*Insists lessons from June 12 have not been learnt
*Ishola Williams counters Babangida, says he prepared Abacha to succeed him
Chuks Okocha in Abuja and Wale Igbintade in Lagos
The controversy surrounding the former military President, retired General Ibrahim Babangida’s memoir continued yesterday as the family of the winner of the June 12, 1993, presidential election, the late Chief MKO Abiola, led by Mr Kola Abiola, has stated that the memoir, ‘A Journey in Service’, has reopened painful memories of the tragic events of the annulled election.
The Abiola family insisted that the lessons from the annulled June 12 election have not been learnt.
A former Commander of the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), the think-tank of the Nigerian Army, Major General Ishola Williams (rtd), has also countered Babangida’s claims in the memoir, insisting that the former military president had groomed the late General Sani Abacha to succeed him before his controversial annulment of June 12, 1993.
This is just as an ex-Minister of Culture and Tourism, and Aviation, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, defended Babangida’s account of the June 12 crisis and challenged those who disagreed with it to present counter-evidence.
In a statement issued yesterday, Abiola expressed the family’s disbelief at how long it took Babangida – 32 years – to publicly acknowledge what the world already knew—that MKO Abiola won the 1993 election.
“It took the former military President, General Ibrahim Babangida, an incredibly long 32 years to confirm what the whole world knew all along—that Bashorun MKO Abiola won the 1993 presidential election,” Kola said.
Kola added that since the memoir’s launch, there have been growing calls for a response from him as the head of the Abiola family.
Abiola pointed out that in June 1993, many people were either not yet born, very young, or lacked a clear understanding of the facts surrounding the presidential election.
He emphasised that the trauma and devastation of that period, which united so many families, resurfaced with the release of the book.
Abiola also noted that the June 12 election’s significance extended beyond just his family, stressing that many other families were directly impacted by the annulment, and numerous lives were lost in its aftermath.
He highlighted the enduring effect on Nigeria’s unity and economic development.
Abiola stated that his family must take more than a cursory glance at the confirmation of known facts, and carefully consider the public’s response.
He said for these reasons, his family has decided to take additional time before issuing a full response.
While describing himself as an active participant in the campaign, the election, and the subsequent fight to protect his father’s mandate, Abiola said he was not sure whether Nigerians have truly learned any lessons from the tragic events of June 12.
“There were so many other families directly affected and lives lost as a result of the annulment, not to mention the profound impact on the unity and economic development of our great country, Nigeria, to date.”
Ishola Williams Counters Babangida, Says He Prepared Abacha to Succeed Him
Meanwhile, an insider in the intrigues surrounding the annulment, Gen. Williams, who was one of those mentioned in Babangida’s 420-page memoir, has countered Babangida’s account.
On page 296 of the book, where Babangida described the reactions that trailed the annulment of the election, he wrote: “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.”
But narrating what transpired, Williams stated that Babangida had prepared Abacha to succeed him before he annulled the election.
Williams, who was a guest of Inside Sources, a socio-political programme anchored by Laolu Akande, explained that the interim government headed by the late businessman, Chief Ernest Sonekan, was just a ruse.
The retired general, who resigned after the annulment, said he attended a meeting of generals with Babangida and Abacha in attendance where the plan was hatched.
According to him, “General Babangida forgot to mention that he used to call General Abacha the ‘Khalipha’ (an Arabic word meaning one who leads with competence and wisdom), which meant that he was encouraging Abacha to succeed him.
“And to a certain extent, in my conversation with General Babangida, just before he stepped aside, one midnight in Minna, he could not answer a question that I asked him: ‘Did you have a blood oath with Abacha that he would succeed you?’
“I asked him that question but he refused to answer. In Minna, one-on-one, at the Presidential Guest House in Minna.
“Before that, there was a group of civilian governors in his regime that came to visit him and encouraged him not to hand over power. It was when they left that I asked him the question and told him not to mind the governors, that the best thing is for him to leave.”
Williams said he wrote a letter to Babangida in August 1993 to the effect that the best thing for the military to do was to hand it over to civilians.
“I told him that we were preparing to receive him in Minna with full military honours after he stepped aside. And I did that. I was a Commander in Minna at that time. “He came to Minna with his wife. Many officers came with him. These officers knew that he had stepped aside but put pressure on him to appoint a new CDS (Chief of Defence Staff) and service chiefs.
“He (Babangida) appointed new service chiefs and when those ones came to tell me, I said you are not going to last very long. Shortly after that, General Abacha flew in, met with General Babangida in his house and when he came out, he changed all of them (service chiefs).
“There was a meeting before the Interim National Government where officers from Brigadier General and above of the Armed Forces met in the Villa. The late Attorney General, Clement Akpamgbo was the only civilian at the meeting.
“When the discussion started about June 12, I was alarmed and I said: ‘What are we discussing? I thought we came here to discuss the handover process?’ Gen. Abacha was sitting to my right and in between us was General Diya. General Abacha said ‘Ishola don’t talk like that’ but I said we should be discussing handing over, not annulment. On what basis will the election be annulled? But nobody answered me.
“It was only General Ikonne who supported me. By that time, the election had not been annulled yet but the election had taken place.”
General Williams said a decree for an interim government was designed at the meeting by Babangida.
“I said we don’t need the transitional government but it was ruled out. The whole decree was planned in such a way so that Abacha could take over,” Williams alleged.
Babangida Deserves Praise, Not Condemnation, Fani-Kayode Insists
However, Fani-Kayode has defended Babangida’s account, insisting that the former military President showed humility and remorse while taking “full responsibility” for the annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election.
In his article, “A Book That Stirred A Nation”, Fani-Kayode stated that Babangida should be commended, and not condemned, for shedding light on the darkest chapters of Nigeria’s history.
He noted that the former military president’s acknowledgment of the pressures that led to his decision, particularly from the late General Sani Abacha, played a significant role in the annulment of the June 12 election.
While objecting to the harsh criticisms targeting Babangida, he explained that the former military president’s public reflection on the event was not an attempt to make excuses, but rather an effort to provide context for historical accuracy and clarify the individuals and circumstances behind the controversial decision.
He said some critics have labeled Babangida a “coward” and “weakling” for revealing the role of General Abacha in the annulment, contending that this criticism is misplaced.
Fani-Kayode emphasised that Babangida was caught between a difficult decision and chose to preserve the fragile unity of the country.
He also invited those from the Abacha camp who disagreed to share their perspective, stressing that until they provided evidence to dispute Babangida’s account, many would be inclined to accept his narrative.
