Ibrahim Babangida: Nigeria's ex-military leader admits regret over cancelled poll
Nigeria's ex-military ruler Gen Ibrahim Babangida has expressed deep regret for the first time for annulling the results of the 1993 presidential election.The poll was supposed to bring about an end to military rule after 10 years and the cancellation of the outcome threw the country into turmoil. The date of the vote – 12 June - is now remembered in Nigeria as Democracy Day.Gen Babangida was forced to resign. Moshood Abiola, widely believed to have won the election, was later imprisoned and his wife assassinated.Nigeria's current President, Bola Tinubu, said Gen Babangida had shown courage by admitting what took place.
The former military leader, 83, expressed his regret at the launch of his autobiography A Journey in Service in the capital, Abuja, on Thursday."Undoubtedly credible, free and fair elections were held on 12 June 1993," he told the audience made up of the cream of Nigerian society, including Tinubu, two former presidents – Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan - and another ex-military leader, Abdulsalam Abubakar."However, the tragic irony of history remains that the administration that devised a near-perfect electoral system and conducted those near-perfect elections could not complete the process."That accident of history is most regrettable. The nation is entitled to expect my expression of regret."Gen Babangida, popularly known as IBB, also acknowledged that Abiola, who died in 1998, won the election.However, in 1993 as results were being collated, the military government abruptly stopped the process - an action that triggered widespread protests and a political crisis.For three decades, the circumstances surrounding the 1993 election have been shrouded in controversy, with conflicting accounts emerging overtime.This new admission, seen as reopening old wounds, has triggered fresh debates rather than closure.Many people will be expecting the former military ruler to also provide answers to some questions relating to his policies at the time.Gen Babangida, who overthrew another military leader Muhammadu Buhari in 1985, led the county for eight years.Multiparty democracy did eventually return to Nigeria in 1999 with the election of Obasanjo – who had also been a former military leader – as president.
Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
4 hours ago
- ITV News
Trump's new travel ban set to come in to effect on Monday
President Trump's new travel ban is set to come in to effect on Monday, restricting travel to the US from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries. The move comes amid growing tensions in the US as Donald Trump continues delivering on his election promise to increase immigration enforcement. The order banning travel from certain countries was signed by Trump on Wednesday and applies to citizens from: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also increases travel restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the US and don't hold a valid visa. Mohammad Sharafoddin, his wife and young son walked at times for 36 hours in a row over mountain passes as they left Afghanistan as refugees. They had hoped to one day bring their niece to the US to join them - from Monday that will no longer be possible as Afghanistan joins a list of 12 countries restricted from travelling to America. 'It's kind of shock for us when we hear about Afghanistan, especially right now for ladies who are affected more than others with the new government,' Mohammad Sharafoddin said, referring to the country's Taliban rulers. 'We didn't think about this travel ban.' The new ban does not revoke visas previously issued to people from countries on the list, according to guidance issued Friday to all US diplomatic missions. Travelers with previously issued visas should still be able to enter the U.S. even after the ban takes effect. Many immigration experts say the new ban is designed to beat any court challenge by focusing on the visa application process and appears more carefully crafted than a hastily written executive order during Trump's first term that denied entry to citizens of mainly Muslim countries. "We don't want them," says Donald Trump as he signs the travel restrictions executive order. In a video posted Wednesday on social media, Trump said nationals of countries included in the ban pose 'terrorism-related' and 'public-safety' risks, as well as risks of overstaying their visas. He also said some of these countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their citizens. Trump also tied the new ban to a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The man charged in the attack is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump's restricted list. US officials say he overstayed a tourist visa. The ban was quickly denounced by groups that provide aid and resettlement help to refugees. 'This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, a nonprofit international relief organisation. Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro's government condemned the travel ban, characterizing it in a statement as a 'stigmatization and criminalization campaign' against Venezuelans.
The National
15 hours ago
- The National
Richard Tice in row with Laura Kuenssberg over Anas Sarwar comments
The deputy leader of Reform UK doubled down on his party's recent attack advert against Scottish Labour, which has been widely condemned as "racist", during the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme. The political advert, which was seen by more than one million people on Facebook, falsely claimed that Sarwar would 'prioritise the Pakistani community'. READ MORE: Scottish Government urges Chancellor to drop 'damaging' cuts ahead of spending review The ad includes selected clips from a video spread by far and alt-right agitators on social media in a bid to claim that Europe was under threat from 'multiculturalism' and mass immigration, specifically of Muslims. While it has been branded "racist" by both the SNP and Scottish Labour, Farage doubled down and went on to tell a press conference in London that Sarwar had "introduced sectarianism into Scottish politics". During the programme on Sunday, Kuenssberg asked Tice about his party leader's comments, saying: "Your leader Nigel Farage claimed that the Muslim Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar had said that he would prioritise the Pakistani community. "He did not use those words. Was Nigel Farage's claim false?" Tice refused to be drawn on whether the claim was false, as he said: "No, look, what we would talk about was that actually, the Labour leader in Scotland was essentially sort of developing sectarian politics, and we called that out. "We had the Scottish by-election and we came within 750 people of winning it. "So the ridiculous claims made by the other main politicians in Scotland about us, frankly, the voters have just ignored, and we came within a whisker of an absolute shock, a seismic shock. Richard Tice "We got 26%, it was a three-way marginal, and I think Scottish politics is changing." Reform UK came third in Thursday's Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, with their candidate Ross Lambie winning 7088 votes. The party won 26.2% of the vote share but were 1471 votes away from beating Scottish Labour's Davy Russell, not 750 votes as Tice – who was at the count – claimed on Sunday. Tice went on: "We had a very simple slogan that seemed to work. 'Drill, Scotland, drill'. The oil and gas industry generates huge prosperity for Scotland, for the United Kingdom, and we should be embracing it and enhancing it, not shutting it down, which the Labour Government has essentially followed what the Tories did before with the ridiculous windfall tax." Kuenssberg returned to Farage's claims about the Scottish Labour leader, as she asked: "Do you not think it's important to say things that are true in politics? "Mr Farage claimed that Anas Sarwar had used words that he simply did not. He made a false claim on a sensitive issue. Was he wrong to do that?" Tice then doubled down on his party's claims about Sarwar bringing in sectarianism into Scottish politics. "No, look, it is sensitive, you're right," he said. "But was it right for Mr Sarwar to claim that Pakistanis and the South Asian community should, for example, dominate and dictate the Scottish educational agenda?" READ MORE: The Supreme Court's sex ruling faces legal challenges – will they succeed? Kuenssberg interrupted: "My question to you is whether or not it was right for Mr Farage to make a false claim about words Anas Sarwar did not use?" Tice said: "Well, you can interpret. I think in the overall context it was not a false claim. "It was what Mr Sarwar was doing, which was bringing sectarian politics into Scottish politics. And that is wrong, that's not how we do things." First Minister John Swinney said at the time that Farage had "brought racism and hatred" into the by-election campaign, as the SNP submitted a formal complaint to Meta, Facebook's parent company. Meanwhile, Sarwar branded Farage a "poisonous man who doesn't understand Scotland". Scottish Labour have been contacted for comment.
The Herald Scotland
19 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
I still can't believe Republicans chose Trump over stability
I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place - not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of - taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' "opportunity economy"? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Once again - is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism - it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeno on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
