By Oluwaseyi Oduyela
Despite my Yoruba heritage, my perspective diverges from the traditional tribal alignment often expected. I have never subscribed to the veneration of MKO Abiola as a hero of Nigeria’s democracy. To me, Abiola represented more than just a political figure; he was a businessman and opportunist who sought political power in a manner reminiscent of the current administration’s approach. His role as the original “emi lokan” who fell short of his ambitions is emblematic of a broader issue within Nigerian history.
The distortion of historical facts to suit subjective narratives is a significant problem in Nigeria. Our collective understanding of events such as the Biafra conflict and the June 12, 1993 elections remains tainted by selective memory. The current portrayal of Abiola as a martyr for democracy overlooks the complexities of his actions and his relationships with various military regimes.
Abiola’s elevation to hero status, following the annulment of his election, oversimplifies his political career. His own admission that he would not have pursued the presidency had he known Babangida would not hand over power reflects a lack of genuine commitment. This stance, coupled with his actions during and after the annulment, raises questions about his legacy.
It is perplexing that Abiola is celebrated as a hero when he allowed his supporters to face violence on his behalf, while his own family remained detached from the struggle. The tragic loss of lives, such as the six-year-old girl killed by a stray bullet in Ojota during the protests, is overshadowed by the myth of Abiola as a savior.
This selective commemoration ignores the contributions of other key figures, such as Professor Humphrey Nwosu, whose role in conducting Nigeria’s most transparent election is often overlooked, possibly due to his Igbo ethnicity.
The so-called activists who now post images of Abiola seem to ignore the broader implications of his legacy. Abiola’s support for Abacha’s regime and his recommendations for positions within it complicate his image as a staunch anti-dictatorship advocate. This selective memory extends to figures like Bola Tinubu, who, while often mislabeled as a NADECO activist, merely funded the organization and supported The News magazine, which served as his PR tool.
For Nigeria to progress, we must confront and acknowledge the true history of our political figures. We must resist the temptation to glorify individuals based on incomplete or manipulated narratives. Only through honest and comprehensive historical reflection can we hope to address the issues that continue to plague our nation.
The human mind’s propensity for manipulation and deceit must be challenged with truth and integrity if we are to achieve genuine progress and healing.
