Connect with us

Opinion

Akpabio vs. Natasha: Too Many Wrongs Don’t Make A Right

Published

on

For most of last week, Senate President Godswill Akpabio was in the eye of the storm as his traducer, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who represents Kogi Central, was relentless in getting her voice hear loud and clear.

Though the matter eventually culminated in the suspension of the Kogi senator for six months on Thursday, it is clear that the drama has not ended yet. The whole saga, as we have seen in the last few weeks, smacks many wrongs and few rights. The Senate scored some rights and some wrongs, the same for the Kogi senator. But in apportioning the rights and the wrongs, we have to distinguish between emotions and the rules.

Recall that in July of 2024, Senator Akpabio had compared the conduct of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan to that of someone in a nightclub. That statement incensed the Kogi Central senator, the womenfolk, and a number of other senators. Days later, Akpabio, having sensed the mood of the Senate, spoke from his chair and said: “I will not intentionally denigrate any woman and always pray the God will uplift women, Distinguished Senator Natasha, I want to apologise to you.” That was expected of him and by that statement, Akpabio brought some calm into the relationship between him and the Kogi senator, but as we are to discover in the last two weeks, still waters do run fast under the surface.

The latest scene of the drama started with what looked like an innocuous development on the Senate floor. The Senate president, in exercise of the power conferred on him by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Senate Rule book, made adjustments to the seats in the minority wing of the chamber and relocated Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan. The excuse was that following the defection of some senators from the minority side, seat adjustments had to be effected. That was within Akpabio’s power. Remember that the Senate Rule book does not only empower the Senate president to allocate seats, but he can also change the seats occasionally. So, Akpabio was right with that action. But perhaps Akpoti-Uduaghan, based on family relationships with the Akpabios, expected that she would have been alerted of the impending seat change. And on getting to the floor of the Senate to discover the seat switch, she got alarmed. Was she right to flare up? No, that is the answer. Apart from the powers of the Senate president to change seats allocated to senators, the rule book also says that every senator must speak from the seat allocated. The implication is that anything a senator says outside the allocated seat will not go into the Senate records. The Senate, or any parliament for that matter, is a regulated environment. The Hansards take records of every word and action made on the floor of the chamber. And so, it is incumbent on every senator to follow the rules.

So, on Thursday, February 20, when Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan raised hell over her seat relocation and engaged Senator Akpabio in a shouting match, she was on the wrong side of the Senate Rule book. No Senator is expected to be unruly. In fact, unruly conduct can be summarily punished by the presiding officer. It is important to note that the rules of the Senate treat the occupier of the chair of Senate President like a golden egg. The President of the Senate is the number three citizen in the country, even though he was elected to represent a constituency like his colleagues. He is first among equals, but the numero uno position comes with a lot of difference.

A legislative expert once told me that the Chair of the President of the Senate must be revered at all times and that infractions to the rules are heavily punished unless the offender shows penitence. The rule says the President of the Senate must be heard in silence; Senators must avoid naming (being called out for unruly conduct); and that any situation that compels the President of the Senate to rise up to hit the gavel in trying to restore order could earn the culprit (any named senator) summary dismissal. Those are the powers of the President of the Senate, which Madam Natasha was trying for size. I think it is important that Senators are taken through inductions on the rules and regulations, whether they got in mid-term or at the beginning of the session.

Rules are very key to operations in a big club like the Senate or the House of Representatives. But as we will later discover on this page, the number of years spent on the floor does not necessarily guarantee a clear understanding of the rules.

Well, as we saw it, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan raised hell by protesting the decision of the Senate to relocate her seat. She was out of order, and her colleagues noted the same. With another presiding officer, she could have been suspended right there. But Akpabio didn’t do that. Then, the Kogi Central senator opened another flank, this time, outside of the Senate chamber. She granted an interview to Arise television, claiming that she had been sexually harassed by Akpabio. Here, too, Senator Natasha was on the wrong side of the Senate rules. Yes, she has a right of freedom of speech, but if the right must be meaningfully exercised, she must do so in compliance with the rules of the club she belongs-the Senate. This is expressly so because she is covered by Order 10 of the Senate Rule Book, which permits her to raise issues of privilege without previously notifying the President of the Senate or the presiding officer. The elders and the holy books also say that when you remove the log from the eyes, you show it to the eyes. As a club, the senate detests the washing of its dirty linen in the public. Such conduct led to the suspension of the late Senators Arthur Nzeribe and Joseph Waku, as well as Senator Ovie Omo-Agege, Senator Ali Ndume and even Senator Abdul Ningi in recent past.

Rather than go to the court of public opinion to accuse Akpabio of sexual harassment, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan should have quietly assumed the seat allocated to her, raise her complaints through Order 10 and at the same time tender details of her sexual harassment allegation against Akpabio and seek Senate’s intervention. If she had done that, she would have been on the right side of Senate Rules and had Akpabio by the balls. As much as the Senate rules forbid a senator from submitting a petition he or she personally signed, the Senate does not forbid any lawmaker from raising allegations that affect either their rights or privileges on the floor. Several newspaper editors have been summoned before the Ethics Committee to answer questions of alleged breach of the privilege of senators. I recall that as correspondents in the chamber, senators were always unhappy each time we scooped a story or blow open a report they were about to submit. Such senators didn’t need to write a petition. They would only come to the floor and raise points of order on privilege. Senator Akpoti- Uduaghan failed to do that.

But the conduct of the Senate President and some of the principal officers on Wednesday, March 5, left so much to be desired of the Senate. I was shocked to see Senator Akpabio rule Senator Natasha in order; he also ruled Senator Mohammed Monguno in order as well as Senator Opeyemi Bamidele. How do you have three right rulings on one issue? First, he allowed Senator Natasha to lay a defective petition on the Senate table. That’s expressly out of order. In the days of Senate Presidents David Mark, Bukola Saraki, and Ahmad Lawan, we saw how such scenes were handled. A David Mark would simply ask the senator, ‘Distinguished Senator, please open to Order 40(4) and read’. By the time the senator finished reading the order and seeing the order had negatived his or her motion, he would only be begging to withdraw that motion. That was not the case with Akpabio. And to make matters worse, the clerks at the table were also looking lost. They could not guide the presiding officer in any way. That tells a bit about human resource capacity in the assembly. But then the Senate Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele and the Chief Whip, Mohammed Monguno, who have spent quite a long time in the National Assembly, should know better. Their interventions did more damage to Akpabio’s Senate. Once the President of the Senate had ruled Senator Natasha in order to submit a petition she personally signed, (against the rules of the Senate which forbids such), and the Kogi Central senator had approached the chair and laid the petition on the table, the matter in a way becomes sub judice, to borrow the language of the law. The Senate Rule Book classifies such an action as “Matters Not open to Debate.” So at that point, the matter was no longer open to debate. Since the gavel has been hit and the action has been taken, no senator has the right to reopen the case. It was wrong of Senator Bamidele and Monguno to immediately start to revisit a closed matter, and that’s illegal. It is wrong for Akpabio to allow it.

I recall an incident in the 6th Senate when President Umaru Yar’Adua was bedridden in Saudi Arabia. Some senators moved a motion, seeking the Senate to constitute a panel to visit Saudi and ascertain the health status of the president. Somehow, when the motion was finally passed on a day, Senator Ike Ekweremadu presided, it turned out that the motion only mandated the Federal Executive Council to do the assignment. The original proponents of the motion were enraged, but they were not allowed to reopen the matter. They had to go into lobbying and eventually secured signatures of two-thirds of the Senate to re-table the matter and that paved the way for the adoption of the famous “Doctrine of Necessity.” That’s how serious the matter should be handled, but it was trivialized by Akpabio, the Senate Leader and Senate Whip. That’s on the wrong side of the rule.

Now that Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has been suspended, many would say she was being silenced. That is far from the truth. Her suspension was on the basis of what the senate perceived as unruly behavior on the floor. We are yet to hear the details of her sexual harassment allegations, and I believe that she has avenues to ventilate that. Nigerians earnestly await these details, which should be salacious enough to help us cool off some heat.

 

 

 

Comments

Opinion

G-WAGON: Dare Adeleke, A Liar’ll Steal; Why’re You Desperate To Conceal The Truth? | Maroof Asudemade

Published

on

I have read Dare Adeleke’s rather vacuous response to my article on Governor Seyi Makinde’s presentation of a brand-new Mercedes-Benz G-Wagon 500 to the President-General of the Central Council of Ibadan Indigenes (CCII), Barrister Sulaimon Ajeniyi Ajewole. Unfortunately, beneath the insults, name-calling on my person and his apparent eye-service desperation to impress his political benefactor, there is hardly any substance worth engaging.

Adeleke devoted considerable space to calling me a drunken, lowly writer. Yet, in all his verbal gymnastics, he conspicuously failed to address the fundamental questions raised in my article. Has Governor Makinde paid the statutory salaries and entitlements of the Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja, and the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Akeem Owoade, since their ascension to the respective thrones? Has his administration provided them with official vehicles, as expected under the applicable government arrangements? These were the issues Adeleke ought to address not my personality.

If he had any credible answers to these questions, he would have provided them. Instead, he chose to exhibit his wrakness as an intellectually exhausted defender. He resorted to abusing the messenger when he couldn’t dismantle the message.

However, there is one particularly interesting aspect of Dare Adeleke’s response that deserves immediate correction. He lied that Governor Makinde spent N1 billion on the completion of the Olubadan Palace. Is he sure he’s not addicted to stealing as a liar? The financial contributions towards the completion of the palace came from multiple sources, including the 11 local governments in Ibadanland, each of which contributed N50 million, amounting to N550 million.

Governor Makinde contributed N250 million. The governor’s contribution was N250 million, not N1 billion! Why would Adeleke inflate the governor’s contribution from N250 million to N1 billion? Is he so desperate to manufacture an impressive record for his political principal that figures have become expendable? Or does he imagine that exaggerating the governor’s generosity will make the unanswered questions of ridiculing our royal fathers disappear?

The 11 local governments of Ibadanland have a responsibility towards the Olubadan institution. Their contributions towards the palace should not be presented as a personal sacrifice by Governor Makinde. They are contributions made by public institutions to an institution that belongs to the people of Ibadanland.

Even more disturbing is Adeleke’s inane argument that because Makinde contributed money towards completing the Olubadan Palace, the governor deserves appreciation rather than criticism. This argument betrays a shocking failure of Adeleke to distinguish between governmental responsibilities and statutory obligations.

Let us even assume, for the sake of argument, that Makinde personally spent N1 billion on the palace. How does constructing or completing a building discharge the government’s obligation to pay the statutory salaries and entitlements of the Olubadan and the Alaafin? How does a palace building become a substitute for official vehicles? Are these royal fathers supposed to live in beautiful palaces while their statutory entitlements remain unpaid?

By Adeleke’s ‘logic’, Governor Makinde could build a magnificent headquarters for the Nigeria Labour Congress and subsequently refuse to pay workers their salaries, expecting the labour movement to applaud him for his generosity. Would that be acceptable? Could the government substitute office buildings for workers’ wages? Dare Adeleke is glaringly a peripheral thinker!

A building is a capital project. Salaries and official entitlements are separate obligations. Since Adeleke knew he could not understand this elementary distinction, he should have smelt his argument before presenting it to the public. His defence is not only logically defective; it is intellectually sour.

More importantly, the completion of the Olubadan Palace was not the subject of my article. I did not dispute the governor’s contribution. I questioned the apparent contradiction between his extravagant generosity towards the CCII President-General and the allegations of neglect concerning the official entitlements of the Olubadan and the Alaafin. Adeleke has not answered that question. He has merely introduced an unrelated expenditure in an attempt to divert attention.

I have no objection to Governor Makinde giving G-Wagons, aeroplanes or even private jets to people he loves, provided he does so with his personal resources. He is entitled to his private generosity. But public accountability should not cease because a governor is generous to his friends, associates or political admirers. The issue is not his freedom to give birthday presents. It is his responsibility to discharge governmental obligations.

As for Adeleke’s unnecessary personal attacks, I refuse to dignify his descriptions of me as a drunken or lowly writer with an elaborate defence. Neither description reflects my personality, and neither alters the substance of my argument. He only needs to be aware that despite his opinion of me as a drunken, lowly writer, I am his better by far as a family man and a responsible father – two essential duties he has failed in. I will also not allow his inability to sustain an intelligent argument to dictate the level of my engagement.

I am upset with Dare Adeleke for not living up to his claim of belonging to Oja’ba. He lacks the intellectual discipline, street wisdom and argumentative dexterity traditionally associated with the historic Ibadan community. His response has demonstrated an unfortunate deficit in all three. “Dare ò m’èsì, ó tún gọ!”

There is also something deeply incongruous about Adeleke’s pretentious defence of Governor Makinde. Those familiar with the undercurrents of Oyo politics may find his public posturing rather amusing. He presents himself as an unquestioning defender of the governor, yet political hypocrisy has a way of concealing its true colours beneath an appearance of loyalty. If the human stomach were transparent like a calabash, perhaps the governor would have a clearer view of Dare Adeleke as the green snake lurking beneath the green grass.

But my concern remains the dignity of the Olubadan and Alaafin institutions, not Adeleke’s political theatrics. He has had an opportunity to answer straightforward questions. He failed. He has had an opportunity to correct the allegations with verifiable facts. He avoided them. Instead, he manufactured a N1 billion contribution, inflated the governor’s generosity and attempted to intimidate a critic with insults.

Let me therefore restate the questions he could not answer: Has Governor Makinde paid the statutory salaries and entitlements of the Olubadan and the Alaafin since their ascension? Has he provided them with their official vehicles in accordance with applicable government policy? If yes, let Adeleke produce the evidence. If no, let him explain why.

A G-Wagon cannot answer questions about unpaid salaries. A palace cannot substitute for statutory entitlements. And N1 billion in political propaganda cannot turn N250 million into N1 billion. Dare Adeleke may choose to defend Makinde with insults, exaggerations and emotional outbursts. I will continue to interrogate the administration with facts, logic and questions that public officeholders owe the people answers to.

The dignity of the Olubadan and the Alaafin is far more important than Adeleke’s desperate attempt to earn political applause. And no amount of name-calling will make me abandon the responsibility of holding those in power accountable.

Continue Reading

Opinion

OYO AHEAD: Senator Alli Blueprint for Oyo Renewal | Muji Armstrong-Bello

Published

on

The unveiling of Senator Sharafadeen Abiodun Alli’s OYO AHEAD manifesto has introduced a new dimension to the 2027 Oyo State governorship conversation. Beyond the usual campaign promises, the document presents an attempt to define not just what a government intends to do, but how it proposes to govern. Its central message is that Oyo State needs a development model built around grassroots empowerment, economic productivity, institutional accountability and measurable performance.

What makes the manifesto politically significant is its attempt to connect the candidate’s personal political journey with a proposed programme of government. From his experience as Chairman of Ibadan North Local Government to his service as Secretary to the State Government, Chief of Staff, Senator and Chairman of Odu’a Investment Company, Alli presents himself as a politician whose experience cuts across grassroots administration, constitutional politics, legislative representation and business management. These experiences provide a solid foundation for effective governance and reinforce the expectation that his proposed agenda can be translated into tangible results for the people of Oyo State.

The first pillar, local government autonomy, may well become the most politically consequential. By promising transparent access to council allocations, monthly funding arrangements and greater freedom for local governments to address community needs, BSA is placing grassroots governance at the centre of his development philosophy. The message is unmistakable: democracy must be felt beyond the Government House, and the dividends of government must reach the communities where ordinary people live and work.

His infrastructure proposals also deserve attention. Rather than concentrating exclusively on new construction, the manifesto promises an audit of unfinished roads, published completion schedules, farm access roads, improved electricity, potable water and affordable housing. This suggests an understanding that infrastructure should be judged by its economic and social usefulness, not simply by the political visibility of projects.

In healthcare, the proposed Oyo Care Guarantee for infants, pregnant women and residents above 70 is a significant social intervention. The commitment to strengthen primary healthcare, address shortages of medical personnel and expand health insurance coverage recognises that healthcare is not a privilege reserved for those who can afford it. With the right funding arrangements, adequate staffing and firm institutional commitment, these promises can be translated into a sustainable healthcare system that delivers tangible benefits to the people of Oyo State.

Education is another area where the manifesto attempts to reconnect Oyo with its historic reputation as a pioneer of educational development. Reducing classroom congestion, repairing schools, expanding scholarships, establishing skills centres and linking graduates to employment are proposals that speak directly to the future of the state’s young population. These interventions are designed to translate educational investment into measurable improvements in learning outcomes, practical skills and employment opportunities for the next generation.

Perhaps the most compelling economic proposition is the commitment to move Oyob beyond an economy of consumption towards one of production, investment and job creation. The proposed industrial parks, revival of the Oluyole Free Trade Zone, ₦10 billion Youth Fund, digital skills programme and support for small businesses suggest an administration seeking to make employment creation a central responsibility of government. The ₦150 billion annual internally generated revenue target reflects an ambitious vision of economic growth, driven by expanded business activity, increased investment, efficient revenue administration and the elimination of financial leakages, while preserving a favourable environment for citizens and businesses to prosper.

Agriculture gives the manifesto another important regional dimension. Oyo possesses considerable agricultural potential, particularly across Oke-Ogun, Ogbomoso and Ibarapa. The proposals for processing facilities, revived farm settlements, mechanisation, storage, agricultural insurance and export promotion recognise that farmers cannot prosper merely by producing crops; they must also have access to markets, processing facilities and value chains. If properly executed, this could transform agriculture from subsistence activity into a major engine of industrial growth.

Security, appropriately, is treated as the foundation upon which every other pillar depends. The proposed strengthening of community security networks, protection and insurance for hunters and vigilantes, improved surveillance and farmer-herder mediation reflect the reality that development cannot flourish where fear controls access to farms, schools and businesses. The accompanying commitment to public disclosure of projects, contractors and costs also reinforces the argument that security and accountability are inseparable responsibilities of government.

One particularly striking feature is the candidate’s personal commitment to publish quarterly performance reports and to decline a second-term request if Oyo State is not measurably better by the end of his first tenure. This is a bold political undertaking. It shifts the conversation from the traditional entitlement of incumbency to the obligation of performance. This commitment further underscores the importance of measurable performance targets, transparent reporting and regular public assessments as the foundation for accountable and results-driven governance.

The strength of OYO AHEAD lies not only in the breadth of its promises but also in the opportunity to translate them into a practical development programme. The proposed revenue expansion, healthcare guarantee, youth and women empowerment funds, educational reforms and infrastructure projects provide an ambitious agenda for the state. With proper financial planning, sound legal frameworks, effective coordination and measurable implementation targets, these proposals can form the foundation of a purposeful and results-oriented administration.

This places an important responsibility on the OYO AHEAD Steering Committee. Beyond campaign mobilisation and public presentation, the Committee must sustain the technical work required to support the manifesto with reliable data, realistic costing, legal guidance, implementation timelines and measurable outcomes. The depth of this preparation will be central to demonstrating that OYO AHEAD is not merely a collection of campaign promises, but a carefully considered programme for governing Oyo State.

As the 2027 governorship election approaches, the debate should increasingly focus on the future of Oyo State: the governance philosophy, experience, policy direction and preparedness of those seeking the people’s mandate. Political alliances and personalities will naturally shape the contest, but the enduring question is which proposals offer a clear and practical pathway to development, prosperity and accountable leadership.

OYO AHEAD has placed such a pathway before the people of Oyo State. Its seven pillars provide a framework for addressing the state’s development priorities, while its emphasis on grassroots governance, economic productivity, human capital development and accountability speaks to the need for a new direction. With his political experience, administrative background and familiarity with the challenges of Oyo State, Senator Sharafadeen Abiodun Alli is well positioned to lead the effort to translate this blueprint into meaningful progress. The promise of OYO AHEAD is renewal; its ultimate measure will be the transformation it delivers to the lives of the people.

 

Prince Armstrong-Bello, JP. Akogun Aliiwo Ibadanland, Author of “Yoruba Leadership in Diaspora: Equity Justice and Tradition” is a Political Communication Strategist and Public Affairs Analyst

Continue Reading

Opinion

OYO 2027: MAKINDE EATS SOUR GRAPES, ADEKANMBI’S TEETH MUST BE SET ON EDGE

Published

on

The confusion within the ranks of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) is becoming increasingly difficult to describe.

The political empire built by Governor Seyi Makinde on what critics describe as lies, betrayals, broken promises and greed appears to be crumbling by the day.

Indeed, Makinde and his APM loyalists are providing an endless source of amusement these days.

Virtually everyone who leaves the Makinde administration is suddenly dismissed as a “paperweight” by the party’s social media attack dogs.

I have often wondered whether these fellows are unaware of the wisdom behind the Yoruba belief that even cotton wool, when gathered in sufficient quantities, can become a load too heavy for one person to carry.

As the Yoruba proverb puts it: Eni ní òwú ò t’ẹrù; ìwọ̀nba tó fẹ́ fi tan iná ló mú.

You keep losing prominent politicians and influential party stakeholders, yet you dismiss them as political nonentities. But which heavyweight has the power to cast more than one vote for a preferred candidate?

I am certain that even Bimbo Adekanmbi must be wondering how things deteriorated so badly for the APM.

Before his emergence as Governor Makinde’s anointed governorship candidate was made public, I granted an interview on a television station during which I openly predicted that Adekanmbi would get the governor’s endorsement and that his choice as successor would spell trouble for both men.

To one another, both men have become potential political albatrosses. Unfortunately, Governor Makinde’s ego appears to have blinded him to realities beyond his immediate political calculations.

I am particularly surprised that Adekanmbi failed to recognise that he was walking into a political trap by accepting Makinde’s endorsement.

Greed, indeed, can be a dangerous disease. In Adekanmbi’s position, no discerning politician would have ignored the number of political enemies Governor Makinde had accumulated during his seven years in office.

It follows, therefore, that Adekanmbi would inevitably inherit many of those political liabilities. Sadly, he either failed to appreciate the implications or simply chose to overlook the consequences.

By the time Governor Makinde, or perhaps Seye Famojuro, settled for Adekanmbi, the governor was already embroiled in disagreements with prominent political figures, including former Deputy National Chairman of the PDP, Ambassador Taofeek Oladejo Arapaja, Alhaji Bisi Olopoeyan and several first-class traditional rulers in Oyo State.

He had also fallen out with several influential political figures, including Senator Hosea Agboola, Alhaji Razak Gbadegesin, former Deputy Governor Barrister Gbolarunmi Hazeem, Chief Mrs Jumoke Akinjide, Hon. Mulikat Adeola Akande, former Deputy Governor Engr. Rauf Aderemi Olaniyan, Prince Diran Odeyemi, former Ekiti State Governor Ayodele Fayose, former Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike and even President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Beyond these strained relationships, several stakeholders within the Makinde political camp were already uncomfortable with the process that produced Adekanmbi as the APM governorship candidate.

There were also contentious discussions about whether Governor Makinde should be succeeded by a Christian. Equally troubling to some stakeholders was the question of whether it made political sense for Makinde to present Adekanmbi as his preferred successor when both men hail from Ona-Ara Local Government Area.

At the time, agitations were mounting over Governor Makinde’s alleged failure to comply with the Supreme Court judgment granting financial autonomy to local governments.

Other contentious issues included the controversial Circular Road project, the sale of government assets and the proposed transfer of Oyo State farm settlements to estate developers.

The state’s debt profile, which has remained a subject of public concern and debate, was another issue that had yet to be satisfactorily addressed.

All these issues were already in the public domain before Adekanmbi accepted the offer to become Makinde’s anointed candidate.

One is therefore compelled to ask: what could have persuaded Adekanmbi to accept such a politically dangerous offer?

I can only think of one reason: greed.

When Governor Makinde claimed that he had advised Adekanmbi not to inherit his enemies, he was being economical with the truth.

The reality is that those political liabilities became Adekanmbi’s the moment he accepted Makinde’s endorsement.

The governor knows that he is carrying a political baggage that could weigh heavily on his preferred successor. Yet, he appears unwilling to be held accountable for the political consequences of his own administration.

Unfortunately for both men, even Adekanmbi’s campaign slogan tells a story of its own: “Omi Tuntun 3.0”.

How, then, does he intend to separate himself from the “Omi Tuntun” administration and the controversies surrounding it?

Governor Makinde has never hidden his discomfort with genuine local government autonomy. Adekanmbi, by his posture, appears prepared to sustain the same political template, which critics blame for weakening the 33 local government councils in the state.

On virtually every issue over which the people of Oyo State have expressed concern, Adekanmbi appears to be offering continuity rather than a departure from the policies of the present administration.

He has failed to condemn the controversy surrounding the proposed transfer of the Ogbomoso Farm Settlement to estate developers, despite protests by residents of the ancient town.

He has equally remained silent over the controversy surrounding the administration’s reported moves involving the Saki Farm Settlement.

He also appears untroubled by the reported transfer of the 4,000-hectare Eruwa Farm Settlement to investors, whose whereabouts and activities have, according to critics, remained unclear two years after the arrangement.

Indeed, Adekanmbi appears not to appreciate the extent of the challenges facing the state. For instance, Oyo State is said to be short of six general hospitals if the benchmark of one general hospital per local government area is adopted.

Yet, when Senator Sharafadeen Abiodun Alli promised in his manifesto to address this deficit, APM spokespersons reportedly went on the offensive, describing the manifesto as “lacking in originality”.

Governor Makinde has been in office for more than seven years. During this period, his administration has received ecological funds on several occasions.

The question, therefore, is simple: what has happened to those funds?

There are concerns over the utilisation and accountability of the ecological funds received by the state. The governor owes the people a clear explanation of how these resources have been deployed.

There are also questions surrounding the proposed upgrade of the Alakia Airport, a project for which Adekanmbi himself was appointed by Governor Makinde to head a committee.

I have been reliably informed that the contract sum for the airport upgrade was reportedly reviewed upwards from its original figure of over N50 billion to well above N150 billion.

I have raised this question before, but I am yet to hear Adekanmbi offer a convincing explanation or response to the allegation.

Similarly, Governor Makinde reportedly approved more than N60 billion for the renovation of the Government House, an expenditure that attracted public criticism.

As of today, the visible works include the construction of a hall, the painting of the Government House mosque and church, and the replacement of tiles in both places of worship.

I challenge Governor Makinde to tell the people of Oyo State how much of the more than N60 billion reportedly approved for the renovation has actually been released and expended.

Beyond that, the governor should invite members of the press to conduct an independent assessment of the work carried out so far. The people deserve transparency and accountability, not unanswered questions.

The state government’s performance in education is another area that demands urgent attention.

Oyo State’s performance in WAEC and NECO examinations has continued to attract concern, particularly when compared with the performance of other states, including neighbouring Osun, which has been celebrated for its fifth-place position in a recent examination ranking.

Senator Sharafadeen Abiodun Alli has argued that the state must return to an educational system that makes teaching and learning more conducive. One of his proposals is a 30-pupils-per-classroom policy.

But rather than engage constructively with the proposal, APM voices have dismissed its feasibility.

Adekanmbi, as the party’s governorship candidate, has also failed to offer a clear departure from the present arrangement, under which many public primary and secondary school classrooms remain severely overcrowded and unconducive to effective learning.

Oyo State cannot afford another administration that merely promises continuity without addressing the shortcomings of the present one.

The people deserve better, and they now have an alternative in Senator Sharafadeen Abiodun Alli.

Governor Makinde has eaten sour grapes. Unfortunately, Bimbo Adekanmbi appears destined to bear the consequences.

His teeth, indeed, must be set on edge.

Continue Reading

Trending