Connect with us

Opinion

Should Lawbreakers Make Laws For You And I? | By Taiwo Adisa

Published

on

 

In the aftermath of the national elections of 2023, a good number of political watchers in the country easily concluded that the much talked about “Third Force” in Nigeria’s political firmament had arrived the scene following the strong showing of the Labour Party (LP) in that election. The party’s presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi clinched the third position in the race for Aso Rock, coming bumper to bumper behind President Bola Tinubu and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar.

The LP also secured six seats in the Senate and 34 of 360 House of Representatives.

 

But not long after that historic electoral display by the LP, the Nigeria factor set into its operations as its leaders started deconstructing every hint of sanity that pervaded its operations hitherto. Everything that made the party the beautiful bride of the youth got torn into shreds, while its leaders engaged in naked dance in the village square. The endless court cases that ensued threatened the very existence of the LP, and it became obvious that the Peter Obi magic wand that secured for it the enviable national status was fast waning.

 

The flurry of defections that followed, particularly in the House of Representatives, were not unexpected. Between June and December last year, no fewer than six Rep members of the party had defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC) on account of “the crisis” that had engulfed the party. Four members defected on one day, another followed and yet another. The case of the member representing Jos South/Jos East Federal Constituency, Hon. Ajang Iliya who defected from the LP to the APC, citing, as usual, “the crisis in the leadership of the Labour Party,” particularly roused tension in the House on December 12, 2024, when the Minority Leader, Hon Kingsley Chinda objected to the letter of defection read on Iliya’s behalf. He claimed that Iliya’s letter failed to comply with the constitution. According to Chinda, a standing order had been given by the House that any member who intends to defect must first inform his constituents, and since Iliya could not show such proof, his letter should be rejected. Despite the commotion that erupted, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas overruled Chinda. Nobody needs a long guess to understand why Abbas did what he did. His party, the APC, was winning another soul, so he had no qualms, whether the new convert gained entry into the party through the window or the back door. It is obvious that the last has not been heard about defections in the Senate, the House of Representatives or even the Houses of Assembly in the states, because as I write, rumours of defection have enveloped many lawmakers.

 

 

A number of studies have attempted to proffered reasons for the jumpology that characterises the activities of the lawmakers in recent years. One of such is the lack of distinctive ideology separating the political parties and then the glaring lack of governance model within the political parties. Despite the vantage position, the constitution places them in the leadership recruitment process. The laissez faire mode of administration they often adopt denies them of their importance.

 

Nonetheless, whatever pushes a member to abandon the writ of the political party that got him into the chamber cannot justify that or enable him to eat his cake and have it. In clear words, Sections 68 (1) (g) as well as 109 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution affirm the time-honoured doctrine of equity, which states that “Who comes to equity must come with clean hands.” That doctrine is also emphasized by the Yoruba when they say A kii je meji ni aba Alade, a saying, which, translated into English language, would still sound like- ‘you can’t eat your cake and have it’.

 

But, legislators in Nigeria have been eating their cakes and still having it in full, especially since the return of democratic governance in 1999. The rule for them is, ‘just get elected first, you will cross the bridge of political correctness when you get there’. ‘If it is possible, you can even switch political party allegiance before the inauguration day’. That conduct, however, remains in violation of the dictates of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which designates defections as one of the grounds a member can lose his seat.

 

Section 68 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution indicates that “A member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if –

 

(g) “Being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by

a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected;

 

“Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored.”

 

The same provision applies to members of the House of Assembly of a state in Section 109 (1) (g).

 

When the above sections were tested in the courts in the case of Hon. Ifedayo Abegunde Vs Ondo State House of Assembly, the Court of Appeal held that defection involves “….factionalization, fragmentation, splintering or division,” which would make it impossible for the party to function as a body. Any other thing to the contrary would indicate that a lawmaker cannot eat his cake and have it. Such a member, if he must defect, must also abandon the mandate he has been given. The courts also held that the said “division” in the rank of the party must not only affect parts of the party or a state chapter. A division, in the estimation of the court does not also amount to a situation where a member goes to cause crisis in his state or local chapter of the party in order to use the same as spring board for defection.

 

It should be appalling to see a political party that was rejected in an election turn out to regain the seat through the back door. But that is what our legislators have been doing, each time they defect. It is like the case of the law breaker making the law for the law abiding; a convict standing in judgment against the just, in an Animal Farm scenario.

 

 

So, should the breakers of sections 68 (1) (g) and 109 (1) (g) continue to hold firm to their seats after defection? That is the question that should agitate the minds of the electorate. And that is the question members of the public should direct to the Presidents of the Senate and the Speakers of the respective houses, who are mandated by Sections 68 (2) and 109 (2) to declare the seat of a defecting lawmaker vacant.

 

Section 68 (2) provides that: “The President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, shall give effect to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, so however that the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives or a member shall first present evidence satisfactory to the House concerned that any of the provisions of that subsection has become applicable in respect of that member.”

 

Perhaps the above subsection has, rather than helped the cause of the electorate, only provided a tent for the presiding officers to hide. Our elders say that even if you give a mad man a hoe, he would still draw things to himself. In a situation where politics is perpetually be at play, such a constitutional provision should not remain in our law books, because a Senate President or the Speaker may not feel obliged to send a member packing if such a one can become his loyalist.

 

Rather than seek political correctness as the end point of their service, rendering good service and the comfort of the constituents should remain the primary goal of a legislator. Where that is missing, the people must wield the big stick by applying the power of recall against an erring lawmaker who violates the “just cause,” proviso contained in Section 68 (3) of the 1999 Constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

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