By Andrew Agbese
It would be misleading to look at the entire June 12 struggle as a one-off episode rather than the saga it was with many phases and compartments.
It is when people lump the entire saga into one that they miss what Patrick Obayagbon would describe as the ‘crinkum-crankum’ that went with it.
In my understanding, there are three phases in the June 12 saga that are closely linked but can be separated for the benefit of analysis and could be responsible for the different interpretations being given.
As people are blaming one another for betraying the cause, the context where each is coming from would better be understood if this categorization is applied as one can find only few that stood true to the struggle in the entire three phases.
There was, if you permit my simple categorization, the June 12 pre-election era, which started from when Abiola won the SDP presidential primary to when the elections were annulled.
At this stage, many prominent politicians even from the Southwest, looked askance at the campaigns for the presidency because they didn’t believe in any of the candidates and in the sincerity of the IBB government based on experience to conduct the elections and hand over to an elected government.
This is the era that 2nd Republic governor of Oyo State, Bola Ige captured in his ‘sidon look’ description of the political activities of that period
Then there was the June 12 post annulment phase under IBB. This was the aftermath of when the elections were successfully conducted but annulled by the military government.
This met with a lot of hostilities and awakened even those that had given the elections a wide berth to join the struggle.
It was at this stage every progressive identified with the struggle.
So if anyone should accuse anyone who did not take part in the process that made Abiola won the elections, then the person could be said to have worked against the struggle to make the military quit the stage.
Then there was the June 12 post annulment period under Abacha (stage 1). This was when Abacha shoved aside the interim government contraption and presented himself as the one who will do the needful.
Initially, even Abiola was deceived into believing that IBB was the problem and that Abacha would hand over to him so mobilised his men to identify with the regime. It was at this stage that pro June 12 members like Olu Onaguoruwa, Ebenezer Babatope, Babagana Kingibe et al joined the new administration.
Those that abandoned the struggle at this stage to take or support taking of appointments can also be accused of betrayal.
Then there was the June 12 post annulment period under Abacha (stage 2).
This was when Abacha began to show signs that he was not in a hurry to go.
It was at this stage that Abiola realised that he had been deceived so he and his other colleagues began to pull out from the government to challenge of Abacha. At this stage, Abacha bared his fangs and many for fear of dear lives went into exile. Not many were convinced that running away was the best way to confront the junta.
So, at each stage, as can be seen, many fell in and out of the struggle depending on the overriding sentiment at each time.
If Sule Lamido therefore points out an instance where he felt Bola Tinubu did not identify with the struggle, he could be right as even Abiola and Kingibe, by welcoming a new military junta could at that instant, be said to have betrayed the cause as there was a mandate on ground which shouldn’t have condoned another military interregnum.
Some prominent northerners who were part of the June 12 mandate from the SDP primary to the elections also did not find it funny when after the annulment, Abiola no longer had confidence in them, as they accused him of not carrying them along in the process of the negotiations to retrieve his mandate but yorubanising the struggle.
If it was at this point that Sule Lamido was found to be lukewarm towards the struggle then it cannot be far from the truth.
The same may also be true of Tony Anenih who was the national chairman of the party. After observing that the owner of the mandate himself had okayed his lieutenants taking appointments in another military regime, his countenance may have changed that it could be interpreted as betrayal.
There were acts of betrayal and that were acts that seemed like betrayal, depending on how you interpret it, you’re right.
