Connect with us

Opinion

Binani, Buhari: Hurt, guilt and forgiveness

Published

on

 

President Muhammadu Buhari, on Friday, asked Nigerians who he might have hurt in his near-eight-year misrule, to forgive him. Similarly, a section of social media is asking for forgiveness for Aishatu Dahiru, popularly known as Binani. Dahiru is the woman who, before the April gubernatorial election re-run in Adamawa State, was considered a political exemplar and one who typified the assumed political purity of the female gender.

Very few narratives of the concept of hurt and forgiveness are as gripping as the grisly story of Father Michael Lapsley. As he walked into the sitting of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) that morning, Lapsley was a study in pain, sobering pain. What remained of his two arms were ugly stumps. In their place was a pair of equally ugly pincers. One of his two eyes had been gouged out too; his eardrum shattered. As he tottered into the hall, dead silence accompanied every one of his gaits. In April 1990, three months after Nelson Mandela’s release from his 27-year imprisonment, Lapsley received a letter in his Zimbabwean home. He never remained the same again. Encrypted in the letter was a bomb that shattered his life into smithereens.

He had been excited receiving the letters. These were his exact words as he narrated to the TRC: “It was a normal warm autumn day…April… when I became the focal point of all that is evil. I returned from a series of lectures in Canada. A pile of mail had accumulated on my desk, among others something with an ANC letterhead. The envelope stated that it contained theological magazines. While I was busy on the phone with someone, I started opening the manila envelope on the coffee table to my side. The first magazine was Afrikaans… that I put aside, I can’t read Afrikaans. The second was in English. I tore off the plastic and opened the magazine… and that was the mechanism that detonated the bomb… I felt how I was being blown into the air… throughout it all, I never lost my consciousness.”

Born Alan Michael Lapsley on June 2, 1949, in New Zealand, Lapsley, a white man, was ordained into the priesthood in Australia and arrived in Durban, South Africa, in 1973 to pursue his undergraduate studies. In the thick of apartheid’s repression, he was made chaplain in both black and white universities, and by 1976, he gave himself the task of speaking for schoolchildren shot and detained by apartheid police. In 1982, Lapsley escaped being killed in a police raid where 42 people were killed and thus ran to Zimbabwe

Antjie Krogg, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) reporter, covered the TRC proceedings. Like our own Mathew Hassan-Kukah, Krogg crafted the tear-dripping narrations into an award-winning book entitled Country of my skull. In the book, Krog narrated the moment Lapsley entered the TRC better: “It is these stainless-steel pincers that Father Lapsley raised to take the oath before his submission…‘So help me God.’ But it is also these pincers that prevent him from wiping away his tears like other victims. When their stories are cut too close, victims often bury their faces in their hands and wipe their eyes with tissues. But how do you hold the fragile veil of tissue in such pincers? How do you complete the simple act of blowing your nose? Several times the pincers move towards his face in a reflex action – as if he wants to cover his face with his hands – and every moment flashes the inhumanity of South Africa’s past into the hall… hard, shiny, and sterile.”

Desmond Tutu, chairman of the TRC, put the Lapsley pain in a far sobering perspective. “There is always a special silence when Lapsley takes the Communion. First, you think people are nervous that he may knock the cup over with his pincers – but then it becomes absolutely quiet.”

As the searing pain whistled through his being, Lapsley was ready to forgive President F.W. de Klerk who, like Muhammadu Buhari, was at the helm of affairs when the hit squad did this irreparable damage of parcel-bombing him. “Someone had to type my name on the manila envelope; somebody made the bomb. I often ask the question, ‘What did these people tell their children that they did that day?’”

On forgiving the president and the architects of his lifelong incapacitation, he said: “I haven’t forgiven anyone, because I have no one to forgive. No one was charged with this crime, and so, for me, forgiveness is still an abstract concept. But if I knew that the people who sent my bomb were now in prison, then I’d happily unlock the gates – although I’d like to know that they weren’t going to make any more bombs. I believe in restorative justice and I believe in reparation. So, my attitude to the perpetrator is this: I’ll forgive them, but since I’ll never get my hands back, and will therefore always need someone to help me, they should pay that person’s wages. Not as a condition of forgiveness, but as part of reparation and restitution.”

So, Aishatu Dahiru is being touted as deserving of Nigerian people’s forgiveness. Dahiru had subjected herself to a bout of self-flagellation when she openly flirted with the endemic political disease of electoral corruption that has driven Nigeria back for decades. Let us, for a moment, did the allegation that she gave the sum of N2 billion to the now absconded Hudu Yususa-Ari, the Adamawa Resident Electoral Commissioner. You cannot but find Mrs. Dahiru complicit in the one-week Adamawa electoral debacle.

Within a few hours, Nigeria landed in a state of electoral dystopia. You could hear scornful laughter at Nigeria from across the globe. It was the kind of laughter Idi Amin Dada of Uganda provoked in the 1970s. Either out of psychopathic disorder or sheer bravado, Dada had balls made of steel and could look a bullet in the eye and bite it. In the Byzantine world of the 1970s, the unwritten cliche was, look towards Uganda. For the bizarre, the weird, and the outright grotesque of the world’s global manifestations of that time, Uganda provided ample surreal examples.

For instance, at the height of his assumed racial victory over erstwhile colonial lords, Dada sent love letters to the Queen Elizabeth II of England, asking for her hands in marriage. The mockery of the black man provoked by this infantile and derisive love missive was massive. The elephant-sized soldier, considered to be one of the most despotic rulers in human history, actually also wanted to be the King of Scotland. In his infamous memory, a film, entitled The Last King of Scotland was shot to permanently memorialize his infamy. A 2006 film that was directed by Kevin Macdonald, The Last King was an adaptation of a Peter Morgan and Jeremy Brock screenplay, product of a Giles Foden’s novel on Dada. It is a depiction of the Ugandan emperor from the prism of a fictional Scottish doctor. Dada also gave himself the title of “Conqueror of the British Empire.”

To further reinforce his buffoonery in power, Dada once sent a love-like telegram to the highly respected Julius Nyerere of Tanzania. He loved the Nwalimu – the Swahili cognomen given to Nyerere for his teachable spirit – he said. To demonstrate his love for him, if the Nwalimu was a woman, Dada said he would have gladly considered marrying him, not minding his grizzled head!

In concert with Yususa-Ari and some other infamous but unseen architects of darkness, Binani’s role in that attempted electoral heist can be likened to the popular Yoruba aphorism that the one who climbed the rafters to steal a drum of palm oil is not as complicit as one who received the loot. She was the planned receiver of the heist. When the erstwhile Amazon now went ahead to deliver an acceptance speech shortly after she was illegally declared the governor-elect by the REC, she promptly defined the mis-biology inherent in attributing electoral corruption only to the male gender. With the way things are now, it will amount to presidential folly and miscarriage of justice if Yususa-Ari and a few others are tried for electoral robbery and Binani is left out. Nigeria’s concept of forgiveness, I am sure, is not as elastic as to have enough room for a desperado for power as Binani.

So, President Buhari covets our forgiveness? At the occasion which marked his final outing as president on an Eid-el-Fitr day last Friday, Buhari asked Nigerians to forgive him at whatever point he might have hurt them. “All those that I have hurt, I ask that they pardon me. God gave me an incredible opportunity to serve the country. We are all humans, if I have hurt some people along the line of my service to the country, I ask that they pardon me. I think it is a good coincidence for me to say goodbye to you and thank you for tolerating me for almost eight years.”

At what point do we begin to interrogate the concept of forgiveness for Buhari? For which of his sins does he deserve forgiveness; his gross inactions or egregious misactions? While leaders, like all human beings, are capable of erring, last week’s open exchange of flaks between Buhari and the Benue governor, Samuel Ortom, should delineate the boundary of hurt, guilt, and forgiveness. Few states did not see themselves in the mirror a killing field that Nigeria became under Buhari in the last eight years. In separate attacks in the last month, over 100 people were killed by armed men in Benue state. Two newspapers, the Daily Trust and ThisDay newspapers wrote separate editorials that were scurrilous attacks on the president on the recent upsurge of killings in Benue.

In reply, Garba Shehu, Buhari’s media aide, claimed it was wrong to blame Buhari for the killings. Thousands have been killed and maimed in the last eight years of Buhari’s rule. Similar bloody scenarios of massacres and kidnappings occurred severally in Plateau, Southern Kaduna, Niger, Sokoto, and Katsina States, the latter being the home of the president. In all of them, multiple of thousands of people lost their lives. All we got from Buhari and his obsequious party were condolence messages.

I imagine how many Father Lapsleys Buhari birthed in his eight years of misrule, through his effeminate policies and masculine mids-policies. From Igangan in Oyo State to the Southeast and virtually all the zones of Nigeria, his lack of leadership was the death of many an enterprise and even lives. Just do statistical appraisals of Nigerians who died, got economically crippled, and maimed for life on account of his Naira change policy, for example, and the calamity of the Buhari years will surface.

Ortom’s reply to him is a reflection of the hurt that Buhari’s rule wreaked on Nigeria. He had said: “Buhari has empowered and emboldened the Fulani pastoralists in their expansionist agenda including killings. It is equally a known fact that President Buhari has failed woefully in securing Nigeria, and Benue State in particular.” Ortom then went ahead to lay the blame on the government for “complicity in the killings orchestrated against Benue people by the Fulani herdsmen as represented by Miyetti Allah Kautal, Fulani Nationality Movement, FUNAM and other Fulani socio-cultural groups.”

So, where do we begin to forgive Buhari? How appropriately can we delineate the province of the massive hurts he brought on the land in eight years? In propounding the theory of forgiveness, ideological purist, Jose Zalaquett, said that the first step to take is an acknowledgment of guilt. The same was acknowledged by Krog: “Perpetrators need to acknowledge the wrong they did. Why? It creates a communal starting point.”

It is not in the place of Buhari to ask for forgiveness while not acknowledging his guilt. According to German philosopher and social theorist, Jurgen Habermas, what the president tried to do by that blanket demand for forgiveness was to slither into what is called collective guilt. “Collective guilt does not exist. Whoever is guilty will have to answer individually,” he said. In any case, how do you assume guilt collectively when the perpetrators of the forgiveness which you seek are still roaming the streets and are yet to be apprehended? Again, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Russian writer, prominent Soviet dissident, and outspoken critic of communism who raised global awareness of the existence of repression in the old Soviet Union, especially his Gulag system, has a rebuke for Buhari’s escapism: “By not dealing with past human rights violations, we are… ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”

Let me quickly parody that heretical quip in Wole Soyinka’s The Man Died. Can someone tell Buhari to stop weeping by our rooftop, please? We do not need his last-minute platitude.

 

Celebrated columnist, Dr. Festus Adedayo writes from Ibadan, Oyo state

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