Romanticisation And Fate Of June 12 -By IfeanyiChukwu Afuba

After a long spell of suppression and muted expression, the June 12 beat was loudly played last week. Indications of a resurgence, however brief and modified, had begun in 2008 with release of Humphrey Nwosu’s book, Foundation of Nigeria’s Democracy, which detailed full result of the June 12, 1993 presidential election. Passage of time had probably taken the sail out of the former National Electoral Commission’s disclosure while the detachment of an umpire robbed it of sensationalism. A lull followed until Mohammed Buhari’s recognition of the date as Democracy Day in 2018, in the third year of an otherwise provincial presidency. Beyond the announcement of national honours for the presidential pair of MKO Abiola, Babagana Kingibe and activist lawyer Gani Fawehinmi, the regime took no further interest in any evaluation of the historical movement. And suddenly, the June 12 celebration was back. The subject received it’s greatest prominence this season in the hands of President Bola Tinubu. The President’s address to the National Assembly was in part about the significance of June 12; a point amplified by the dominance of this year’s national honours by a list of June 12 activists. However, the romanticism of June 12 does not change it’s substance as transition vehicle from military to elective rule. The package of June 12, from it’s pan – Nigerian mandate to the struggle for it’s validation does not equate democratisation.

Seeking to situate the subject in the context of Fourth Republic government and politics, the President addressed the fear of subjugation of opposition parties. The assurances against one party monopoly were built around his June 12, progressive profile. “At no time in the past, nor any instance in the present, and at no future juncture shall I view the notion of one party state as good for Nigeria. A one party state is not in the offing. Nor should it ever be.” The President went further to emphasise the perceived centrality of June 12 in Nigeria’s democratic journey and nationhood. “Let us rededicate ourselves to the ideals of June 12; freedom, transparent and accountable government, social justice, active citizen participation and a just society where no one is oppressed.” Like Tinubu, Wole Soyinka is another apostle of the June 12 gospel. The 1993 presidential election is held up as Nigeria’s freest and fairest poll yet. For this reason, Soyinka and others saw the earlier adoption of May 29 as Democracy Day, a desecration of the democratic hallmarks of June 12. The Nobel laureate who renounced a national honour from the Babangida junta and rejected another by the Jonathan presidency, welcomed this year’s honour by Tinubu on account of it’s June 12 pedestal.

The Guardian, June 16, 2025 stated that Soyinka
described the national honours as a “thematic honours list” that aligned with the spirit of the pivotal movement, dedicating his own award to the memory of the late human rights icon, Beko Ransome-Kuti. In what represents an avowal on the democratic wealth of June 12, The Guardian’s story quotes Soyinka as describing those who trivialise the achievement as “the real enemies, the worst kind of enemies of democracy.”
As is often the case with romanticisation of causes, the content of June 12 has been exaggerated. It continues to be described in hyperbolic terms, perhaps inadvertently, but in misguided effort to assert it’s enduring relevance. The fact however is that interpretation of the June 12 experience had long been taken out of context by many an activist. The June 12 mandate was never actualised. Having not been put to test of democratic culture, it’s absurd to ascribe democratic standards to a mere electoral outcome. At best, June 12 was a putative national election devoid of violence. There is no way of determining with certainty what kind of governance it would have yielded. While a winner emerged, it’s economical to keep positing that the exercise did not have flaws. The election was as controversial as the aftermath was predictable.

The June 12 poll took place against the background of what later emerged as a self succession plan gone wrong. General Ibrahim Babangida’s long transition programme tasked the patience of Nigerians with their constant revisions, arbitrary regulations, policy somersaults and pseudo democratic processes. These contradictions were seen in many aspects but more glaring in the cycle of ban, unbanning and rebanning of categories of politicians from participation in the Third Republic transition. Defying rationale in the context of democratic principles, the bans only made sense in the ambit of self succession. The pretext of cleaning the Augean stable was not just hollow but self dismissive by the regime’s notoriety for political, ethical and financial corruption. Compounding an already alienating transition, the junta suddenly invalidated the political associations that had mobilised for registration as political parties. It proceeded to introduce by fiat a two party structure on the polity. The imposition of two artificial political parties, against a strong tradition of multi party system, were both distorting and restrictive.

Preceding the June 12 election was the razzmatazz of newbreed political class. Babangida was a man who loved novelty; who saw uniqueness as an assured way to stamp his name on the pages of history. He side – stepped the conventional Supreme Military Council for Armed Forces Revolutionary Council. The Babangida – led junta chose the catchy expression Structural Adjustment Programme for it’s economic reforms. Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure was another ringing name. On the very day he seized power, Babangida jettisoned the barracks – nuanced precedent, Head of State for the civil authority of President. At the time, nobody probably thought anything of it; just like the calculation behind the card of newbreed was initially lost on many. A notable exception was the radical lawyer, Gani Fawehinmi, who consistently maintained that there was a “hidden agenda” playing. It turned out that the ascendancy of the newbreed to leadership was considered a softer, safer route to self succession. With the wealthier, more mature, and more experienced old brigade politicians out of power by ban, they would be ineffectual opposing the civilianisation plan. Older generation politicians exercising reins of power would have proved a harder nut to crack. Conversely, the “newbreed” by reason of being neophytes would be more pliable to the general’s power game. Towards a firmer grip on the “newbreed” political elite, the National Assembly was divested of meaningful legislative authority with Decree 53 of 1992. Still, the plots did not end there. To further render the newbreed aristocracy vulnerable to manipulation, the National Assembly was starved of funds. Confronted with the endless intrigues of the ambitious general, Nigerians were persuaded on the need to get rid of the dictator. It was this desire to be free of an irritant rulership in particular and military rule in general that paved the way for June 12.

June 12 electoral victory was not about Abiola’s democratic credentials or some ethos of civic purity that some proponents love to trumpet. Abiola’s stint in politics was as a chieftain of the Second Republic National Party of Nigeria. The NPN brand was widely viewed as transactional politics, one further eroded by the adversarial stance against revered Yoruba leader, Obafemi Awolowo. Abiola’s past undermining of his kinsman Awolowo would ordinarily have robbed Abiola of local political goodwill. At the national level, Abiola’s hobnobbing with the military was well known. His record as a beneficiary of the long years of military rule should have counted against his candidacy. These baggages did not work against him because there was little or no other option. The alternative candidate and political party were considered even closer protege of the military. Abiola had garnered some goodwill as a philanthropist but not as a democrat. The tipping point was the converging quest for end of military rule. This underlining feature of the June 12 momentum also explains the extreme difficulty of restoring the mandate, post annulment. With the emergence of stiff opposition to the election outcome, the non political public disengaged from the push to validate the poll. For much of the population, there was nothing binding about the June 12 election. It was one more electoral process truncated by a desperate junta in search of survival. In the circumstance, the struggle for affirmation of the mandate revolved around ethnic constituencies, partisan circles and of course activists who saw the annulment as an affront. The flanks of June 12 agitation continued to be depleted. Even before the tragic death of Abiola, a fresh election was increasingly seen as solution to the problem.

It’s therefore difficult to see the basis on which the June 12 election is projected as Nigeria’s most profound socio – political development. Management of the June 12 struggle did not exemplify the values it proclaimed. What judgment was demonstrated by the reliance on Sani Abacha, for presidential power, given the general’s orientation and antecedents? And how come that in the bargaining with coup generals, not one June 12 proponent from the southeast, not even Sam Mbakwe, Agunwa Anaekwe or Chukwuemeka Ezeife, was taken into confidence? In any case, the so – called ideals of June 12 are reflections of citizen consciousness which have occurred at other times in varying degrees. Citizen participation and broad national support was equally displayed in the 1999 presidential poll. In spite of establishment opposition, Mr Peter Obi achieved pan Nigerian acceptance in the 2023 presidential election. The question to pose is why if June 12 was such a sacrosanct milestone, many subsequent elections, including the 2023 edition, were conflict – ridden, sharply disputed? And the state – capture trend of Nigeria’s government and politics is not about to change yet. Palace mentality of elective office continues to frustrate service – accountability demands of public service. The contraption of governorship sole administrator, legislative rigging of two – thirds resolution standard with voice vote, abandonment of federal character in project location and appointments are few instances of sharp contradictions of the June 12 testament. Relevance to realities on the ground, not dogmatic celebration, determine the utility of pursuits.