By Abiodun KOMOLAFE

June 12, 1993 marked a significant setback for Nigeria, harking back to the January 15, 1966, coup-detat. This unfortunate event pushed the country back by at least a century, primarily due to the suspension of the 1963 Republican Constitution. Although the masterminds behind the coup never explicitly stated that they had abolished the constitution, the consequences of its suspension continue to manifest in Nigeria’s persistent underdevelopment.

Ayo Ademiluyi, a civil rights lawyer and political activist, recently pointed out that the General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida government, similar to previous and succeeding military administrations, was characterized by diarchy. This system of governance, which combines the military top brass and parts of the political establishment, was more pronounced under IBB, as Babangida is known, than any other military administration. This diarchy was on full display during the publication and public presentation of a book, titled ‘A Journey in Service: An Autobiography of Ibrahim Babangida’, and fundraising for the Presidential Library, where startling revelations about Babangida’s military rule came to light.

A gentleman on the podium stated that he and others present owed their success not to entrepreneurial spirit, but rather to state capture and favours. In contrast, entrepreneurs like Adeola Odutola, Louis Odumegwu Ojukwu, and Aminu Dantata from the previous era achieved success through genuine entrepreneurial zeal and innovation. Unfortunately, under Babangida’s regime, state favours became the primary means of economic advancement,
leading to a society that is uncompetitive.

The concept of state capture, which originated in South Africa, was exemplified in Nigeria during the IBB era. However, for Nigeria to make progress, it should focus on promoting entrepreneurship among its citizens. Notable examples include Bayo Ogunlesi of Global Infrastructure, Olugbenga Agboola, Iyinoluwa Aboyeji and Adeleke Adekoya of Flutterwave, as well as Shola Akinlade and Ezra Olubi of Paystack. The new generation banks, led by
individuals like Atedo Peterside and Fola Adeola, are also worth mentioning. Instead of promoting entrepreneurship, the IBB book presentation unfortunately celebrated an era marked by “man-know-man” and “padi padi” arrangements, commonly referred to as state capture. This approach will not make Nigeria competitive, create much-needed jobs, catalyze growth, or achieve sustainability.

One of the most troubling aspects of the June 12, 1993, election saga is how Babangida inadvertently relinquished his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. By refusing to uphold the mandate of the free and fair election, Babangida exhibited a cowardly cop-out, as noted by Reuben Abati in his column. Abati’s critique, however, stopped short of drawing a more profound conclusion. A more incisive analysis would have contrasted
Babangida’s actions or inactions with those of Chile's democratically elected President Salvador Allende Gossens, who made the ultimate sacrifice for his principles on a fateful night in 1973. In a tale of two leaders, Salvador Allende, a medical doctor-turned-president, stood in unambiguous contrast to General Ibrahim Babangida, who rose through the military ranks. When faced with a coup, Allende’s commitment to his people and his mandate was unwavering. Despite an American plane waiting to whisk him to safety, he opted to fight

alongside his Chief of Staff and eleven ministers, refusing to give up their mandate. It’s one of the most remarkable arts in recent political history. So, who’s a ‘General’? Allende, a trained medical doctor, or Babangida, who entered the army straight from secondary school? Lieutenant Colonel Adekunle Fajuyi’s ultimate sacrifice for Major General JTU Aguiyi-Ironsi during the 1966 military coup in Nigeria also exemplified the enduring power of loyalty and duty in the face of overwhelming adversity. So, there’s no point in blaming General Sani Abacha, Augustus Aikhomu and others, who are no longer here to defend themselves; and dead men tell no
tales! What’s more?

IBB has simply shot himself in the foot, for, certainly, he has not presented himself as a Commander-in-Chief!

The entire book presentation was clearly a jarring celebration, utterly disconnected from the somber reflections that events like the Holocaust or Soweto Massacre demand. As Peterside aptly noted, such tragedies cannot be commemorated amidst joviality. This is a very bad taste, which should not have happened. In sane climes, the occasion would have been an opportune moment to establish a Trust Fund for the countless individuals who suffered
irreparable losses – lives, limbs, and livelihoods – due to the annulment. Many of these brave
souls are still alive, struggling to rebuild their shattered lives.

In this context, President Bola Tinubu, himself a victim of the annulment, has a unique opportunity to make amends. By setting up the Trust Fund, he can provide long-overdue rehabilitation and support to those who risked everything for democracy. This gesture would honour their sacrifices while allowing him to forge his own path, distinct from the shadows of the past, and create a more just and compassionate society. The last word is that, June 12,
1993, allowed the genie to escape from the bottle. All manners of long dormant and suppressed agitations came out of June 12 across the six geopolitical zones and the political will to resolve these issues has still not been found.

In his 1852 book, ‘The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon’, Karl Marx famously remarked: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” As Marx pointed out, and as Babangida demonstrated, June 12, 1993, was a tragic event and the scars are still showing with broken limbs, disrupted lives and people suddenly becoming orphans. On the other side of the coin, the book presentation and the launch of a proposed Babangida
Presidential Library was a pure farce.

Now that the book presentation has again highlighted the shame of a country, IBB can still hold his head high, not because of any personal merit, but because Nigeria’s flawed system often enables leaders to deflect accountability. This phenomenon is deeply ingrained in our national psyche, where the failures of leaders are frequently downplayed or even celebrated. Here, our justice system remains defective, yet society inexplicably applauds it. Nigeria’s
complexities are well-known to those familiar with our unique brand of “Nigerians” – a reality marked by pervasive shock, anxiety, uncertainty and chaos. Our nation has become a contested territory, where the lives of countless individuals are being squandered amidst this turmoil.

IBB’s ‘invented’ excuses have been a means to an end, but the question remains: what is that end? Now that he has exhausted his justifications for past inadequacies, what’s next? This raises questions about accountability and the lack of genuine introspection. But, wait a minute, the attendance of notable figures like Yemi Osinbajo, Nigeria’s former Vice President, and Bola Tinubu, the current president, at IBB’s event is also perplexing. While Tinubu's presence might be attributed to diplomatic obligations, Osinbajo’s attendance is harder to justify, given his reputation as a democrat. Moreover, Tinubu’s participation in the laugh-it-off competition
with the evil genius, a man often regarded as one of Nigeria’s most notorious leaders, is
particularly jarring.

Agreed, the dead are dead, and nothing can be done about that again! Twenty-six years after Nigeria’s return to democracy, it is essential to reflect on the sacrifices made by individuals like Abubakar Umar, who relinquished their military commissions, and others like Ambassador Musbau in Mushin-Lagos, who went totally blind during the agitations, all in support of the June 12 movement. How does the democratic system honour their memory and sacrifices? A certain former warlord reportedly advised Abacha to “hang” MKO Abiola, the winner of the
June 12, 1993, presidential election, for treason. Ironically, his wife is now a Minister in Tinubu’s cabinet!
So, ‘eni tó kú ni tiè gbé! Indeed, he who is dead has lost it all!

May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!

*KOMOLAFE wrote from Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State, Nigeria ( ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk

By Mike Ozekhome

I have carefully read and listened to former Nigerian military president, General Ibrahim Badamosi Babaginda’s public remorse and regrets over the atrocious annulment of the June 12,1993 presidential elections. He did this 32 whopping years later. I want to very quickly say that it takes a man with strong guts and balls and a man who has become repentant, born again and has seen the face of God to publicly recant his earlier wrongful deeds and offer public apology to the entire nation. This was no doubt meant to heal gaping wounds and balm wounded and bruised hearts.

The polls, the best, most transparent and credible elections, ever held in Nigeria till date, were meant to end decades of military d The annulment threw Nigeria into turmoil and widespread unrest, protests, maiming and killings. This forced Babaginda to “step aside”; the enthronement of the Ernest Shonekan’s Interim Government; and the arrest and detention of Chief Moshood Abiola, the presumed winner who later died in Aso Villa in questionable and suspicious circumstances.

Of course, General Sani Abacha who was his second in command later sacked Shonekan in a bloodless coup.

For years, IBB prevaricated on the annulment, claiming he did it in the best national interest. But on Thursday the 21st of February, 2025, Babaginda during the presentation of his memoirs, “A journey In Service”, pointedly regretted in the public: “I regret June 12. I accept full responsibility for the decisions taken and June 12 happened under my watch. Mistakes, missteps happened in quick succession. That accident of history is most regrettable. The nation is entitled to expect my expression of regret.”

And wait for it: he acknowledged for the first time that Abiola won the elections fair and square, trouncing his major opponent, Alhaji Bashir Tofa.

I want to salute Babaginda for having the courage and humility to own up like a man; that everything that happened during the June 12 crisis took place under him as the head of state and the president who was also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

I salute him for acknowledging that his government which actually organised unarguably the freest, fairest and most credible elections in the electoral history of Nigeria when it introduced option A4 from electoral books that were hitherto unknown to Nigeria or to the world.

But unfortunately, regrettably like he now admits, he again turned around to annul the same elections in a way that was most bizarre, curious and unnatural. To me, that he has come out to open up to doing something wrong and egregious to a bleeding nation should be appreciated.

I believe that Nigerians should forgive him because to err is human and to forgive is divine (Eph 4:32). I personally have now forgiven him because I was also a victim of the June 12 crisis.

It threw up all manner of challenges to me as a person, where in my very youthful age; in my thirties, I found myself marching on the streets of Lagos every day – from Ikeja bus stop roundabout, to Ikorodu road; up to Tejuosho market; from there to Ojuelegba, Surulere; to Mushin; to Shomolu and Igando, Alimosho.

Everyday, we were on the streets, protesting the mindless annulment. Some of us were killed in process; some were lucky enough to escape abroad on self exile. But some of us- very few indeed- refused to flee our dear country; we stayed back.

We stared at the military eyeball to eyeball. We challenge authority and spoke truth to power. We challenged impunity and repression. I suffered several detentions across different detention centres.

I virtually could not find means of livelihood for my youthful family because I was profiled, my phones bugged and no briefs were coming in. But I personally forgive him because it takes tons of guts to make public confession of having erred and atone for same as he has now done.

It is confession that leads to penance and penance leads to restitution and then forgiveness. If Babaginda were to die today, I believe that he will see the face of God because he has prayed God to forgive him; and he has prayed Nigerians to forgive him.

Beyond that historic and epochal mistake of the annulment of the June 12 election which constitutes his original sin, let me place it on record that Babaginda is one of the greatest presidents that Nigeria ever had in terms of his ingenuity, rulership mantra; ideas for national resurgimento; ideas that contributed greatly to nation-building.

These were aside the IMF-induced loans and pills which he introduced and which we again valiantly fought against successfully.

Babaginda it was who gave birth to the Federal Capital Territory and laid the solid foundation for virtually everything you see there today. His government was peopled by intellectuals and not by half illiterates and quacks. He recognized and used intellects.

He was luminous and he built bridges of understanding, friendship and brotherhood across Nigeria. Nigerians, please, accept IBB’s confession and forgive him his sin of annuling the June 12,1993 elections. Let the wounds heal; let the heart melt; and let the spirit of national triumphalism prevail.

By Azu Ishiekwene

Many years ago, when my son was completing paperwork for a job with the Lagos State government, he was required to fill out a form that included his State of Origin. He paused.

It had been marked a compulsory field, and he wanted to know if not filling it would affect his chances. I said it would. He replied that he wouldn’t fill it, even if it meant losing the job. It didn’t make sense to him that his chances might come down solely not to his competence, merit, or the fact that he was born in Lagos where he has resided all his life – but to the state where he is from.

He didn’t fill it and didn’t get the job, though I cannot remember if there were other reasons. Nigeria is the only country I know where a citizen or resident is compulsorily required to fill out their state of origin and local government and provide details of their forbears to the fourth and fifth generation as a basis for getting a job or contract.

In the beginning
It’s mainly a public sector thing – the sector that has been our blessing and bane. In its original form, “state representation,” apart from being a core unit of the federation, was also supposed to be a form of affirmative action. It was supposed to be a tool to encourage fair representation and protection, especially for ethnic minorities. The colonial government laid the foundation with the Sir Henry Willink Commission in 1957 to examine the agitation of minorities on the eve of Nigeria’s independence.

But like all good things politicians touch, they have managed to debase it. It’s convenient to argue that it was not politicians but the military that started it. States have been created five times since former Head of State General Yakubu Gowon created 12 from the four regions in 1967 to weaken Biafra.

But Gowon did it at the behest of politicians, as has every other military leader after him, including military President Ibrahim Babangida, who loved it so much he did it twice.

Growing obsession
Nigeria has since grown from 12 to 36 states. Former Head of State General Sani Abacha delivered the last set of sextuplets of states in 1996. Yet, the urge for more has not only become a national pastime. It is perhaps the next single biggest obsession of politicians after “budget padding”, a practice that permits lawmakers to inflate the annual appropriation bill to gratify themselves.

All 10 National Assemblies since 1999 have never failed to mention and pursue the creation of more states. Committees on state creation have travelled the country at substantial public expense, selling new states as the snake oil to “marginalised” communities.

At the end of such jamborees, including the collection of tonnes of memos that only feed the public a false hope, the politicians leave expectant communities high and dry until the following memo collection by a new set of politicians who lie to themselves that state creation is the medicine for social injustice. Not exactly true.

Not a joking matter
State creation is a serious business. For example, the request for a new state in Nigeria must be supported by at least two-thirds of the representatives from the area, from the councils to the state and National Assembly.
That’s the first step. After that, it must undergo a referendum that must be ratified by a simple majority of all the states in the federation and by a simple majority of members of the National Assembly. Military governments in the country created states without much resistance because of their unitary command and control structure. Even at that, deadly disputes among splintered states lingered and still linger on for years.

The assets-sharing dispute between Kano and Jigawa states lasted 18 years, while the boundary dispute between Cross River and Akwa Ibom continues after 38 years, with many lives lost. The Oyo-Osun post-state creation clashes rank high on the violent dispute ladder, stoking agitation for the creation of the New Oyo State. The case between Bauchi and Plateau remained a low-intensity dispute that later morphed into ethnoreligious clashes.

States abroad
It’s not for nothing that none of the world’s most prominent federations, such as India, the US, Canada, or Brazil, has created a new state in the last 50 years. This is not because of a lack of demand or because these countries have no ethnic minorities who feel endangered. Instead, they are evolving ways of managing their diversity that reduce the salience of statism as a basis for social justice, such as prioritising merit and competence.
Agitation for more states remains a recurring problem in Nigeria because politicians have managed to frame it as perhaps the most viable route to development – the channel connecting neglected communities to Abuja’s drunken sailors.

Many governors have praised state creation not necessarily for the opportunities they have created from the exercise by looking inwards but because of their access to Abuja’s monthly pie. For being a state, however miserably governed, Nigerian states are entitled to 26.72 percent of the monthly revenue from the federation account, which can run into billions of naira. Among politicians, the lust for a share of this pie or monthly allocation is at the heart of the relentless demand for new states.

Making it 67?
The House of Representatives’ bill to create 31 additional states to bring the number to 67 is a joke. As far as demands for new states go, the most rigorous effort in the last 20 years was in 2014, when President Goodluck Jonathan’s government set up the National Conference to discuss mainly structural issues facing the country.
The conference recommended 18 additional states to bring the number to 54. The main arguments were the arbitrariness in previous exercises by the military. In the case of the South-East, the point was made that the region has remained maliciously underserved in political representation, making it look like a continuation of Nigeria’s Civil War by other means.

A fundamental difference between the conference’s recommendation and others before and after it is the suggestion for six equipotent zones (with the same number of states), which would form the basis of the federating units with the centre. The conference further recommended that each zone could create more states if it deemed desirable and could finance it.

An unlikely adventure
There was no final agreement. “My experience at the conference,” Chief Ajibola Ogunshola, one of the members representing the South- West, wrote in a paper in 2017, “suggests that it is highly unlikely that the establishment of zonal governments now or in the near future can be achieved through voluntary, peaceful negotiations.”

It’s even more unlikely now that the Federal Government is almost broke and only four of the 36 existing states are solvent. A 2023 report by the public sector transparency watchdog, BudgIT, said 32 states relied on Federal Allocation for at least 55 percent of their monthly revenue.

What matters
Are politicians genuinely interested in social justice, inclusiveness and development for their communities? They must look beyond the random creation of new states, quotas, privileges and other forms of affirmative action, often a disincentive to merit, resourcefulness and innovation.

States are not in short supply, yet because of primordial greed, the campaign for more will not abate until each of Nigeria’s 350 ethnic nationalities has one. Politicians know the difference between greed and necessity but will not dare to make the right choice. They earn a living by feeding their communities false hope