We’re just days away from June 12—Nigeria’s Democracy Day, a day that once united citizens under the memory of resistance, electoral betrayal, and the pursuit of justice. But in 2025, something feels different. This year’s Democracy Day is being clouded by a disturbing accusation: that a protest meant to honor our democratic legacy might be nothing more than a well-financed setup—crafted not by the people, but by political operatives bent on blackmailing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration.
According to statements released this week by the Northern Socio-Political Rights Network (NSPRN), a staggering ₦200 million has allegedly been earmarked by unnamed actors to stage anti-government demonstrations on June 12. But it doesn’t stop at protest logistics. The real goal, they say, is to delegitimize Tinubu’s presidency and implicate key officials—through theatrics, not truth.
This article digs deep into that allegation. We break down the origin of the claims, the specific accusations, the reactions from opposition groups and civil society, and what this all means for Nigeria’s democracy. If June 12 is being weaponized, we need to know. And if these warnings are real, the consequences go far beyond political scorekeeping.
Background: June 12, 1993—What the Day Means
To grasp the weight of this accusation, we need to understand what June 12 truly represents. It’s not just a public holiday. It’s the anniversary of the 1993 presidential election—widely considered the freest and fairest in Nigerian history—won by Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola. But the military regime under General Ibrahim Babangida annulled the results, plunging the country into political turmoil.
That single act—nullifying the people’s will—ignited protests, global condemnation, and a democratic reckoning that lasted years. It also cost MKO Abiola his life in detention.
For decades, June 12 stood as a symbol of the struggle against authoritarianism, against disenfranchisement, and for democratic freedom. In 2018, then-President Muhammadu Buhari formally declared June 12 Nigeria’s official Democracy Day, replacing May 29. This was a national recognition of that painful legacy—and a step toward healing.
But with allegations of a manipulated protest now circulating, the question is: Will this sacred date be weaponized in 2025 to wage a different kind of war—one based on blackmail, not justice?
The Alleged Protest Plot
On June 8, 2025, the Northern Socio-Political Rights Network (NSPRN) dropped a political bombshell. At a press briefing in Abuja, the group claimed that it had uncovered a coordinated, well-funded plan to stage artificial anti-government protests on June 12. The amount involved? ₦200 million.
NSPRN’s president, Mohammed Farouk Lawal, stated that the group was approached with an offer of that sum to mobilize members for protests allegedly targeting President Tinubu and senior government officials. But this wasn’t just an open call to protest. According to Lawal, the entire protest was scripted—complete with:
- Pre-written protest slogans,
- Inscribed banners targeting Tinubu, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Senate President, and even the EFCC Chairman,
- Staged interactions with the media to simulate widespread anger.
Farouk insisted that these weren’t spontaneous or ideologically motivated movements. Instead, he described them as an elaborate campaign to manipulate public sentiment and create a perception of mass discontent. He alleged that the goal was to ultimately blackmail the President and key reform agents in the administration.
In his words: “We were approached to sell out—to lend our name and members to a well-funded, well-coordinated operation whose only aim is to smear the government and push the country into chaos.” The NSPRN refused.
He called on the DSS and EFCC to investigate the financiers behind the plan and take urgent steps to prevent what he described as a national security threat disguised as civil activism.
Civil Society Responses & Opposition Positioning
While NSPRN’s statement shocked many, not everyone in civil society shares its concerns. Other groups—especially those from the South-West and South-South—have openly declared their intention to stage protests on June 12, albeit for very different reasons.
The Youth Rights Campaign (YRC) and the Take It Back (TIB) movement, for example, are calling for nationwide protests in response to:
- Worsening economic hardship,
- Escalating insecurity,
- Lack of transparency in government spending,
- Discontent with President Tinubu’s economic reforms.
According to them, Democracy Day is the perfect time to express public frustration, not only in remembrance of June 12, 1993, but as a wake-up call to the current administration.
However, the Nigeria Renaissance Group (NRG) echoed NSPRN’s concerns. The group claimed that some of the activism behind the protests is sponsored and designed to destabilize Tinubu’s administration. NRG alleged that while ordinary Nigerians are experiencing hardship, their legitimate concerns are being co-opted by political mercenaries hoping to incite unrest and extract political concessions.
Another angle came from the APC Integrity Network, which issued a statement warning Nigerians to be wary of “rebranded political agents posing as activists.” According to them, individuals who had previously aligned with opposition figures are now leading the call for mass protests, masking personal and political motives behind the veneer of public advocacy.
The tension here is sharp: Between legitimate protest by suffering Nigerians, and orchestrated chaos by vested interests with cash and camera-ready scripts. In a country where democratic freedoms are still fragile, who gets to define what counts as real activism?
Analysis & Expert Perspectives
Authentic Dissent vs. Engineered Campaigns
On one hand, activist movements like Youth Rights Campaign and Take It Back are driven by real grievances—rising insecurity, a skyrocketing cost of living, and deepening economic hardship. These are fundamental issues. The public is suffocating under stress, and some citizens genuinely feel the need to protest.
But then we have NSPRN’s revelation: a ₦200 million offer came with pre-written scripts, staged actions, and directives aimed at officials tied to Tinubu’s government. Add to that the NRG’s warning about coordinated attempts at blackmail targeting Tinubu’s core team, and you have what looks like a classic engineered influence operation.
This juxtaposition matters: protests aren’t inherently bad—many reflect deep, systemic failures. But when protest mechanics are hijacked with scripts and payoffs, the line between legitimate civic engagement and political weaponization becomes perilously thin.
Strategic Timing and Political Motives
Notice the timing: this alleged campaign is unfolding just ahead of June 12—a date laden with democratic symbolism. Pulling off a proxy protest on such a day isn’t random; it injects emotional fuel into the narrative, making the dissent feel more potent and national.
It’s also strategically aimed at 2027 election planning. By orchestrating protests through third-party proxies, the plotters could weaken President Tinubu’s support base, especially in the North. Politically, that’s a high-stakes move to erode trust in the administration long before formal election campaigning begins.
Implications for National Security and Democracy
At the heart of this allegation is a bigger question: if democracy can be hijacked by hired activism, what safeguards do we have left?
The concern here isn’t just about protests—it’s about the erosion of truth in public discourse. If political actors can simulate outrage, rent crowds, and stage-manage dissent, then Nigeria’s public sphere becomes a theatre of manipulation. That weakens genuine voices, drowns out legitimate anger, and distorts national conversations.
It also puts security agencies on high alert. If indeed some groups are being paid to provoke violent reactions under the cover of peaceful protests, the risk of escalation is real. It could trigger mass arrests, civil unrest, or worse—another dent in democratic space.
But that doesn’t mean the response should be suppression. What’s needed is surgical clarity: investigate the money trail, separate the bought from the broken-hearted, and let truth—not propaganda—guide the government’s response.
What Comes Next?
For many Nigerians, June 12 still carries the weight of Abiola’s sacrifice. It’s a date soaked in memory and resistance. But now, the date is at risk of being tainted by political desperation and theatrical blackmail.
Groups like NSPRN have raised a serious alarm. If their claims are true, then security agencies—especially the DSS and EFCC—must follow the money. Who offered ₦200 million to stage this protest? What are their affiliations? Where is that money coming from?
At the same time, the government must not overreact. Not every protest is a setup. Not every activist is a mercenary. Some are young, hungry, frustrated Nigerians who still believe in democracy—and who see protest as their last resort to be heard.
June 12 must not become a battlefield of perception. Let it remain what it was meant to be: a symbol of Nigeria’s democratic journey. Not a payday. Not a platform for scripted outrage. But a reminder of the price of silence, and the value of truth.
