Connect with us

Opinion

Obasanjo’s Bode Thomas discourtesy to Oyo Obas | By Festus Adedayo

Published

3 years ago

on

The social and cultural setting in Yorubaland literally exploded last Friday. It almost took the shine off the Oyo State government’s highly commendable inauguration of a 34.85 km Oyo-Iseyin Road and the completed Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Iseyin Campus. The highly disputatious ex-Nigerian president, Olusegun Obasanjo, was in his usual sabre-rattling element. At that event, he tongue-lashed Yoruba Obas in the most irreverent display of gross disdain for the traditional stool and institution.

As I write this, an inclement anger of the people, like a vulture, is feasting on Obasanjo on the social media. He is minute by minute lacerated with all manner of irreverent words. A group from Iseyin, where the tongue-lash took place, even declared him persona-non-grata in the Oke-Ogun area of Oyo State.

The unkindest epithet given to Obasanjo as comment on his Iseyin discourtesy to the Obas is the ar’obafin – disrespecter of the monarchy. It reminds me of Alukoro, a Yoruba movie starring Fuji singer, Saheed Osupa; a man who, to me, sings as if he is an incarnate of my musical idol, Ayinla Omowura. Osupa laces his songs with an effusion of language, culture, depth and native wisdom which all answer to the profound musical calling of Omowura. In the movie, Osupa had played the role of Pela, a village bard. Strapping his agidigbo round his neck, with the musical instrument protruding on his belly, the flick began with him instigating townsfolk against an Ajisafe who he alleged had an incestuous liaison with his daughter. In rousing them up, Pela lectured the people on the boomeranging effect of silence to evil – “t’a ba ni ko kan wa, yi o kan eni ti o kan, ti o pada wa kan wa”, he counseled.

Then, a scene in the movie shifted to the palace. The whole village was in attendance, as well as a man called Olowoporoku and his wife. Still in his luxuriating voice and talent, Pela musically narrated Olowoporoku’s boldness of standing up to the monarchy headed by Oba Adewolu Adegoroye. He sang in denunciation of those who rise against the palace which Yoruba approximate as rising against the whole town. Pela announced that the enemy of the palace had been put to shame with the quashing of the conspiracy against the king and that haters of the monarchy were persons of mean repute. He sang this thus: “Ar’obafin, oju ti yin o//b’o je’yin le wa l’oni o//ab’Oba Adewolu… e l’aju le, gbogbo wa ni o s’oju…//ete kuku m’oni ete nwa, iyi m’eni iyi nba r’ode, eni ete mo’ra re l’awujo.”

Pela robed the king in the finest raiment. Oba Adewolu had a purity of character comparable only to the whiteness of a cattle egret (lekeleke) and Olowoporoku, not only was a mean character, but one whose moral standing was in the league of the filth of a pig. “Agberaga won a tun gbe’ra sanle, iru e ki s’eni iyi l’awujo…” Apparently the script to disgrace Olowoporoku having been pre-arranged, a goat that was dressed in exact apparel worn by Olowoporoku was brought to the palace. Pela then sang, asking the people to shout “monkey” – obo – “E ma pe obo ni! (Obo ni!)… eni wo’so bi obo (obo ni!) o de fila bi obo (obo ni!) o nb’oba da’sa (obo ni!)… aso ki le ro, t’e nkile t’e nru gaga?// Aso t’e ro t’e npon gege, s’ohun l’ewure ti nwo yi o!” He ended the musical narration by telling the palace hater that very soon, all those in his class would forcibly realize the majesty of the king – “isenyi le o m’oba//eyin t’e nb’oba l’eyin…”

At Iseyin, as the crowd savoured the occasion, amid effusive showering of praises on Obasanjo’s host governor, Seyi Makinde, the man known for always provoking verbal balls of fire suddenly sauntered into his familiar route. At the first occasion, the road inauguration, I was told that invited traditional rulers sat even when Obasanjo and his host arrived. When Obasanjo got up to address the crowd during the second event at the University of Technology’s opening, and the larger crowd of traditional rulers still sat, something snapped in him and Obasanjo went into his usual tempestuous tirade. If he had talked to the Obas in very civil language, it would have gone down well with Yoruba people. Rather, the ex-president spat out poison like a venomous rattlesnake, talking down on the natural rulers like a teacher does to offending kindergarten pupils. Flaffing his left hand like a salamander does its tail in a moment of extreme anger, Obasanjo then hectored on the rulers to stand up, “e dide!”, in the mode of a Garrison Commander at an army parade. His lips twitched awkwardly, and his countenance was like Sango, the god of thunder’s. He had earlier lectured the traditional rulers on giving honour to whom it is due.

The issue for determination in Iseyin on Friday is, who was the Ar’obafin? The Obas who dishonoured Ijoba (government) by refusing to join the upstanding people to welcome the governor or Obasanjo who upbraided them using a language meant for slaves on royalty?

Like many African societies, the Yoruba venerated their kings, almost to the point of idolatory. Their king was the incarnation of the concept of earthly sovereign. He regulated peace and order, guaranteed harmonic social relations with their fellow beings and was the intercessor who interacted between them and cosmic forces. The palace where the king lives, though owned by the whole town, was the outward representation of the people’s reverence for their king. It is always located at the sacred centre of the town and surrounded by huge walls. The palace’s importance was partly due to the fact that it was the place where decisions of the most important texture concerning town life were deliberated upon and taken. It was where esoteric rituals were performed among a coterie of a narrow circle of initiates.

A number of weird lore and mores were curated to give the king his primus inter pares aura and dread. First, the title of an Alaafin of Oyo, for instance, symbolized his unlimited powers. He was “lord of the universe and life,” “the master of the land” and “companion of the gods,” as well as the Kabiyesi who no one dares contradict his authority. He was a sacred ruler and ideological and political centre of power of his people who holds a dimension of power that was awesome. A number of secrecies, mystery and dread of things unknown and incomprehensible kept alive the oeuvres of sacredness of traditional institution in him. He was the mythical intermediary between his people and the gods and the link that connected the people with all the deities of the land and in whom there was a fulfillment of the desires of the gods in the land of the living. The legitimacy of the king’s royal power emanated from the dread and mysteries that were hoed round him. For instance, he must not see dead body. The belief that begot this was that, as one who symbolized and embodied life and being a life-giving force himself, sighting a dead body detracts from that power. He was also reputed with magical powers that were beyond his subjects’. That is why, upon the enthronement of an Oba, all magic men were required to scramble over one another to donate their amulets and powers to him. This is because the king was believed to be linked with the spirits of his deceased predecessors. As king, his major obligation was the sustenance of the prosperity and fertility of the land which he does by making sacrifices as at when required, engage in innumerable annual rites, as well as magic rituals.

The life and death of Obas in Yorubaland are a testament to their assumed powers. According to Samuel Johnson, not less than 21, out of 36 kings that this respected Yoruba history biographer included in his dynastic list, died by excruciating violence. In Oyo Alaafin, not a single one out of the kings of the 17th century died of natural death at a period regarded as the highest flourish of that kingdom. Indeed, fifteen of them, beginning with the 17th king Odarawu were compelled to commit suicide as a result of sentences passed by the oracle. As a means of implanting the authority and veneration of their kings in their minds, palace griots, who were mainly custodians of historical oral tradition of the people, narrated in poetic renditions the official version of the history of their kingdoms, heroic feats of their kings and stories of warfare, conquest.

However, the conversation between Obierika and Okonkwo in Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart seems to sum up the calamity that befell traditional institution subsequently. Dissecting colonial incursion into Igboland and the various queer events that had since transpired, upset by the white man’s total and complete disregard for the Igbo cosmology and the people’s conception of justice, Obierika was stunned that the colonialists didn’t understand the people of Umuofia. Obierika had said: “The white man is very clever. He came quietly and peaceably with his religion. We were amused at his foolishness and allowed him to stay. Now he has won our brothers, and our clan can no longer act like one. He has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart.” This, to me, equates the calamity that befell traditional institution in Yorubaland, the precursor of the Friday lacerating discourtesy heaped on Yoruba traditional institution by a man whose inscrutable disdain for the other person knows no bounds.

The white man indeed put a knife on the traditional institution that held Yoruba people together. This began with the gale of exiles it unleashed on highly venerated and dreaded monarchical stool. Oba Akitoye of Lagos was about the first. He had ascended the throne of his forefathers in 1841 and attempted to end the inhuman trade in persons. In this bid, he sowed enmity in the minds of local slave traders who contributed to his deposition and eventual exile. After the white men annexed Lagos in 1861 as a British territorial colony, it was time for recalcitrant kings who insisted on the supremacy of their thrones to be dealt with too. Thus, Ovonramwen Nogbaisi, the Oba of Benin, was equally chased off the throne and exiled to Calabar, alongside his two queens, leading to his eventual death in 1914.

Other kings who tasted the sour broths of the white colonialists were the Alake of Egba land, Oba Sir Ladapo Samuel Ademola who ascended the throne on May 28, 1920. He was the father of Justice Adetokunbo Ademola, the first indigenous Chief Justice of Nigeria at the granting of independence in 1960. After 27 years of being on the throne, his power was eroded after a violent protest of about 2000 women against colonial government’s native authority in 1947. Under the leadership of Mrs. Funmilayo Ransom-Kuti, with the assistance of her sister-in-law, Eniola Soyinka, the women virulently protested against taxes for women. Prodded on by colonial disdain for traditional rulers, it was bye to the highly venerated Yoruba monarchy as the women successfully chased Oba Ademola out of the palace.

Obasanjo’s shout on the Iseyin kings to stand up reminds me of the same call by mercurial deputy leader of the Action Group, Chief Bode Thomas. Born in 1918, Thomas was one of the most brilliant solicitors of Yoruba extraction of pre-colonial Nigeria. In company with Chief Rotimi Williams and Chief Remilekun Fani-Kayode, he established the law firm named Thomas, Willams, Kayode and co. He was however far removed from the indigenous texture of his native Oyo town where he was born. He was also very haughty. So when in 1953, Thomas was appointed the Oyo Divisional Council Chairman, it was obvious that he would find his measure in the father of the recently deceased Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Adeniran Adeyemi II, who reigned on the stool from 1945 to 1954. On November 22, 1953, the day the 35-year-old Thomas made his first appearance in council, just like the Iseyin Obas gathered at the Friday function, Thomas could not countenance why Alaafin Adeniran would sit while others stood for him. Like Obasanjo, he immediately expressed his disavowal at this. He then asked the Oba, who was then in his 60s, “Why are you sitting when I walked in, don’t you know how to show respect?” During one of my discussions with Alaafin Lamidi Adeyemi who just passed, he confirmed to me that his father merely rhetorically demanded if it was him that Thomas was barking at – se’mi lo ngbo mo baun? And then commanded Thomas, to continue in his bark – Ma gbo lo baun! Oba Adeniran was to pay dearly for this as he was deposed and died in exile at Egerton, a mosquito-infested Guest House in Lagos. Thomas continued barking like a dog and passed on in the morning of the second day.

As they say, since then, a lot of water has passed under the bridge. By the constitutions of Nigeria since the advent of colonialism, the palace has always been put under the subordination of political authorities. This has colossally eroded the respect, veneration and contributions to society of kings. As it is now, monarchs are under the subordination of local government chairmen who can instigate their deposition. Respected veteran journalist, Lekan Alabi, sent out a video of an interview conducted by the NTA Ibadan with him as the Producer and presenter, with late Kano State governor, Alhaji Abubakar Rimi. Rimi was having a spat with the Emir of Kano, Alhaji Ado Bayero during this period. In the interview, Rimi exploded: “The way you press and our political opponents (regard) the Emir of Kano is not the way we regard him. As far as we are concerned (thumping his chest) – we the elected government of Kano state – as far as I, the governor of Kano State, is concerned – the Emir of Kano is nothing, nothing, nothing but a public person… he is holding a public office… being paid from public funds and whose appointment is at the pleasure of the governor of the state and who can be dismissed, removed interdicted, suspended if he commits an offence. And there is nothing unique about Ado Bayero, the Emir of Kano… believe me, if he commits any offence which will make it necessary for us to remove him, we will remove him and we will sleep soundly.”

In the explanation of their cosmogony, it is Yoruba’s belief that, as hot and red-eyed as Sango is, not only does it give respect to the blacksmithry and the forge, Ile Aro, it is not in his keel to strike it with its thunder. Why will Obasanjo, a man who has taught culture and tradition overtime, be the hot anvil that will consume the anvil? Don’t Yoruba say that the reverse is unimaginable, in the saying that ina ewu kii jo ewu, ina ewiri kii jo ewiri? Indeed, that Friday event was a mortal blow on traditional institution.

Why the Obasanjo Friday indecorous talk-down on the Iseyin Obas was unusual was that he had always shown the way to go to all political office holders by publicly courtesying to monarchs. He recently, even at his over 80 years old, prostrated to the Ooni of Ife who is younger in age than his first born. This is why, as I said earlier, if Obasanjo had not made a public ridicule of the Obas, he would have had sympathies of the people. First, he was far older than virtually all the kings at the event and thus deserved their respect. Second, as Nigeria’s former leader, who was Nigeria’s Head of State at a time many of them were in secondary school, they should have shown him some measure of honour. Sitting down when an elderly person stands is disrespect of the first order in Yorubaland. I have also confirmed that protocol, especially since the constitutional de-robing of kings of their essences, has since demanded that kings should pay obeisance to political leaders, including even the chairman of their local governments, at public events. However, as they say, if you are sent a message as a slave, you should be knowledgeable enough to deliver it as a freeborn.

To be fair to Obasanjo, though the gradual loss of verve of traditional institution didn’t begin with him, he willingly offered himself as its pallbearer. Many of the traditional rulers on parade in Nigeria today wear such disreputable robes that no one in their true senses should pay them any regard. Nyesom Wike, as governor of Rivers State, publicly dressed down one of them. Today, Yoruba do not venerate their kings any longer and do not see them as embodying their sovereignty. Rather than regulating peace and order of their domains, they are disruptors of the peace therein. The palace has become a den of thieves and fraudsters with many of them kings only to maximize pecuniary interests. No esoteric rituals are performed in palaces any longer but cryptic deals of fraudulence among a circle of fraudulent initiates, with the sacredness of traditional institution grossly destroyed. So, if Obasanjo talked down on them, he must have known that they were reverses of the natural rulers who deserved anyone’s respect.

I am actually interested in an aspect of the speech of Governor Makinde at the said event. On the vacant stool of the Alaafin, which is the subject of intense acrimony and tackles at the moment, Makinde had said: “Those of you fighting over the Alaafin stool should stop. Those who have collected money from people should know that Alaafin stool is not for sale. It is too important to Yorubaland that we will not sell it. For those who have collected money, I will take them to the EFCC”.

The governor’s homily is a representation of what ails traditional institution in Nigeria today. It has gone to the dogs. If it is possible for Makinde and the Oyo Mesi to recreate the profundity in tradition, language and culture of Yoruba people, panache and Yoruba leadership which the late Alaafin, Oba Lamidi Adeyemi manifested while alive, we probably would have none of those Iseyin Obas lacking the courage to damn Obasanjo’s bark at them to stand up. Kabiyesi, Omo Alowolodu, Iku Baba Yeye Lamidi Adeyemi, would rather die than be led by the nose to surrender as Obasanjo led those kings on Friday.

Related Topics:
Comments

Opinion

Doctors’ Strike and the Price of Human Life | By Olusegun Hassan

Published

3 days ago

on

October 23, 2026

By

The popular Yoruba saying, “Ẹni kan l’ọmọ,” meaning that only the person wearing the shoes knows where they pinch, recently took on a deeper meaning for me. Just last week, I experienced its true significance beyond its familiar place as an aphorism.

Popular sayings often remain mere expressions in our consciousness until we find ourselves at the receiving end of the experiences they describe. Similarly, systemic flaws and structural deficiencies in society may seem distant until we become victims of them. News of kidnapping is just another newspaper report until a loved one is abducted and the family is thrown into a desperate search for money to pay a ransom. In the same vein, the news that “doctors are on strike” may appear to be just another headline until someone close to us dies because urgent medical attention was unavailable as a result of the strike.

Nigeria’s story is replete with such unfortunate experiences, which have given rise to another familiar expression: “May Nigeria not happen to you.”

While the media landscape was still reeling from reports of the death of popular gospel singer Toluwanisings, who reportedly died on October 14, 2026, following an alleged lack of urgent medical attention during a doctors’ strike, I also lost a close relative two days later, on October 16, under circumstances involving the same lack of timely medical care.

She was an asthma patient who suffered an attack in the middle of the night. After receiving first aid, she was rushed to the nearest hospital, a teaching hospital, only to be turned away because doctors were on strike and none was available to attend to her. By the time the family reached the nearest private hospital, she had died. Her death left the entire family, myself included, traumatised.

These are only two cases among many similar tragedies that have occurred over the years. They raise a painful question: how many of these deaths could have been prevented if essential medical services had remained accessible?

I cannot help but wonder: what is the value of human life in this country? At what point did the sanctity of human life become secondary to demands for improved welfare by medical unions?

This is not to suggest that the grievances of doctors are illegitimate. Far from it. Medical professionals deserve fair remuneration, adequate facilities, safe working conditions and an environment that enables them to perform their duties effectively. The question, however, is whether the pursuit of these legitimate demands should come at such a devastating cost to human life, particularly when the fundamental purpose of the medical profession is to preserve life through the provision of appropriate healthcare.

It is a troubling paradox.

Doctors undoubtedly have the right to demand fair treatment and safe working conditions. However, that right must be exercised in a manner that protects patients from abandonment and avoidable harm. When patients die because essential medical services have been withdrawn without adequate safeguards, the ethical justification for the action becomes a serious matter for scrutiny.

The World Medical Association (WMA), an international body that promotes widely recognised ethical standards for physicians, upholds principles that include respect for human life and the dignity of patients. These principles underscore the responsibility of doctors to protect the health and well-being of those under their care, provide competent and timely treatment, prevent avoidable harm and act in their patients’ best interests.

These are not merely ideals about compassion. They are professional obligations that must continue to guide medical decisions, including during industrial disputes.

In Nigeria, the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) addressed this issue in January 2024, reportedly directing the heads of teaching hospitals, federal medical centres and specialised hospitals to ensure that industrial action did not result in the abandonment or premature discharge of patients.

Among the safeguards outlined were the following:

  • Accident and emergency departments must remain open and adequately staffed.
  • Emergency paediatric services, labour wards, neonatal units and intensive care units must continue to provide emergency and critical care.
  • Patients already admitted to hospital must not be discharged merely because a strike has commenced.
  • Patients with scheduled appointments before the strike must be attended to in accordance with the applicable directives.

These safeguards reinforce an important principle: the right to pursue employment-related demands does not extinguish a doctor’s professional obligation to protect patients from preventable harm.

Where emergency patients are turned away, critically ill patients are abandoned, or essential services are shut down without adequate arrangements for emergency care, the circumstances warrant investigation. Where evidence establishes a breach of professional obligations or applicable regulations, appropriate disciplinary or legal action should follow.

Similarly, when a patient dies after being denied emergency treatment during an industrial action, the circumstances surrounding the death deserve a thorough and impartial investigation. Where negligence, professional misconduct or a breach of applicable directives is established, appropriate sanctions should be imposed in accordance with the law and relevant professional regulations.

The point is simple: no legitimate grievance should justify abandoning a patient whose life is in immediate danger.

At this juncture, it is equally important to acknowledge the government’s share of the blame. While this article emphasises the ethical obligation of doctors to preserve human life, the government must also recognise that poor remuneration, unpaid allowances, inadequate medical facilities, excessive workloads and unsafe working conditions undermine doctors’ morale and their ability to provide quality healthcare.

The consequences are increasingly evident in Nigeria’s continuing loss of medical professionals to other countries.

In 2025, the Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Professor Muhammad Ali Pate, reportedly disclosed that more than 16,000 Nigerian doctors had emigrated over the preceding five to seven years, largely in search of better opportunities abroad. Furthermore, a 2025 report on Nigeria’s health statistics reportedly indicated that 4,193 doctors and dentists left the country in 2024 alone.

These departures deepen staffing shortages, increase the pressure on the doctors who remain and expose patients to longer waiting times and potentially avoidable deaths.

The government must therefore move beyond repeated negotiations and implement sustainable reforms. These should include the prompt payment of salaries and allowances, improved working conditions, adequate funding for public hospitals, transparent career progression and the effective implementation of agreements reached with medical unions.

The Federal Ministry of Health and relevant hospital authorities must also strengthen monitoring and oversight during industrial disputes to ensure that emergency and critical care services remain available in public hospitals. Patients in life-threatening conditions must not be turned away simply because doctors are on strike.

Ultimately, responsibility for Nigeria’s healthcare crisis cannot be placed entirely on one side. Doctors must uphold their professional and ethical obligations, while the government must fulfil its responsibility to create conditions in which those obligations can be discharged effectively.

Medicine is not an ordinary occupation. It carries a profound moral responsibility because, in certain circumstances, the timely intervention of a medical professional can make the difference between life and death. No employment grievance should be used to justify abandoning a patient whose life is in immediate danger.

The sanctity of human life demands responsibility from the doctors entrusted with treating patients and from the government authorities responsible for ensuring that appropriate treatment remains available.

A functional healthcare system depends on cooperation between these two critical stakeholders. When they fail to find common ground, it is the ordinary citizen who suffers the consequences. As the familiar saying goes, when two elephants fight, the grass suffers.

And trust me, I know what that suffering feels like. I have just experienced it.

Olusegun Hassan, Ph.D.
Public Policy Analyst and Social Commentator

Continue Reading

Opinion

Oyo, Osun Petrol Price War: Why Fair Competition Should Matter 

Published

4 days ago

on

October 22, 2026

By

The decision by some filling stations in Oyo and Osun states to sell petrol at lower prices than their competitors has brought renewed attention to pricing practices in Nigeria’s downstream petroleum sector and, more importantly, to what consumers stand to gain when competition is allowed to work.

Investigations and enquiries into petrol prices in the two states revealed differences in pump prices, with some independent petroleum marketers (IPM) selling Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), popularly known as petrol, for about ₦1,375 per litre, while some competing stations charged about ₦1,385 per litre.

Although the difference is just ₦10 per litre, the savings are meaningful for motorists, commercial transport operators, artisans, traders and other residents who depend on petrol to earn a living.

For a commercial driver buying 40 litres, for instance, the price difference amounts to ₦400. For small businesses that rely on petrol-powered generators, repeated purchases at lower prices could provide some relief amid the rising cost of living. Across thousands of consumers and multiple purchases, modest savings can become a substantial reduction in household and business expenses.

However, findings from the enquiries suggest that some independent marketers who had previously sold petrol at relatively lower prices later adjusted their pump prices to match those of competing stations.

The development has prompted questions about what influences pricing decisions in the two states and whether consumers are being allowed to benefit fully from competition among petroleum marketers.

Information obtained during engagements with some marketers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also indicated that the leadership of the Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN) in the two states had expressed displeasure over the decision by some members to sell petrol below the prices charged by other filling stations.

The circumstances surrounding the reported position of the association’s leadership, however, require clarification from the relevant IPMAN officials. Their response is necessary to establish the facts, understand the basis of the reported concerns and give the association an opportunity to state its position.

THE CASE FOR FAIR COMPETITION

At the heart of the matter is a question that directly affects consumers: should a petroleum marketer who can legitimately sell petrol at a lower price be discouraged from doing so simply because competitors are charging more?

The answer should be guided by evidence, legality and consumer welfare. In a competitive market, businesses generally make pricing decisions based on their operating costs, supply arrangements, margins and commercial objectives. Where a marketer can sustainably offer a lower price while meeting all applicable regulatory, product-quality and safety requirements, consumers should be able to consider that option.

Fair competition is not merely a benefit to individual buyers. It creates pressure on businesses to control costs, improve efficiency and offer better value. A lower price from one marketer can encourage others to review their own costs and pricing decisions, potentially producing wider benefits for customers.

This does not mean that every low-priced offer is automatically sustainable or that marketers should ignore the economic realities of running their businesses. Differences in supply costs, transportation, location and other expenses may legitimately result in different pump prices.

The issue, therefore, is not whether every filling station should sell petrol at the same price. It is whether businesses can compete fairly, transparently and within the law, without undue pressure to abandon commercially viable prices that benefit consumers.

Any intervention that prevents legitimate price competition should be supported by clear evidence and a lawful, consumer-focused justification. Otherwise, the likely result is a narrower range of choices and less pressure on sellers to offer better prices.

THE BURDEN ON ORDINARY RESIDENTS

For many households and small businesses, petrol prices go beyond what appears on a filling station’s price board. Higher fuel costs can increase transportation fares, the cost of moving goods and the expense of running generators and other equipment.

Traders may have to spend more transporting their goods to markets, while commercial drivers face pressure from rising operating costs. Such expenses can eventually be passed on to consumers through higher prices for goods and services.

Against this background, any legitimate opportunity to reduce fuel expenses deserves serious attention.

Allowing genuine competition among petroleum marketers could offer some relief, particularly where consumers have access to reliable information about prices and can choose where to buy their fuel. The ability to compare prices is itself an important part of a functioning market.

At the same time, price differences should be examined in context. A lower pump price alone does not establish wrongdoing by competing stations, just as a higher price does not automatically amount to exploitation. Reliable evidence about supply costs, market conditions and the conduct of the parties concerned is needed to reach a fair conclusion.

The central point remains clear: where lower prices are lawful, sustainable and supported by quality and safety compliance, consumers should not be deprived of the benefit merely because uniformity is more convenient for sellers.

STAKEHOLDERS MUST CLARIFY THE ISSUES

The reported concerns over lower pump prices in Oyo and Osun call for open engagement among IPMAN leadership, independent marketers and other relevant stakeholders.

IPMAN officials in both states should be given the opportunity to explain whether any concerns were raised about members selling petrol below prevailing local prices and, if so, the reasons behind those concerns.

Independent marketers, on their part, should be prepared to explain how they arrive at their pump prices and demonstrate that their pricing practices are commercially sustainable and comply with relevant requirements.

The relevant regulatory authorities also have a role to play in ensuring that petroleum products meet quality and safety standards and that market participants operate within the applicable legal framework. They should also remain alert to any conduct that unlawfully restricts competition or misleads consumers.

No stakeholder should be condemned solely on the basis of an unverified allegation. Equally, concerns that could affect consumers’ access to competitively priced fuel should not be dismissed without proper examination.

A balanced approach requires both scrutiny and restraint: lower prices should be tested against evidence, while attempts to suppress legitimate competition should also face appropriate questions.

CONSUMERS SHOULD NOT BE LEFT OUT

Ultimately, the debate over petrol prices in Oyo and Osun should not become a contest between filling station owners. The interests of consumers must remain central.

Petroleum marketers need a business environment in which they can operate sustainably, recover legitimate costs and earn reasonable returns. Consumers, however, also deserve a marketplace where they can make informed choices and benefit from genuine competition.

If a filling station can lawfully and sustainably sell quality petrol at a lower price, that decision should be assessed on its merits rather than opposed simply because neighbouring stations charge more. Competition should not be treated as a problem merely because it exposes differences in pricing.

The way forward lies in transparency, fair competition and constructive engagement among stakeholders.

For residents struggling with the cost of transportation, food and other necessities, even modest savings matter. Ensuring that legitimate competition is allowed to work could help ease some of that pressure, while proper oversight can protect consumers from unsafe products and unsustainable practices.

The relevant question is whether all parties are prepared to put a fair and transparent marketplace ahead of unnecessary disputes over pricing. Consumers should not be asked to pay more simply to preserve uniformity where lawful competition can deliver better value.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Governor Seyi Makinde’s Media Chat: A Hundred And Twenty Minutes Of Trash Talk | By Sola Abegunde

Published

2 weeks ago

on

October 13, 2026

By

I knew that Governor Makinde would provide us with a hundred and twenty minutes of comic relief and at the same time, I knew he is bound to commit unforced errors which would further expose his shenanigans.

The outgoing Governor of Oyo state did not disappoint on both fronts.

Personally, I understand the need for him to have one final valedictory Media Chat.

The atmosphere might be too hot for him to even think of such luxury after the general election in 2027. So, if he’s got the opportunity now, why not take a shot at it?

I must however say that the Governor displayed his insensitivity right from the choice of the Studio the Chat was aired.

Shortly before the Media Chat commenced, I came across a release signed by the Chairman of the Nigeria Union of Journalist, NUJ, BCOS Chapel, Com. Ademola Balogun.

Com. Balogun was full of lamentations concerning the very terrible state of the Oyo state Broadcasting Corporations, BCOS.

He was of the very strong opinion that the BCOS should have meaningful opportunities to cover Government activities.

He also called on Governor Seyi Makinde to empower the BCOS to invest in modern studio, transmitting equipment, digital broadcasting facilities and online platforms.

Com. Ademola spoke extensively about Staff welfare and other issues.

Sadly, while Governor Seyi Makinde has been consistent in empowering a particular Radio station, the Broadcasting Corporations of Oyo state, BCOS has been dying slowly.

Unfortunately, I have no good news for Com. Ademola. His lamentations will definitely fall on stone deaf ears. It is too late for Governor Makinde to change his ways. I just pray that the Governor would not wake up one day and sold off whatever remains of the Corporation.

That is just by the way. Let me address Governor Makinde’s Media Chat for whatever it is worth. The Governor spent a whole two hours venting anger and spreading outright lies and half-truths.

I am surprised that Governor Makinde has not seen any reason for him to have a second thought about his awkward and reckless comments about the Law Profession.

I am saying this because, for the second time, his Deputy was sitting closely beside him and yet, he felt like it was humorous for him to take a dig at Senator Sarafadeen Abiodun Alli, the All Progressives Congress, APC Gubernatorial candidate, regarding his misconceived failure as a Law practitioner.

He repeated the ignorant and reckless comments about Senator Alli, not being a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and for that reason, according to Governor Seyi Makinde, the Oyo South Senator is not an accomplished Legal Practitioner.

He had made that same reckless comments a couple of weeks ago and at that time also, the Deputy Governor was beside him!

The respectable man is an accomplished Lawyer of many years of experience, who had trained a lot of successful Lawyers.

I also wonder, how people like Dr. Nureni Adeniran and Olasunkanmi Olaleye, who are also Lawyers and have been working with Governor Seyi Makinde over the years would feel about those reckless comments coming from their Boss.

If you want to follow Governor Seyi Makinde’s reasoning, if you are a teacher and you did not rise to the status of a School Principal or Head teacher, then, you’re a failure.

If you are a Military Personnel and you didn’t rise to the position of a General, you’re a failure!

Any time I saw the Governor arguing in this regard, I always asked myself if he was actually himself, because, for me, only a drunkard is capable of reasoning in that manner, or, perhaps, some young elements who had taken so much banned substances.

I have carefully analyzed the 120 minutes Media Chat and I saw that Governor Seyi Makinde spent so much time treating two issues.

The first, being his frustration about his perceived betrayal by president Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the second being his failed attempt to rewrite the Constitution of Nigeria regarding the financial autonomy for Local Governments.

The birthday boy tried to work him through the crisis at the Circular Road, but it was obvious that the main reasons behind Governor Makinde’s Media Chat were grounded on his firm beliefs that Tinubu breached certain agreements with him and others in 2023 and his warped opinion about how the Local Governments should operate within our Federation.

Let’s start with Governor Seyi Makinde’s allegations against Tinubu.

According to him, in 2023, an agreement was signed between certain individuals, including himself.

He said there was an agreement that a Government of National Unity would be formed by president Tinubu after he won the presidential election of 2023 and that he and the Governor of Lagos state, Babajide Sanwo-Olu were signatories to that agreement.

According to him, president Tinubu was not a signatory to the agreement but he was informed after the agreement was signed!

He went further to say that on the strength of that agreement, he presented Bimbo Adekambi as a Ministerial nominee because the president had earlier told him that he wanted to appoint the Minister for Budget and Planing from Oyo state.

To his chagrin and disappointment, president Tinubu settled for Bayo Adelabu and asked him to own the nomination of the former Minister for power, a request he claimed he rejected.

He therefore concluded that all the Ministers nominated from the South West are from Bourdilon.

I have carefully analyzed this confession by Governor Seyi Makinde and I have a few questions for him.

Why is it that Governor Seyi Makinde is the only one complaining about a breached agreement?

Why did it take him all these long to come out with this fact?

What was the criteria for the nomination of Bimbo Adekambi? Did he just take a random decision to choose Adekambi without a prior relationship between the two of them or what?

How does Governor Seyi Makinde want to convince any right thinking person that he believed an agreement would be binding on Tinubu on the strength of Governor Sanwo-Olu’s alleged signature?

For me, that doesn’t make any sense, most especially, for an ” accomplished Engr” like Seyi Makinde!

I am surprised that Governor Makinde leaves out what he benefited from the alignment with Tinubu in 2023.

Remove the alignment with Tinubu in 2023, Seyi Makinde was a goner and the fact that he was able to secure a second term in office ought to have been enough for him.

I am also surprised that Governor Makinde didn’t understand that he was advertising his penchant for serial betrayal and greed when he was relating the events that shaped his re-election in 2023.

It was all about him and the decisions he took, not only affected the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP alone, it also affected certain candidates of his party during the first ballot in 2023.

Now, to the issue of Local Government Autonomy.

Governor Seyi Makinde is a very funny individual. He was very clear about his position on Local Government Autonomy in 2023.

His position was that he never even believed in their existence and I was amused when the birthday boy was saying that despite his position on Local Government Autonomy in 2023, he was still able to win in 31 Local Governments, signifying the fact that the people of Oyo state believed Governor Makinde’s explanations.

I am extremely happy that Governor Seyi Makinde has not changed his opinion on how Local Governments should operate within the Federating units.

He is still stuck on the fact that the 33 Local Governments in Oyo state should be appendages to the State Government, even, in spite of the Judgment of the Supreme Court granting them full financial autonomy.

I am shocked that Governor Seyi Makinde could attempt to confuse what happened between the Lagos state Government when Tinubu was Governor of the state and the Federal Government during Obasanjo’s period, with the illegalities he has been perpetuating with the resources 33 Local Governments.

There is a clear distinction between both scenarios.

In the case of Tinubu as Governor of Lagos state, the Lagos state Government created more Local Governments and the Federal Government was of the opinion that the state Government was wrong to have done so.

As a result of this misunderstanding, the Federal Government stopped the monthly allocations for the Local Governments in Lagos state and it led to a Judicial dispute.

In the end, the Supreme Court held that the Local Governments created by the Lagos state Government were incohate, but it faulted the Federal Government for withholding the monthly allocations belonging to the Local Governments in Lagos state.

Lagos state Government thereafter recognized and administered the newly created Local Governments as Local Government Development Areas and many states have since copied the template, including Oyo state.

In the present scenario, the president, through the Attorney general of the Federation approached the Supreme Court and sought to secure full financial autonomy for the 774 Local Governments and the Supreme Court agreed to the request.

I have been asking myself, why is it that Governor Seyi Makinde is having problems with that judgement?

The monthly allocations released to the 33 Local Governments are released against their names.

Is Governor Seyi Makinde saying that it is proper for a Governor to still be the supervisor for the 33 Local Governments?

How does the judgment of the Supreme Court translate to the Federal Government trying to take control of the 774 Local Governments?

Yorubas will always say that a dog can not stand watch over two different buildings. ( Aja kii roro, ko so ojule meji po).

I was also surprised to hear Governor Seyi Makinde talking about the fact that, instead of full financial autonomy for the Local Governments, he preferred to discuss about how the Local Governments could be empowered to survive without monthly allocations from Abuja.

Haba! Governor Makinde!! Gently now.

You are depriving the Local Governments of their entitlements and you except them to thrive. How would that happen?

Why didn’t we start with the state? Can Oyo state survive without monthly allocations?

I think everyone can now see that Bimbo Adekambi as Governor, would never allow the Local Governments to breathe.

On the other hand, Senator Sarafadeen Abiodun Alli has promised to guarantee full financial autonomy for the 33 Local Governments and the implementation of the policy requires no rocket science. All it requires is the will.

There is an existing judgment of the Supreme Court which has outlined the steps to be taken by any willing state Government.

Sarafa Alli only needs to direct relevant stakeholders at the Local Governments to comply with the judgment and that is the end of the matter.

What is so difficult in that, if you are not covetous?

I might have to do this piece in series but I will like to warn the residents of the Circular Road.

You heard Governor Seyi Makinde. He is promising you nothing.

My only problem with him is his attempts to shift the blame of the chaos he orchestrated at the Circular Road on the late Governor Abiola Ajimobi.

He even said that that the Government of Ajimobi defrauded residents of the Circular Road!

Sometimes, people like Governor Seyi Makinde needs no one to enchant them. Their character is an enchantment on itself.

If you’re saying that the Governments of the late Ajimobi defrauded residents of the Circular Road, is Bimbo Adekambi not an integral part of that Government and that is before you begin to ask the Governor for proofs.

I enjoyed Governor Seyi Makinde’s valedictory Media Chat, while looking forward to the new era awaiting him next year.

My father used to tell us that the mouth of the liar does not ooze blood. ( Enu opuro kii seje).

By the way, I saw that Governor Seyi Makinde never mentioned anything about the report of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the abduction of Teachers and Pupils of Yawota and Esinele communities of Oriire Local Government.

How far now?

Sola Abegunde.

Continue Reading

Trending