The Nigerian Presidency has firmly rejected recent statements by former Jigawa State Governor, Alhaji Sule Lamido, who alleged that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu supported the annulment of the landmark June 12, 1993, presidential election—an election widely regarded as the freest and fairest in Nigeria’s democratic history.

In an official response issued on Sunday, Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, denounced Lamido’s claims as entirely untrue, labeling them a deliberate attempt to rewrite the historical record. Onanuga characterized Lamido’s comments as falsehoods aimed at undermining President Tinubu’s longstanding pro-democracy credentials and contributions to Nigeria’s return to civilian rule.

Lamido Accuses Tinubu, Alleges Support for Annulment

During a televised political interview, Sule Lamido alleged that Bola Tinubu only gained national relevance after joining the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), a group known for opposing military rule and fighting to reinstate the annulled June 12 election. He further alleged that Tinubu’s mother, the late Alhaja Abibatu Mogaji, mobilized Lagos market women to support the military-led cancellation of the election result that saw Chief Moshood Kashimawo Abiola as the winner.

Lamido’s remarks suggested that both Tinubu and his family may have sympathized with or supported the military government’s decision to annul the vote—a claim that triggered swift condemnation from the Presidency.

Presidency Responds: “Allegations Are Baseless and Misleading”

In a detailed rebuttal, Onanuga insisted that the assertions were not only fabricated but contradicted widely documented historical facts. He emphasized that Alhaja Abibatu Mogaji, the highly respected market leader, never endorsed the annulment and would have lost her influential position in Lagos had she taken such a stance.

“Let it be stated without ambiguity: Alhaja Mogaji did not and would never have encouraged support for the annulment of a free and fair election,” Onanuga declared. “Her position as the head of market associations in Lagos was built on integrity and trust. Suggesting that she acted against the people’s will is utterly baseless.”

He added that although Mogaji had friendly ties with former President Ibrahim Babangida prior to the election crisis, those ties did not extend into the period of democratic sabotage. “Their relationship was cordial at one time, but she did not support the injustice that followed the 1993 elections,” he said.

Accusing the Accuser: Lamido’s Role Under Scrutiny

In a strong counteroffensive, Onanuga redirected attention to Sule Lamido’s own political record during the June 12 crisis. As the then National Secretary of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), the political platform under which Abiola contested and won, Lamido allegedly failed to take any firm stand against the military’s decision to annul the election.

“Lamido, along with then-party chairman Chief Tony Anenih, shamefully capitulated to military pressure,” Onanuga noted. “Rather than resist the injustice, they aligned themselves with the defeated National Republican Convention (NRC) and effectively aided the dismantling of Abiola’s democratic victory.”

He stressed that this betrayal marked the beginning of a painful chapter in Nigeria’s democratic journey—one in which those expected to fight for justice chose self-preservation over national interest.

Tinubu’s Senate Record Contradicts Lamido’s Allegations

To further disprove Lamido’s claims, the Presidency cited historical records of Tinubu’s outspoken opposition to the annulment during his time in the Senate. In a session held on August 19, 1993, Tinubu openly described the annulment as a “civilian coup,” urging fellow lawmakers and the public to resist the military’s subversion of democracy.

“These words were not whispered in private,” Onanuga said. “They were proclaimed boldly on the Senate floor. Tinubu stood firm when it mattered the most—unlike others who remained silent or colluded with the regime.”

He added that Tinubu’s actions went beyond rhetoric. The future president actively supported protests, contributed funds to resistance movements, and later became a founding member of NADECO. When the political climate became perilous, Tinubu chose exile over compromise, continuing his advocacy from abroad.

Tinubu’s Defiance During Abacha’s Military Takeover

The statement also revisited the events following the installation of General Sani Abacha as head of state on November 17, 1993. After Abacha seized power and dissolved all democratic institutions, including the National Assembly, Tinubu and several other senators refused to be silenced.

“While others accommodated Abacha’s dictatorship, Tinubu and a few courageous senators, including Ameh Ebute and Abu Ibrahim, regrouped in Lagos to demand accountability,” Onanuga recalled.

That bold move led to their arrest by security forces. Detained at the infamous Alagbon facility, Tinubu remained unshaken. Even in detention, he funded and coordinated pro-democracy demonstrations across Lagos, including a blockade of the Third Mainland Bridge.

“These are not the actions of a man who supported annulment,” Onanuga remarked. “They are the footprints of a patriot who placed country over comfort.”

The Misuse of Analogies: The ‘Jesus and Judas’ Remark

Onanuga also responded to Lamido’s interpretation of a past analogy in which President Tinubu referenced biblical figures. Lamido had insinuated that Tinubu was equating himself to Jesus, suggesting others were betrayers like Judas Iscariot.

Dismissing the interpretation as twisted and mischief-laden, the Presidential Adviser clarified that the President was merely drawing a general lesson from history—that betrayal can come from within, often by those closest to us.

“The statement was never self-aggrandizing. It was an observation about the realities of political life,” he clarified.

Final Words: “Respect Historical Facts”

Concluding the statement, Onanuga urged Sule Lamido to cross-check historical events before making public declarations, especially on sensitive national issues.

“History is not a toy for political actors to reshape at will,” he warned. “President Tinubu’s contributions to Nigeria’s democracy are verifiable and widely respected—both domestically and internationally.”

He further reminded Nigerians that the journey to democracy was not achieved overnight, and that many like Tinubu endured immense personal sacrifices—including arrest, exile, and persecution.

Broader Implications of the Dispute

This controversy reignites debates over the June 12 election, an event that remains symbolic in Nigeria’s struggle for democracy. As the country continues to navigate complex political terrain, the integrity of its historical records and the credibility of those who shaped its democratic path are more critical than ever.

While political disagreements are expected in a democratic society, many observers believe that rewriting history for political gain risks eroding the collective memory of a nation and dishonors the sacrifices of those who fought for freedom.

In this regard, the Presidency insists that the facts speak for themselves—and they portray President Bola Tinubu as a bold and unwavering defender of the democratic mandate that June 12 represents.