By David Simeon
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s connection to the historic June 12, 1993 presidential election, which is widely considered the most credible in Nigeria’s history, has resurfaced in national discourse. This follows his recent claim of being the “custodian of the June 12 legacy,” a title that has stirred public debate over both his contributions and his current policies.
Quite early in his career, Tinubu served as a senator and he was an active figure within the Social Democratic Party (SDP), as at then, Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola was its presidential candidate. The elections, which were later annulled by military governor, General Ibrahim Babangida, saw Tinubu as one of the few prominent voices who publicly rejected the action.
As the years followed, Tinubu emerged as a notable member of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), a civil resistance group formed to oppose military dictatorship and demand the validation of Abiola’s mandate. Tinubu, as at the time, resisted the military regime where he reportedly used mobile phones to discuss with the press undercover.
Military insiders and pro-democracy activists later revealed that Tinubu financed resistance efforts from exile by selling personal property in the United Kingdom, including an inherited residence. These resources supported overseas advocacy efforts and training of Nigerian democracy activists.
However, his role in the June 12 movement has not escaped criticism. Detractors, including Kola Abiola, son of MKO, have questioned whether President Tinubu has done enough to honour the lesser-known figures who risked their lives during that era. June 12 is now officilly recognised as “Democracy Day” that was designated during President Muhammadu Buhari’s tenure.
Concerns have been raised by political analyst as regards the weaponised usage of the June 12 narrative as political marque. In as much that Tinubu’s involvement in the movement is undisputed, analysts criticize that the core values that the movement held in the first place should as well be reflected in today’s governance.
As Nigeria continues to wrestle with these questions, it should be taken to note that the past has already been written and what matters most are attending to present responsibilities.