society
June 12, 1993: The Day Democracy Was Promised. Then Stolen!!
June 12, 1993: The Day Democracy Was Promised. Then Stolen!!
By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by SaharaWeeklyNG.com
“They voted. Power panicked. History remembers. Three decades on, the ghost of June 12 still haunts Nigeria’s democracy.”
June 12, 1993, should have been the beginning of a new chapter in Nigeria’s modern history, a peaceful transfer from military rule to a democratically elected civilian president. Instead it became the day the state reneged on its word, the day a legitimate popular verdict was extinguished by the brass of power. The annulment of that election did more than deny one man the presidency; it punctured the fragile hopes of an entire nation and set Nigeria on a grievous detour that cost lives, liberties and decades of political trust.
The vote itself was, by all credible accounts, decisive. Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (M.K.O.) Abiola, the Social Democratic Party’s candidate, SDP won a clear nationwide plurality, with unofficial tallies putting him well ahead of his rival, Bashir Tofa of the National Republican Convention, NRC. The results made Abiola the first candidate in modern Nigerian history to assemble a truly cross-regional coalition, carrying the southwest and large tracts of the north and middle belt. Unofficial tabulations commonly cited put Abiola’s share near 58 percent against Tofa’s roughly 42 percent. These figures, reported by independent observers and later compiled by historians and news outlets, left little doubt about the will of the electorate.
Yet that mandate was never honoured. On 24 June 1993, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB), the country’s military ruler, announced the outright annulment of the election, citing irregularities and legal technicalities. The announcement was more than a bureaucratic reversal; it was a renunciation of popular sovereignty. The National Electoral Commission had begun releasing state-by-state results; civil society groups, foreign observers and the citizenry at large had accepted the outcome as the genuine expression of the people. To nullify that expressed will was to signal that POWER, not LAW or CONSCIENCE, would write Nigeria’s political future.
The consequences were immediate and brutal. Protests erupted across the southwest and in other cities; security forces responded with deadly force. Independent human-rights investigations documented mass arrests, press closures and a systematic campaign to silence dissent. Human Rights Watch, in its contemporaneous reporting, described the post-annulment months as a hardening of repression (“hundreds arrested and press muzzled”) and traced how the regime’s maneuvers culminated in renewed military domination and the eventual rise of Sani Abacha. The democratic promise of 12 June was replaced by a night of state-sanctioned fear.
It is tempting to reduce June 12 to a story about one man or to an arithmetic of votes. The annulment lit a torch that illuminated fault lines and truths about Nigeria’s political order. Firstly, the military’s professed “TRANSITION” was always precarious; power retains habits and the guardians of order are often the last to relinquish it. Secondly, civic cohesion had matured enough to cross ethnic and regional barriers; millions voted not for parochial advantage but for national possibility; and Thirdly, when the state violates the most basic democratic compacts, the price is paid in legitimacy and human life. Scholars who studied the period later characterized the annulment as the climax of a failed transition and a deliberate, avoidable betrayal. Peter Lewis, writing on Nigeria’s failed transition, concluded that the annulment irreparably undermined the trust that a durable democratic order requires.
Over the long arc of history, however, the memory of June 12 refused to die. The struggle for recognition of that mandate became a moral and political rallying point for activists, lawyers and the bereaved. Chief Abiola’s eventual declaration of himself as the rightful president in 1994 (and his subsequent arrest and detention) turned him from an ELECTORAL VICTOR into a MARTYR for DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY. His death in custody in July 1998 seared the issue into the national conscience and foreshadowed the end of the Abacha era. The narrative of June 12 thus transformed from a tale of theft into an enduring assertion that the people’s choice must count.
International reaction to the annulment was swift and unequivocal; governments suspended aid, international organizations condemned the action and a global spotlight shone on Nigeria’s betrayal of democratic norms. Yet external pressure, while symbolically important, could not substitute for internal repair. That repair required accountability (an honest accounting of how and why a transition was broken) and institutional reforms that would render future annulments impossible. For a time, Nigeria’s political institutions lay weakened and hollowed, susceptible to the predators of authoritarianism.
Time, ironically, has helped vindicate the moral core of June 12. In 2018 the Nigerian state (belatedly) took the symbolic step of renaming Democracy Day to June 12, acknowledging the election’s place in national memory. Even Ibrahim Babangida, in later years, publicly expressed regret about the annulment, admitting that the election had been free and fair; “A RECOGNITION THAT CAN NEVER UNDO THE PAST” but does confirm the original truth of the vote. Still, symbolic gestures are only the start; institutional guarantees are the remedy.
So what does June 12 teach us today? Firstly, that democracy is not merely a schedule of elections but a system of rules, norms and respect for outcomes. When leaders treat elections as optional, they invite cycles of instability that corrode development and human dignity. Secondly, the legitimacy of a polity rests on its willingness to accept inconvenient truths, including the possibility of losing power. Thirdly, the people’s memory is a political force. The tens of thousands who marched, protested, litigated and mourned after June 12 ensured that the event became a permanent reference point for claims to justice and reform.
Finally, if June 12 is to be more than a commemorative date, Nigeria must translate memory into measurable reforms and transparent electoral administration, an empowered and independent judiciary, protections for the press and a security apparatus subordinated to constitutional authority. Without these, anniversaries become mere ceremonies and history becomes a mourning ritual instead of a blueprint for progress.
June 12, 1993, remains a wound and a promise. It is a wound for the lives lost, the liberty denied and the democratic years squandered. It is a promise because millions of Nigerians made a deliberate choice for inclusion, reform and national cohesion. A choice that, despite the state’s betrayal, has continued to haunt and eventually to guide the nation’s democratic restoration. To honor June 12 is to insist that no future annulment can ever again stand. It is to demand that the people’s voice be the final arbiter in a nation still searching for government by consent.
“They voted. The Army stole it. Three decades later, Nigeria still pays the price.”
– George Omagbemi Sylvester
*New Electoral Act Or Self-Coronation in Disguise?*
By Gbenga Shaba
Nigeria’s democracy has taken a dramatic turn with the signing of a new Electoral Act by Bola Ahmed Tinubu, following its passage by the National Assembly. At the heart of this new law is the complete removal of the delegate system, otherwise known as indirect primaries, as a method for political parties to choose their candidates. For decades, party delegates played a decisive role in determining who emerged as flag bearers. That era has now been brought to an abrupt end.
Under the new legal framework, political parties are left with only two recognised options for selecting candidates. The first is direct primaries, where every registered party member is entitled to vote in choosing the party’s candidate. The second is consensus, an internal agreement process in which aspirants voluntarily step down to allow a single candidate to emerge. By abolishing indirect primaries, the law eliminates the traditional system where a small group of selected delegates decides the fate of aspirants.
Supporters of the reform argue that this marks a shift toward internal democracy. The principle of one member, one vote gives broader participation to party faithful and reduces the influence of powerful blocs that once controlled delegate lists. In theory, it expands political power beyond a privileged few and places it directly in the hands of grassroots members. For many ordinary party members who previously had no voice during primaries, this could represent a significant opportunity.
However, critics see deeper political implications. They warn that while direct primaries appear more democratic on paper, the process could be easily influenced by those who control party registers and structures at the national level. Concerns are also being raised about the practicality, cost, and transparency of conducting nationwide direct primaries across all political parties. Without strong safeguards, the promise of wider participation may not necessarily translate into fairer outcomes.
Ultimately, the removal of delegates from party primaries represents a fundamental restructuring of Nigeria’s internal party politics. Whether this reform strengthens democracy or consolidates power will depend on how faithfully it is implemented. What is certain is that the landscape of political competition has changed, and Nigerians will be watching closely to see whether this new law deepens democratic inclusion or reshapes control in a different form.
Senate Backs FCC, Says Underfunding Weakens Constitutional Mandate
The Senate Committee on Federal Character has raised serious concern over the underfunding of the Federal Character Commission (FCC), warning that it is affecting the Commission’s ability to carry out its constitutional responsibilities.
During the 2026 budget defence at the National Assembly, the Executive Chairman of the FCC, Hon. Hulayat Motunrayo Omidiran, presented a proposed budget of ₦6.5 billion and explained that limited funding has reduced the Commission’s capacity to properly monitor and enforce compliance across more than 700 Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs).
She stressed that without adequate funding, the Commission cannot effectively ensure fairness, balance, and equal representation in federal appointments and public service.
“We are appealing to the Senate to support improved funding for the Commission. Federal Character is a constitutional duty, and we must be equipped to enforce it effectively for the good of national unity,” she said.
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Federal Character and Intergovernmental Affairs, Senator Allwell Heacho, described the funding gap as a serious setback.
“Federal Character is not optional. It is backed by the Constitution. The Commission responsible for enforcing it must be properly funded to deliver,” he stated.
He assured that the Senate Committee is committed to supporting the FCC to strengthen its operations and improve accountability across government institutions.
With support now coming from both the Senate and House Committees, the FCC is set to push for stronger enforcement and better service delivery nationwide
society
Apostle Suleman Lectures: Your Association Determines Your Acceleration; If You’re Gifted, You’ll Stand Out
Apostle Suleman Lectures:
Your Association Determines Your Acceleration; If You’re Gifted, You’ll Stand Out
Gifted people are always different. They stand out and never fit in because God uses them in a greater way, the servant of God and founder of the Omega Fire Ministries (OFM) worldwide, Apostle Johnson Suleman, lectures. Speaking about gifts, in particular, spiritual gifts, the ‘Restoration Apostle’ noted that every man is gifted by God. He stated in his sermon that gifts are the result of the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
While suggesting that where a man is most gifted is where he will be most lifted, Apostle Suleman declares that, to stand out in one’s generation, the person must be gifted.
“To be gifted is to be specifically empowered. To be gifted is to be supernaturally assisted to fulfil a task. Many of us are praying for helpers, but you cannot stand before helpers without anything to offer. A man’s gift maketh room. The more gifted you are, the more rooms you have (Proverbs 18:16). Man’s gift maketh rooms for him and bringeth him before great men. No Joseph appears before a Pharaoh until he has capacity to interpret his dreams. The king sent for Daniel because there was a gift in his life. He stood out because there was a gift he had. The problem is not getting helpers, when you have a gift, helpers will look for you. What is your gift?
Apostle Suleman asserts that every man possesses inherent, distinct gifts that are designed to be developed and deployed for a specific purpose. However, he emphasizes, identifying one’s unique gift or purpose requires a defining moment, experience, or interaction rather than just passive introspection, designed to unlock potentials that have been dormant.
“There is nobody that is not gifted. Everyone is equally gifted but it takes an encounter to discover your gift. The gift can be there, hidden but it takes an encounter to discover it. The Bible says Saul was met by Samuel and Samuel took a vial of oil and anointed Saul and said is it not because the Lord hath ordained thee to be captain over the people of God (1 Samuel 10:1). Saul was not a king of Israel, he was a captain. That is why his son, Jonathan could not step into the stool because kingship is by inheritance, but captain-ship is by appointment. So, when Saul met the prophet he began to prophesy. It takes meeting a man to enter the next season. Season is not a bait, it is a man. It takes meeting the right man. The second thing that empowered Saul to stand out was that he joined the right team; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
Highlighting that the people a man surrounds himself with, learn from, and follow, directly influence the speed and success of his life’s progress, the man of God submits that positive associations can accelerate man’s destiny, while negative associations can drive stagnation, delays, and limitations.
“Your association determines your acceleration. If you’re with the wrong people, you will get the wrong experiences. It is very important. Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly. Nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in company with scoffers. (Psalm 1:1,2,3). You start by walking with them. If you keep walking with them, you’ll soon stand with them. When you stand with them, you’ll sit with them. You must be extremely picky in your relationship. There are some people that should be made to know, because they’re not aware that they’re not your friends. They assume they are your friends but you have to let them know that you are colleagues not friends. You have to be very intentional because friends either add, subtract, divide or minus. You can’t have a friend who’s playing neutrality.
In your walk with God, when the enemy wants to destroy you he will introduce you to a strange company. Any company that kills your fear of God is a wrong company. The right company will make you think of heaven. A right company will want to make you live clean, pure and right. The right company will make you God-conscious. The right company is family-oriented. A right company will make sure you avoid conflicts. A right company will promote God not greed,” he counsels.
-
celebrity radar - gossips6 months agoWhy Babangida’s Hilltop Home Became Nigeria’s Political “Mecca”
-
society5 months agoReligion: Africa’s Oldest Weapon of Enslavement and the Forgotten Truth
-
society6 months agoPower is a Loan, Not a Possession: The Sacred Duty of Planting People
-
news6 months agoTHE APPOINTMENT OF WASIU AYINDE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS AN AMBASSADOR SOUNDS EMBARRASSING