Buhari’s June 12 proclamation and the vilification of Obasanjo (2), by Majeed Dahiru

Like Abiola who didn’t compromise his June 12 mandate while in detention, Obasanjo similarly didn’t compromise his hard line stands against the oppressive regime of Abacha by going back on his advocacy for democratic rule in Nigeria. While Obasanjo was in prison for his pro-democracy advocacy, Buhari was seated pretty comfortably on the seat of the chair of a well-funded social intervention agency, the Petroleum Trust Fund, PTF.
Between November 1993 and June 1998 when Abacha ruled Nigeria, the June 12 actualization movement had been substantially reduced to Southwest affair. This was not because the Southwest excluded other Nigerians but because other Nigerians excluded themselves particularly the north. The Abacha regime in which Buhari featured prominently had succeeded in polarising the country along ethno-geographic fault lines to discredit the entire June 12 mandate. The indoctrination throughout Northern Nigeria that June 12 was now a ‘’Yoruba’’ affair was successfully carried out with fascist precision. Key actors that were part of the makers of June 12 mandates, prominent among whom was Abiola’s running mate, Babagana Kingibe had pulled out of the struggle and pitched tent with his fellow Kanuri brother, Abacha. By 1998, June 12 was now a taboo not to be advocated for in public in northern Nigeria. Abiola the hero of the collective mandate had been reduced to a villain in the eyes of many. The Abacha regime was also successful in re-opening the age long rivalry between the ‘’Yoruba’’ and ‘’Igbo’’ using the June 12 saga as a tool. Five years after June 12 election, it was as though Nigerians outside the South West regretted that momentary unity of political purpose that defined Abiola’s June 12 mandate.
The animosity between the ‘’Arewa’’ and ‘’Yoruba’’ nation was so intense that the conservative north opposed the clamour for power shift from North to South; a move that was being contemplated in the build to the transition from military rule to civil democratic governance by 1999. In due recognition of the fact that June 12 had become a South West agenda, progressive leaders from other geo political zones of the Nigerian federation acquiesced in principle to the pacification of the ‘’Yoruba’’ nation by ceding the presidency to them. In doing this, the choice of the Obasanjo candidacy was very crucial in the behind the scenes negotiations for a successful pan Nigerian power shift agenda. A majority of power brokers within the military and the legion of non-June 12 actualization [not to be mistaken for anti-June 12] democrats were swayed to accept power shift because of the choice of Obasanjo as the candidate. Therefore, Obasanjo was as much a beneficiary of Abiola’s martyrdom as much as he, ‘’Yoruba’’ and Nigerians were beneficiaries of his impeccable nationalists’ credentials, which distinguished him as a statesman that can be trusted to hold a nation together in times of deep divisions.
Upon his election as president in 1999 by a pan-Nigerian mandate that even excluded his own home region of South West, Obasanjo could not have acceded to the demands for June 12 to be made democracy day by a section of the country. The clamour for June 12 to be designated as democracy day didn’t enjoy the needed popular support among the generality of Nigerians from other geo-political zones. Obasanjo who enjoyed a pan-Nigerian mandate cannot be seen to be pandering to ethno-geographic sentiments that June 12 struggle has been reduced to.Therefore; Obasanjo was pragmatic to have designated May 29, every year as democracy being the date the fourth republic was inaugurated. Any attempt to honour Abiola or declare June 12 as democracy day would have inflamed passions especially in the northern part of Nigeria whose influence within the military was overwhelming. Obasanjo didn’t create this situation, Buhari’s friend and ally Abacha did. Even today, the decision to declare June 12 as democracy day cannot be said to enjoy popular support among Nigerians as only six out thirty six states of the federation are commemorating that fateful day as democracy day. Not pandering issues that were regarded as ethno-geographic sentiments will enable Obasanjo to carry out more expedient far reaching actions that will stabilize Nigeria’s nascent democracy.
Obasanjo’s purge from the military of politically exposed officers of mostly northern extraction that posed existential threat to democracy because of their penchants for power grab through was a more pressing move than declaring June 12 as democracy day. By this ingenious move as an experienced former military leader, Obasanjo was able to provide a protective cover for Nigeria’s infant democracy from mortality. Proclaiming June 12 as democracy day and symbolic honouring of Abiola while purging the northern dominated army would have been politically inflammable. Obasanjo followed this up by establishing the Human Rights Violation Investigation Commission in June 1999 popularly known as the Oputa panel. Oputa panel was roughly fashioned after South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation commission. This initiative by Obasanjo is one of his uncelebrated efforts to unravel the truth about the circumstances surrounding the annulment of June 12 as key witnesses publicly exposed those behind the saga. The numerous cases of gross human rights violation and murder of pro-democracy activists following the annulment of June 12 under the Babangida and Abacha regimes were revealed in gory details. For the first time the suspected killing of Kudirat Abiola by agents of the Abacha regime was confirmed in graphic details.
In addition to these revelations, the Obasanjo administration faithfully continued the criminal prosecution of the suspected killers of Kudirat Abiola in order to serve justice on the dead. These suspects included former CSO to Abacha, Hamza Mustapha, former chief of army staff Ishaya Bamayi, former commissioner of police Lagos state command James Danbaba, former military administrator of Zamfara state Jubril Yakubu and former head of Anti-riot squad Aso villa CSP Rabo Lawal.
Interestingly, all these efforts and more evoked resentment among northerners towards Obasanjo. The conservative north that was a prime beneficiary of the Abacha regime held Obasanjo with deep animosity for what they described as his political and economic destruction of the north. Soon, the clamour for a return of power to northern Nigeria became a populist anthem throughout the region.
By 2003, a forceful attempt will be made to wrestle power from the South West by the conservative north through the platform of ANPP, an offshoot of the APP; a northern conservative party that was commonly referred to as the Abacha People’s Party. The man who was the standard bearer of this attempt to truncate the power shift arrangement arising from the martyrdom of Abiola was current President Muhammadu Buhari. On this occasion Buhari’s demonstration of insensitivity towards the touchy issue of June 12 and the need to pacify the South West with the Obasanjo presidency was in brazen display. Therefore, to vilify Obasanjo for not symbolically honouring Abiola, while praising Buhari who by held him (Abiola) in contempt, stood shoulder to shoulder with his tormentors and attempted to truncate the power shift agenda arising from the martyrdom of Abiola because his recent desperate opportunistic symbolic honouring of Abiola on the eve of his re-election bid smacks of mischief.
Obasanjo’s skilful stabilization of the polity between 1999 and 2007, which led to the first successful civilian to civilian democratic transition and subsequent seamless transitions that have nurtured Nigeria’s democracy to maturity is the greatest honour done to Abiola. To reduce the essence of Abiola’s martyrdom to a symbolic recognition while discountenancing genuine efforts to sustain democratic governance in Nigeria is a dishonour to his glorious memory.