its task was defined by its name. One of the suggestions the committee made, as Eso recalled in his book, ‘The Mystery Gunman’, was the enactment of rules against living beyond one’s means. It also sought the establishment of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which I suspect was the root of the one Obasanjo later set up. IBB showered Eso and his committee with encomium when he received their report. He described its recommendations as the real panacea to the ills of the nation and promised to act on them, but the only action he took was to dump the report. If he had not done that, many in his government and his friends would have had their times in jail. Several other populist moves, including the one which gave the impression he was going to be in power for a short period, went the way of the Eso committee. The Maradona was just playing games.

    Read Also: Likely outcome of rebasing the Nigerian economy

    I am happy that in the book Babangida admits Abiola won that election. I don’t know the worth of his claim that given the chance he would have handled the annulment, which he blamed on Abacha-led forces, differently. His use of ‘without my approval’ to pass the bulk on weighty matters of national interests seems in line with his image as the Maradona.

    All in all, I’m not disappointed in him. He has only followed the footsteps of past leaders all over the world to dance around issues rather than face them. 

    My final take:  Leaders do not self-flagellate in print; they reframe history to fit their chosen narrative. If anything, the real story lies not in what Ibrahim Babangida says in ‘A Journey in Service’, but in what he omits—and the gaps he leaves for historians, journalists, and scholars to dissect.

  • IBB’s justification and the ghost of June 12

    IBB’s justification and the ghost of June 12

    Sir: For years, I have read about the election of MKO Abiola, a man who won the freest and fairest election in Nigeria’s history, only for his victory to be annulled without explanation. I have studied the protests, the betrayals, and the brutal dictatorship that followed. And now, 32 years later, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB), the man behind the annulment, has finally admitted what Nigerians have always known: MKO won that election.

    His confession, buried within the pages of his 420-page memoir, A Journey in Service: An Autobiography of Ibrahim Babangida, was revealed at his book launch in Abuja. Former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, who reviewed the book, highlighted this shocking admission.

    “Although I am on record to have stated after the election that Abiola may not have won… upon further reflection and closer examination of all available facts… there was no doubt that MKO Abiola won the June 12 election,” Babangida wrote.

    For many, this is not just a statement, it is a confirmation of a truth that has been deliberately buried for decades. Yet, it raises more questions than it answers. Why now? What does this confession change? And can Nigeria ever truly move past June 12?

    June 12, should have been a turning point. It was the day Nigerians, after years of military rule, chose a civilian president. The election was contested between MKO Abiola of the SDP and Bashir Tofa of the NRC. The results were undeniable: Abiola won with 8,128,720 votes, while Tofa polled 5,848,247 votes, securing the constitutional requirement of one-third of votes in 28 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    International observers hailed the election as transparent and credible. It was meant to be the dawn of a new era. But Babangida had other plans. On June 23, 1993, just as the results were being finalized, he annulled the election without any valid reason. His only justification was that it was done in the “national interest”, a vague phrase that has been used too many times in Nigeria’s history to justify injustice.

    At his book launch, Babangida attempted to justify his actions, “In all matters, we acted in extreme national interest so that Nigeria could survive,” He said. But what “national interest” justified robbing Nigerians of their democratic choice? What “survival” are we talking about? What “national interest” justified plunging Nigeria into five more years of dictatorship? What “national interest” justified the “untimely” death of MKO and Kudirat, and the many who died protesting for democracy?

    These are questions Babangida will never answer. Because, deep down, even he knows there was no real reason behind his decision.

    Read Also: Kuwait targets over 200,000 out-of-school children in Nigeria

    The book launch was attended by Nigeria’s most powerful figures, the very people who have shaped this country. It was not just a book launch; it was a gathering of Nigeria’s power elite, a meeting of those who have ruled and benefited from a system that has repeatedly failed the people. For me, their presence sends a clear message: June 12 was never a defining moment for them. The annulment did not haunt them; it was just politics as usual.

    Well, in 2018, former President Muhammadu Buhari recognized June 12 as Nigeria’s official Democracy Day and posthumously awarded Abiola the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR), a title reserved for Nigerian presidents. This was a symbolic step, but was it enough?

    For those of us born after June 12, 1993, the events may seem distant, yet they remain deeply relevant. The same excuses of “national interest” are still used to defend bad governance. And just like then, justice remains a mirage. Babangida’s confession is too little, too late. It cannot bring back Abiola. It cannot erase the pain of Nigerians who fought and died for democracy. It cannot undo the years of dictatorship that followed. But it does one thing: it forces us to remember.

    History is a teacher, and for those of us who did not witness June 12 first-hand, Babangida’s confession should not be a mere footnote. It should be a warning.

    •Ogungbile Emmanuel Oludotun,<thedreamchaser65@gmail.com>

  • June 12 and IBB’s say nothing book

    June 12 and IBB’s say nothing book

    The real account of the June 12 saga has yet to be given. All that former military leader Gen Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB) did in his book in which he wrote extensively on the subject was to make himself look good and patriotic. IBB did not come clean with Nigerians about what really happened to June 12 beyond rehashing the tales they actually know about the annulment.

    Writing on the subject in Chapter 12, under the title: Transition to civil rule and the June 12 saga, the ‘evil genius’ lived up to his appellation as he danced around the subject, looking for ways to justify the actions he took on the issue. He blamed every other person connected with the election, except himself, for what happened. But as ‘’president and commander-in-chief’’ he told readers that he took responsibility for everything. Who else does he want to take such responsibility?

    His second in command, the late Admiral Augustus Aikhomu, who he tacitly accused of initiating the annulment with a ‘’terse, but poorly written statement on a scrap of paper’’ by the late former number two citizen’s press secretary, Nduka Irabor? Or the then National Electoral Commission (NEC) chairman, the late Prophet Humphrey Nwosu, who he alleged ‘’suspended the June 12 election results ‘until further notice’ without my knowledge or prior approval”.

    The IBB autobiography: A journey in service is replete with such accusations and blame game. Every bad thing was done by a third party, while he was involved in only good deeds. Is this not the same IBB who once boasted that he “is not only in government, but also in power”? Did he not also tell the world that as a soldier, he was”trained to dominate his environment”? How then did he become a weakling in a situation where he was expected to show strength and damn the consequences?

    As shown in his memoir, his authority was challenged time and again by some of his subordinates, especially his friend and ally, the late Gen Sani Abacha, and he never had the nerve to call them to order. According to him, it was not because he was afraid of Abacha, but for the safety of himself and his loved ones. If IBB so loved the country as he claimed in every portion of his book, no sacrifice would have been too much for him to make for his nation. But as he may say, he is not Jesus that laid down His life for the world.

    Where then is the so-called patriotic streak that propelled all he did while in office? He was only patriotic to the point that it benefited him materially. He said he had no pact with Abacha to leave the latter in office when he “stepped aside” on August 27, 1993. Was that a wise decision since he knew how dangerous and power-hungry Abacha was? For a man who had “wanted to violently overthrow” him, IBB did not play the statesman by, so to say, bequeathing Nigeria to Abacha.

    Read Also: How U.S. based Nigerian nurse is changing lives through food pantry

    For all he cared, Nigeria can burn as long as he and his family had their peace of mind. It is a cardinal sin for him to have done that and no amount of whitewashing can cleanse him of it. June 12 was a momentous event and it provided a chance for IBB to leave a lasting legacy after his exit from office. IBB missed the opportunity and posterity will never forget that when the time came for a soldier of his calibre who confronted a coup plotter, Buka Suka Dimka, with barehands and also executed a “loyal and childhood friend”, Mamman Vatsa, for alleged coup, to take Abacha down, his legendary courage failed him.

    There is nothing IBB writes or says about June 12 today that will interest Nigerians until he is ready to come out with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He was a central figure, nay the main character in the saga. Everything about the June 12 election revolved around him. He held, as they say, the knife and the yam and he could cut it the way he liked without anyone challenging his authority. He was not ready to stand up for the country because it seemed he, just as Abacha, had animosity against Abiola which he did not write about.

    As Abiola said of him in the heat of the June 12 imbroglio, with “a friend like IBB, who needs an enemy?” Abiola knew his enemy before he took on the over four-year battle for his mandate that eventually claimed his life in 1998. Today, IBB is shedding crocodile tears for that ‘friend’, and according him the honour he knowingly denied the business magnate while alive. Readers cannot be fooled about the sweet nothings he wrote about Abiola in his book because he was economical with the truth about the events surrounding the June 12 annulment.

    It was obvious even before the election that the poll was going to meet with a bad end. The June 11, 1993 meeting of the National Defence and Security Council (NDSC), to which he unilaterally changed the name of the Armed Forces Ruling Council (AFRC) after he dissolved the nation’s then highest ruling organ, was full of foreboding for the election billed for the next day.

    In a rare press conference, held somewhere in Lagos after the AFRC dissolution, former defence chief, the late Lt Gen Domkat Bali, accused IBB of running “a one-man show”. Prior to the NDSC meeting, the late Justice Bassey Ikpeme had on June 10 stopped NEC from conducting the June 12 election, setting off a chain of reactions, which prompted, among other things, the acrimonious NDSC meeting on the way out, which he recollected in his book.

    The booby traps set for the June 12 election were many. There is no way that IBB can say with his hand on his heart that he was not part of those opposed to the conduct of the election from the outset. The speed at which he sent a United States (US) diplomat, Michael O’Brien, packing for issuing a statement that postponement of the poll would be unacceptable to America was alarming. It portrayed IBB as having his own agenda for the election and in the fullness of time, the nation saw the result. If Babangida is serious about laying to rest the ghost of the June 12 saga, he should be bold enough to do full disclosure.

    At 83 going to 84, there is nothing for IBB to fear again. He has, as they say, seen it all. What the people want from him is a fair and accurate account of the June 12 poll annulment, and not this tale of how he was boxed into a corner to accept what others wanted in order to allow peace to reign in the military, and by extension the country. It is good as a leader for him to take responsibility for the action of his then subordinate, Abacha, who he claimed annulled the election.

    But taking responsibility is not the same as being the one who annulled the poll. Or did he? His honest response is the only way to bring closure to the June 12 saga. If he needs to write another book to do that, why not? So far, the truth comes out.

  • Why Nigeria intervened in Liberia’s civil war, by Babangida

    Why Nigeria intervened in Liberia’s civil war, by Babangida

    Former military President Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida has revealed that Nigeria’s intervention in Liberia’s civil war was driven by the need to safeguard the economic and political stability of West African nations.

    In his latest memoir, A Journey in Service, Babangida disclosed that as Chairman of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) during the crisis, he mobilized regional leaders, particularly Ghana’s then-President Jerry Rawlings, to support Liberia.

    He emphasized that Nigeria, given its strategic position in the sub-region, possessed the necessary demographic strength, human and material resources, and military expertise to take action. With major world powers showing little interest in the conflict, Babangida said Nigeria had no choice but to step in and prevent further humanitarian disaster.

    “The end of the Cold War diverted the attention of major Western countries from crises and conflicts in parts of Africa. The United States, whose direct interest Liberia was, occupied centre stage in the drama and consequences of the end of the Cold War. As it were, history had thrust on Nigeria a responsibility to look out for our neighbours in the face of a self-inflicted political and economic crisis. It was Nigeria’s moment, and we seized it, converting adversity into national success.

    “As a leader, I have always believed that national power is meaningless if it cannot be projected to stabilise the nation’s immediate neighbourhood. Liberia allowed our administration to do two noble things simultaneously: restore peace in a neighbouring country in difficulty and project our national power in an area of immediate national influence.”

    According to Babangida, “As I watched the Liberian situation degenerate into a carnage that had consumed a fellow African country in an avoidable civil war, I felt a compulsion to use the mechanism of ECOWAS to intervene in the Liberian crisis, which had degenerated into a bloody civil war. The casualties of both Liberians and other West Africans were mounting by the day. 

    Read Also: Gender mainstreaming key to reducing civilian casualty during conflict, says NDC commandant

    “Law and order had been lost while the contenders for power supremacy were consumed in a contest for just power. As a the Chairman of ECOWAS, I urged my colleagues to agree to set up a mediation mechanism with a monitoring mechanism that had a military capability to enforce the will of the sub-regional body. This led to the setting up of ECOMOG as a monitoring and enforcement monitoring mechanism.”

    Babangida recalled in his book that the internal political and historical complexities that produced the Liberian crisis were too nasty to engage attention, but stressed that it was the responsibility of ECOWAS’s regional authority to intervene to seek to restore order, save lives, ameliorate the humanitarian disaster, and stabilise the strategic equilibrium of the West African sub-region.

    Although he noted that many political watchers in the sub-region misinterpreted the military intervention in Liberia, alleging that the regional leaders were trying to protect the interest of the then Liberian leader, late Samuel Doe, unknown to them that he was thr obstacle to the peace of the country.

    Babangida on pages 182 to 191 in his autobiography wrote: “When we decided to intervene militarily in Liberia, some observers misinterpreted it as an attempt to save Samuel Doe, which was far from it. I was fully aware that Doe was an obstacle to peace. He was bitterly divisive and was detested by key political figures in Liberia. But he was still in power. We needed to convince him to extract himself from the scene for peace to reign. But we needed to combine political pressure and an appeal to his self-interest. I often spoke with Doe about the need for a more negotiated crisis resolution to enable a political solution. 

    “Unfortunately, Doe was too inexperienced to understand the complexity of the situation he found himself in. He seemed more interested in clinging to power even though he had largely lost his hold on power. In the ensuing confusion, he came to a gruesome end. All that we could do was to extract his assailant, Yormie Johnson, from the Liberia scene and grant him temporary exile in Nigeria for saner Liberians to proceed with the task of the political resolution of the conflict.”

    The former maximum leader maintained that the commitment of ECOWAS to the peace in Liberia was aimed at restoring order and end the bloodletting and humanitarian disasters enveloping the country. 

    “The ECOMOG intervention was in pursuit of these larger objectives. We intervened and stabilised the situation. Hostile forces like Charles Taylor were isolated and stopped in their tracks. 

    “In pursuit of these objectives, I must acknowledge the singular support of my friend, President Jerry Rawlings. He shared my vision of regional stability and the responsibility of countries like Ghana and Nigeria, which had the resources and stature to act as agents of stability in the sub-region. His military background was an asset in the operational aspect of the ECOMOG. “

    Admitting that though the civil war in Liberia did not end before he “step aside “, Babangida recalled that, “we had laid the foundation for the return of peace, order and democracy in that country. Above all, we had primarily ensured that the resolution of the Liberian crisis would not be achieved on the battlefield. Our message was clear: those interested in contesting for power in Liberia should seek peaceful means. 

    “The administrations after ours retained the ECOMOG initiative and used it as a basis for the complete resolution of the crisis and the eventual return of democracy and democratic order to Liberia. Nigeria even had the responsibility of training and equipping a new Liberian national military force at the end of hostilities.”

  • Maradona IBB cannot dribble Nigeria again over June 12 annulment, says Onjeh

    Maradona IBB cannot dribble Nigeria again over June 12 annulment, says Onjeh

    Former All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate for Benue South senatorial election, Comrade Daniel Onjeh, has called for the immediate arrest and prosecution of former Military President General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB) and his accomplices for their role in the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential poll.

    In a strongly worded statement, Onjeh condemned IBB’s recently launched autobiography, “A Journey in Service,” describing it as a deliberate attempt to rewrite history and evade responsibility for one of Nigeria’s greatest democratic betrayals.

    He criticised Babangida’s half-hearted apology, stating that the former military ruler conveniently shifted blame onto deceased figures who are no longer alive to challenge his version of events.

    “IBB had a chance to show remorse and make amends for the damage he inflicted on Nigeria’s democracy, but instead, he chose to insult our collective intelligence. He dribbled around the truth, just like his nickname ‘Maradona’ suggests. Nigerians will not be deceived again,” Onjeh declared.

    The former Chairman, Governing Board of the Projects Development Institute (PRODA), Enugu, compared Babangida’s autobiography to the James Hadley Chase novel, “The dead stay dumb,” arguing that the book attempts to control the narrative through selective storytelling. 

    Read Also: Gender mainstreaming key to reducing civilian casualty during conflict, says NDC commandant

    Onjeh noted that IBB’s account conveniently absolves himself while placing the blame on deceased figures such as Chief MKO Abiola, General Sani Abacha, Prince Arthur Nzeribe, Justice Bassey Ikpeme, Prof. Humphrey Nwosu, and others.

    He further expressed outrage that high-profile Nigerians attended the book launch and donated large sums of money to a so-called “IBB Presidential Library,” while our public libraries, schools and other public institutions are left in dilapidation.

    “What exactly is IBB preserving? A legacy of deception, betrayal, and stolen mandates? It is a slap in the face of democracy-loving Nigerians that such a man still enjoys reverence,” Onjeh fumed.

    The former President of the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) insisted that the annulment of the June 12 election was not merely an abuse of power but an outright treasonable offense. 

    He maintained that IBB and his co-conspirators must face justice for subverting the will of millions of Nigerians who voted for MKO Abiola in what remains Nigeria’s freest and fairest election.

    “No statute of limitations should shield IBB and his cronies from facing justice, as time doesn’t run against crime. If we are serious about democracy, then actions must have consequences. 

    “The global community must also act by sanctioning IBB and freezing any ill-gotten assets stashed abroad. A coup against democracy must never go unpunished,” Onjeh stated.

    The former President of the West Africa Students’ Union (WASU) described June 12 as a powerful symbol of Nigeria’s democratic struggle. 

    He recalled how millions of Nigerians transcended ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic divides to cast their votes for a leader they believed in.

    “The June 12 election was a unifying moment in Nigeria’s history. It proved that Nigerians could set aside their differences and unite for a common cause—only for IBB to crush that hope overnight,” Onjeh lamented.

    He further noted that many student leaders, pro-democracy activists, and journalists lost their lives in the struggle to reinstate MKO Abiola’s mandate, while countless others were imprisoned, tortured, or forced into exile.

    “As one who voted in that election, and also has a record of activists martyred in the frontline of the pro-democracy struggle during that era, I can never forget the sacrifices of our comrades. The blood of our fallen heroes will continue to cry out for justice,” Onjeh vowed.

    Onjeh, who was also the APC 2023 Senatorial Candidate for Benue South, outlined the following demanded immediate arrest and prosecution of IBB and his accomplices for treason, arguing The annulment of the June 12 election was an act of subversion against the Nigerian people, and those responsible must be held accountable.

    He also called for full compensation for the victims of the June 12 struggle, including families of those who lost their lives, as well as those who suffered unlawful imprisonment and other damages, must be identified and duly compensated.

    He further demanded official recognition of MKO Abiola as a former President of Nigeria, arguing while President Muhammadu Buhari took a commendable step by awarding MKO Abiola the GCFR title and declaring June 12 as Democracy Day, more must be done, Abiola must be recognised in all official records as a former President and Commander-in-Chief, and his family must receive all benefits due to former heads of state.

    The former Chairman, Governing Board of PRODA also challenged IBB to come clean on the controversial $12.4 billion Gulf Oil Windfall. 

    He accused Babangida’s administration of gross mismanagement of the huge revenue Nigeria earned during the 1990-1991 Gulf War, noting that a probe by the Pius Okigbo Panel indicted the regime for financial recklessness.

    “For decades, Nigerians have demanded answers, but all we get is silence. Where did the money go, and who benefited? Since IBB is suddenly in a confessing mood, he should answer these burning questions,” Onjeh charged.

    Onjeh maintained that no amount of historical revisionism can absolve IBB of his crimes against democracy. While Babangida may attempt to portray himself as a misunderstood leader, the reality remains that his annulment of June 12 set Nigeria’s democracy back by decades.

    “History will judge IBB, but so should the law. Nigeria must not be a country where impunity thrives. If we are truly a democratic nation, we must act now. Babangida and his accomplices must face the full weight of the law. Anything less would be a betrayal of the ideals that June 12 represents,” Onjeh stated. 

  • Babangida’s memoir of deflections

    Babangida’s memoir of deflections

    Sir: For those of us who did not live through General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida’s rule as full-grown adults, history is what we inherit from those who tell it. And now, with his book, A Journey in Service, Babangida hands us his version, one where he is the hero, and the villains are conveniently absent.

    In his autobiography, the man known as Maradona deftly dribbles through the narrative, presenting himself as the protagonist, even as the memoir is riddled with contradictions, historical revisions, and self-exoneration. While the book gives us an insight into his leadership style, it fails to reconcile these revisions with the realities of history.

    One of the most glaring contradictions in the book is Babangida’s account of the June 12, 1993, election annulment. He claims that the decision was not his alone but was forced upon him by elements within the military, particularly the late General Sani Abacha. However, this version conflicts with previous interviews where he took full responsibility for the annulment, citing concerns about national security and political instability. His claim of being outmanoeuvred by political forces rings hollow when we consider the lives lost, the democracy derailed, and the chaos that followed.

    If Babangida was truly eager to hand over power, why did his every action, from manipulating party structures to installing an interim government, suggest otherwise?

    Similarly, his defence of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) is another example of selective memory. Babangida argues that SAP was a necessary reform that encouraged local industry and stabilised Nigeria’s economy. However, in previous statements, he admitted that SAP led to inflation, widespread job losses, and economic hardship. His insistence that SAP was self-initiated rather than imposed by the IMF contradicts available records showing that Nigeria was pressured into adopting IMF-backed policies. The devastating impacts of SAP in the rising unemployment, currency devaluation, and worsening poverty, remains one of the most contentious aspects of his legacy.

    Read Also: EU Backs Nigeria’s 90,000km fibre-optic expansion, digital economy boost

    Another significant area where Babangida’s account lacks authenticity is in his discussion of the 1966 coup. In an attempt to dismiss the widely accepted belief that the coup was Igbo-led, he claims it was purely an act of a few young officers without ethnic motivation. However, he concedes that his perspective might be speculative. And speculation, by definition, is not history. If there is no concrete evidence to challenge the well-documented accounts of the coup’s ethnic dimension, why does he attempt to rewrite it? Is this a genuine re-examination of history, or a strategic revision to suit a new narrative?

    Also, throughout the book, Babangida carefully creates the image of a leader burdened by difficult decisions, rather than one actively shaping Nigeria’s political and economic trajectory. He downplays the authoritarian aspects of his rule, including press suppression, political assassinations, and corruption scandals, while presenting himself as a misunderstood reformist. General IBB’s attempt to reframe history, particularly regarding June 12, SAP, and the 1966 coup, reads less like a candid memoir and more like a strategic attempt at historical revisionism.

    Of course, the lingering question remains: Why did Babangida wait over three decades to tell his story? He finally speaks, but many of those who could have countered his claims, MKO Abiola, Abacha, Arthur Nzeribe, Clement Akpamgbo, Justice Bassey Ikpeme, Justice Dahiru Saleh, Abimbola Davis (ABN Director of Operations), Prof. Omo Omoruyi, Prof. Humphrey Nwosu, and Vice Admiral Augustus Aikhomu (whose press secretary announced the annulment, purportedly without Babangida’s approval), are no longer alive to challenge his narrative. Is it any wonder, then, that history in this book appears one-sided?

    The ancient Greek historian Polybius once said: “The purpose of history is not the same as that of tragedy, but rather its opposite. Tragedy must startle and entertain its listeners in the present moment by using the most persuasive words, even if they are false. History, on the other hand, must teach and persuade for all time, using only the truth. In tragedy, the ruling principle is deception; in history, it is truth.”

    Babangida’s memoir may pretend to be history, but in many ways, it reads more like tragedy, where the protagonist tells his own version of events, and those who could challenge him are long buried. History is not just the past; it is a map of the past, meant to guide the present. The real question now is: Shall we let the hunters write the final story, or will we demand the truth before it is too late?

    •Folorunso Fatai Adisa, United Kingdom.

  • Forces led by Abacha annulled June 12 without my authorisation – IBB

    Forces led by Abacha annulled June 12 without my authorisation – IBB

    Former Military President, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida(IBB), has finally opened up on the nation’s adjudged freest and fairest June 12 election.

    Though Babangida, while speaking at the public presentation of his book, ” A Journey in Service” admitted responsibility for all that happened under his eight- year rule, he shed more lights on the intrigues behind the annulment of the election acclaimed to have been won by Chief MKO Abiola, the defunct Social Democratic Party (SDP) presidential candidate.

    The former maximum leader noted in the book that he was away in Katsina to commiserate with the Yar’Adua family over the death of Alhaji Musa Yar’Adua, only for the him to be informed  the June 12 election had been annulled.

    In the book, Babangida admitted that the annulment of the election was contained in “a terse, poorly worded statement from a scrap of paper, which bore neither the presidential seal nor the official letterhead of the government, annulling the June 12 presidential election.”

    Exonerating himself from the annulment, Babangida on page 275 of his book admitted that the annulment was only a component of a series of other options.

    Read Also: HEIRS Energies charts path to boost Nigeria’s oil production growth

    According to him: “But to suddenly have an announcement made without my authority was to put it mildly, alarming. 

    “I remember saying: ‘These nefarious inside forces opposed to the elections have outflanked me! I would later find out that the ‘forces’ led by General Sani Abacha annulled the elections.

    “There and then, I knew I was caught up between ‘the devil and the deep blue sea’!! From then on, the June 12 elections took on a painful twist for which, as I will show later, I regrettably take responsibility.”

    Babangida also regretted in the book how the fallout of the annulment of June 13 divided the military hierarchy in 1993.

    On page 276 of his book, Babangida said: “Within the military leadership, there was palpable outrage. The best of us, like Lt. General Salihu Ibrahim and Major General Ishola Williams were alarmed and Colonel Abubakar Dangiwa Umar threatened to resign. 

    “Even Admiral Aikhomu, whose press secretary, Irabor, had announced the annulment , was horrified. The public vilified me. Instigated, among other things, by elements within the Armed Forces, the Nigerian press called me all kinds of names and described me as a power-drunk dictator who desperately wanted to cling to power.”