Opinion
Oyo, Osun Petrol Price War: Why Fair Competition Should Matter
Published
3 weeks agoon
By
Mega IconThe 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.
You may like
Opinion
G-WAGON: Dare Adeleke, A Liar’ll Steal; Why’re You Desperate To Conceal The Truth? | Maroof Asudemade
Published
6 days agoon
November 6, 2026By
Mega IconI 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.
Opinion
OYO AHEAD: Senator Alli Blueprint for Oyo Renewal | Muji Armstrong-Bello
Published
6 days agoon
November 6, 2026By
Mega IconThe 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
Opinion
OYO 2027: MAKINDE EATS SOUR GRAPES, ADEKANMBI’S TEETH MUST BE SET ON EDGE
Published
1 week agoon
November 4, 2026The 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.
MEGAICON TV
Late Lam Adesina’s Legacy Remains Enduring – Oseni
Ogbomoso Political Earthquake: Makinde Loses Ex-CoS, 32 APM Chieftains to APC
Oyo APC Raises Alarm Over Alleged Plan to Sell Govt Fish Farm
Trending
-
Politics4 weeks agoDIPHTHERIA OUTBREAK: ALLI QUERIES ₦9.9BN IMPACT FUNDS AS OYO LAGS IN CHILD VACCINATION
-
News3 weeks ago2027: Alli, Oseni Tour Ibarapa, Seek Support for APC Candidacies
-
News4 weeks agoOyo South: Sheikh Olafimihan Hails Oseni for N10m Inyass House Donation
-
Politics4 weeks ago2027: Oseni Support Islamic Group’s Building Project With N10m, Urges Voters to Prioritise Competence Over Religion