Opinion
What if we wake up tomorrow to a coup in Nigeria?
Published
5 years agoon
“Narratives of corruption today under Muhammadu Buhari are worse than what was in place that pushed Chukwuma Nzeogwu to plan the January, 1966 coup. Gowon and his triumvirates also claimed that killing of northerners was reason why he and the coupists of July, 1966 struck. Today, insecurity and killing of northerners and southerners are far worse under a man who was elected based on the belief that, as a retired General, his military bravura would stop genocidal insurgents.”
The New York Times report of March 13, 1976 put the story of Nigeria’s perennial human sacrifices by the bloodthirsty grove of coup-plotting most startlingly. The day before, newly appointed Chief of Defense Staff, Brigadier Musa Yar’Adua, had announced that former Defense Minister, Major General Iliya D. Bisalla and 29 others, had been executed by the seaside suburb of Victoria Island. The bar beach execution ground was jam-packed with thousands of onlookers who had come to watch the execution. The 30 persons were killed for their roles in the assassination of military Head of State, Murtala Ramat Mohammed, alongside his aide-de-camp, Lieutenant Akintunde Akinsehinwa.
While announcing the execution, Yar’Adua also called on Britain to extradite ousted Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, then student of Political Science at Warwick University in England, to answer charges of co-plotting the coup. Gowon, by Col Buka Suka Dimka’s confession, had invited him to London when he (Dimka) traveled to Madrid, Spain on official assignment and asked him to contact Bisalla for execution of the coup. Of the 125 people arrested, 40 were released and 32, including Bisalla, were sentenced to death. This included Abdulkarim Zakari, a radio journalist, said to be a relative of Victoria, General Gowon’s wife. Dimka, who also participated in an earlier counter-coup of July, 1966 which toppled General Aguiyi Ironsi, was as at this time still being interrogated to further implicate Gowon. He was later publicly executed at the Lagos Kirikiri Maximum Security Prison on May 15, 1976.
Bisalla’s inclusion among the coup plotters had sent shock waves round the country. He was highly respected and distinguished as an ex- military commander of an infantry division during the civil war and who was also renowned for his postwar conciliation efforts. About the oldest General of the lot at the time, when he was arrested upon Dimka’s canary-like confession, Bisalla was reported to have soliloquized, (in my paraphrase) “how can these young boys end one’s military career like this!” Huge and tall, Bisalla was dressed in a cream-coloured safari dress as he walked down to the stakes. Not only was his military career ended. Bullets ended his life as well. Till today, Bisalla’s conviction and execution are still being put to the impunity of military era court-martial as there was no single tissue of corroboration of the allegation of his involvement in the coup plot, aside Dimka’s evidence.
Sixty nine years after the July 23, 1952 first coup in Africa called the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, led by Mohammed Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser and which overthrew King Farouk and the Muhammed Ali Dynasty; 55 years after its first variant in Nigeria that took place in 1966, the word “coup” is rearing its ugly head again. It was a word Nigerians thought had been consigned to the realm of academic discourses or as statistical analyses of a past epidemic.
The Nigerian presidency and the Defence Headquarters (DHQ) resurrected the ghost of coup and coup plotting. Elder statesman, Robert Clark, initially belled the cat by amplifying what hitherto were hushed tones on Nigerian streets. Speaking on a Channels Televisionprogramme recently, he had said that, in view of the near total collapse of Nigeria in the hands of President Muhammadu Buhari, he should hand over the administration of Nigeria to the military.
Onyema Nwachukwu, Brigadier General and Acting Director Defence Information, in a May 3, 2021 press release, would however have none of this Doomsday prophesy. Warning politicians and soldiers against any collusion to foist another military coup on Nigeria, Nwachukwu said that, canvassing coup was an “anti-democratic utterance and position,” and “warn(ed) misguided politicians who nurse the inordinate ambition to rule this country outside the ballot box to banish such thoughts as the military under the current leadership remains resolute in the Defence of Nigeria’s democracy and its growth,” while reminding “all military personnel that it is treasonable to even contemplate this illegality” as “the full wrath of the law will be brought to bear on any personnel found to collude with people having such agenda.”
If anybody thought that the idea of a military coup was the figment of the imagination of the above two actors, the Nigerian presidency also jumped into the frenzy. The apprehension, even from government, on coup and its possibility became glaring and palpable. On Tuesday last week, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, Femi Adesina, also alleged that some “disgruntled religious and past political leaders” were plotting to convene what he called “an illegal National Conference” and their ultimate aim was to pass a vote of no confidence on Buhari, leading to overthrowing his government. Elder statesman Afe Babalola, was one of the conveners of the conference. So Babalola, who has undoubtedly made more contributions to Nigeria’s growth, even more than Buhari, is now disgruntled?
Why would coup and coup discourses dominate political analyses of the chaotic Nigerian governance space at this time? Why has Buhari, who rode into power in 2015 in a galaxy of talisman-like public acceptance, become, six years after, this disreputable and worthless in the estimation of same Nigerian people? Is the sociopolitical discontent and instability in Nigeria so hopeless that a military coup should seethe below the surface as solution?
Until the 1990s when democratic waves began to sweep through Africa, the continent had been a hotbed and volatile region of the pestilence of military coups. Between January 1956 and December 2001, there were over 200 coups in 48 independent Sub-Saharan African states, including Nigeria. Many others have since taken place, 21 years after. Whether in the 80 successful coups de tat that took place during this period of 45 years interval, the 108 failed attempts and 139 reported coup attempts, the pestilence of coup in Africa during this period cannot be overemphasized.
In virtually all the countries on the continent where coup took place, as salvationist as they portended to be, the military have often left such countries worse than they met them. Either through their inordinate ambition to transmute into civilian dictatorship, sit-tightism or recourse to draconian rule, the barrel of a gun defined a huge chunk of African governance. Heloise Ruth First, South African scholar and anti-apartheid activist, wrote about this in a provocative book which she entitled Barrels of a Gun. In the book, she said that coup had always left Africa shattered and underdeveloped. Perhaps as recompense for her revelations and activism, First was parcel-bombed by assassins on August 17, 1982 in Maputo, her exile country of Mozambique, by persons later discovered to be South African police.
Over the years, it has become clear that the military intervenes in political affairs in the region mainly for reasons not outside the locus of personal greed. They have been found to be hugely motivated by the “rents” and juices they always extract from gaining power and control of the state. Indeed, experiences of military destruction of Africa in the last 64 years have birthed the provocative cliche that the worst civilian government is better than the best military government.
In Nigeria, for instance, the 1966 military coup that brought Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi and his wayfarer military colleagues into government truncated the series of development hitherto witnessed in all the three regions. It also collapsed the federal system of government that was the best answer to the Nigerian plural question, setting the country on a path of future implosion and destruction. Soldiers barely off mental diapers but who had acquired fat epaulettes on account of their involvement in coup-plots, suddenly took over the administration of Nigeria, many of them in their 20s and 30s.
Other than, “about turn!” “salute!” and “stand at ease!,” many of the soldier-rulers didn’t have understanding of how a country as diverse and multi-ethnic like Nigeria could be administered. They had nil understanding of economics and society and thus dragged Nigeria to their personal mental prostrate levels. In defence of ego, soldiers took Nigeria to a very costly war and could not manage the huge petro-dollars that accrued to the country. That was why Yakubu Gowon, on a visit to the Bahamas, could announce that Nigeria was so stupendously wealthy that she didn’t know what to do with her wealth. Nigeria was so audaciously profligate that she paid salaries of workers in some African countries, pumped billions into liberation movements in Africa and as recent as in the 1990s, was playing Father Christmas roles in Liberia and Sierra Leone. In the process, Nigeria failed to build a tomorrow for generations yet to come. Soldiers of fortune that the military conquerors proved to be overtime, enriched themselves and cronies. Many of them still living today are billionaires, owning wealth as stupendous as King Solomon’s concubines.
There is virtually no country on the continent that has not witnessed the chaos of military putsch, except South Africa which is buoyed by its very strong institutions and strong adherence to democratic ethos. The worst of them is Burkina Faso, which has never witnessed any peaceful transition of political power since its independence. Till date, that country, made famous by Thomas Sankara and his killing by his friend, Blaise Compaore, has witnessed the highest coup attempts on the continent, with ten coups and attempted putsches.
The question to ask is, why have unconstitutional hijacks of democratic governments in Africa become pastimes? What can be said to be the real sociopolitical conditions of Africa that nurture this seedbed of hijacks of power? While some experts say that the prevalence of coups in Africa cannot be divorced from incompetent civil leadership and corruption, others put it at the doorsteps of dictatorial civilian regimes, mismanagement of the economy and desire of the military to posture as Messiahs.
Narratives of corruption today under Muhammadu Buhari are worse than what was in place that pushed Chukwuma Nzeogwu to plan the January, 1966 coup. Gowon and his triumvirates also claimed that killing of northerners was reason why he and the coupists of July, 1966 struck. Today, insecurity and killing of northerners and southerners are far worse under a man who was elected based on the belief that, as a retired General, his military bravura would stop genocidal insurgents.
Dimka must have sought forgiveness from Murtala Muhammed for killing that mercurial temperament soldier, if he could see what is happening today in Nigeria from the land of the dead. Speaking in a national broadcast after the assassination of Muhammed, Dimka had said that the widespread orgy of “corruption, indecision, arrest and detention without trial, weakness on the part of Mohammed and maladministration in general” were reasons why he overthrew Murtala’s government. In announcing the execution of the coup plotters of February 13, 1976, Yar’Adua also alleged that their grouse for killing Murtala was that his government planned to cut the number of members of the armed forces. Today, the quantum of such vices under Buhari is mind-boggling.
Apart from the schism between him as Commanding officer of the 3rd Division when he stiff-neckedly cut off fuel and food supplies to Nigeria’s Chad neighbor and how his military unit shelled Chadian soldiers off 50 kilometers radius from the Nigerian border, which provoked President Shehu Shagari, Buhari and his allies claimed they upturned the Second Republic due to the widespread corruption of the political class. Can anyone juxtapose the corruption under Shagari and Buhari now? Paradoxically, then Major General Ibrahim Babangida, on August 27, 1985, also claimed that he overthrew Buhari because, “he was too rigid and uncompromising in his attitudes to issues of national significance.” Buhari has since morphed from being rigid into an ethnic jingoist who gives terrorism wooly padding and supervisor of a comatose economy.
The Major General Mamman Jiya Vatsa December, 1985 coup against Babangida was said to have cited worsening situation among military personnel, among other reasons, for its attempted coup. Vatsa allegedly financed the coup through a farming loan decoy granted to Lt. Col Musa Bitiyong. The April, 1990 coup that followed, masterminded by General Gideon Orka, claimed that the Hausa-Fulani had constituted themselves into the lord of Nigeria. The last known military overthrow of a civilian government in Nigeria was the palace coup led by General Sani Abacha and which took away the interim administration of Ernest Shonekan. It based its strike, among others, on the lack of legitimacy of the interim government.
If we then juxtapose the alibi for truncating governments in Nigeria in the past with the current state of affairs under Buhari, will one conclude that Nigeria was ripe for a coup, long due for a coup or shying away from its due worth of a coup? If the truth must be told, but for the fact that coups have lost their relevance in the world and military hijacks have proved to be incapable of solving democratic problems, the current state of hopelessness in Nigeria makes the country ten times ripe for a coup. Deliberately through his innate cronyism or as a result of his manifest incompetence, Buhari has driven Nigeria to the brinks of war. The economy is prostrate, blood litters all parts of Nigeria and no time in the history of the country have things been this hopeless. To worsen matters, Buhari is so near, yet so distant from Nigerians, masqueraded from the world by a battery of lickspittle aides who appropriate and approximate his interface role with the people of Nigeria.
The above are why the reasons adduced for all the coups in Nigeria since 1966 pale into insignificance when compared to the abyss that Buhari has taken Nigeria. Killings under his watch will rank side by side killings during the civil war, with government advertising ineptitude and incompetence like a sore thumb. The government has changed from its hitherto empty threats to criminal elements who are having free reign in all parts of the country, to a cowardly pleading with criminals to sheathe their swords. Under Buhari, the state, renowned for its awesome powers, has become castrated. Even under Abacha, there was never this level of general consensus that Nigerians are being ruled by Mephistopheles himself.
How the DHQ, DSS and even the Buhari government itself will know the completely sunken worth of this government is for them to sample opinions of Nigerians on the streets. The question they should ask is, if the military takes over from Buhari today – God forbid – what will be the general mood and reactions of Nigerians? Abacha’s personal and governmental expiration, which elicited widespread jubilation unrivalled in Nigerian history, will be child’s play compared to what Nigerians will reveal as their projected reactions.
With all the above however, there is still no alternative to civilian rule. As horrible, close-to-breaking-point as Nigeria has become under Buhari’s watch, the hopelessness he foisted on the polity should increase future scrutiny of our leaders and squeeze a resolve from us never to have a Buhari-kind in government again. Ousting Buhari’s government and replacing it with a military junta will only give us Pyrrhic victory over one of the most infernal civilian rules in the history of Nigeria.
Dr. Festus Adedayo, a scholar and media expert writes
You may like
-
OLOJO FESTIVAL: Nigeria bigger than all of us, Ooni tells politicians
-
Oseni celebrates Oluremi Tinubu at 66, hails commitment to Nigeria
-
Reps panel declares alleged Presidential council DG’s appointment letter fake
-
Beyond Deportations: What South Africa’s Immigration Crisis Reveals About Nationhood and Economic Frustration
Opinion
Re: Adekambi vs Alli: Dr. Olanrewaju’s Descent To Soliloquizing | Sola Abegunde
Published
1 week agoon
October 1, 2026By
Mega Icon
I have read Dr. Sulaimon Olanrewaju’s piece titled ” Adekambi vs Alli: Between Substance And Sensationalism” and it offers me a lot of entertainment.
Dr. Sulaimon Olanrewaju is a seasoned Journalist no doubt. Very brilliant mind, but, he needs a lecture on politics and governance.
No matter how educated or professional you could be, if you lack basic knowledge about raw politics and governance at different tiers of Government, you are bound to struggle like a fish out of the water each time you attempt to defend certain positions.
Very obviously, Dr. Olanrewaju doesn’t know how a Local Government should operate on a normal situation, even, before the Judgment of the Supreme Court obtained by president Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
I will refer Dr. Olanrewaju to a document titled ” Financial Memorandum for Local Governments”.
That document speaks to how funds belonging to the Local Governments could be legally spent.
It will also provide accurate information about the roles and powers of the Local Government Chairmen, Head of Local Government Administration, the Finance and General Purposes Committee, F&GPC, how approvals for funds, projects and how contracts are signed at the Local Government level.
Had it been that Dr. Olanrewaju had proper information, I am sure that he wouldn’t have advertised his ignorance the way he did, in the argument about Financial autonomy for Local Governments which Senator Sarafadeen Abiodun Alli is promising.
He would also have known that his Principal, Governor Seyi Makinde had been engaged in criminal activities in the manner he had been withdrawing and spending resources belonging to the 33 Local Governments illegally since 2019.
Perhaps I need to repeat this for emphasis sake. There is no Law that empowers a state Governor to withdraw money belonging to the Local Governments for the execution of projects on behalf of the Local Governments.
The fact that the monthly allocations for the 33 Local Governments would have to drop on a joint account does not confer any authority on a state Governor to illegally withdraw and spend same.
It is the responsibility of the F&GPC for each of the Local Governments to identify projects it wants to execute, approve funds for same and if the funds are beyond the approving limits of the F&GPC, it will seek approval from the Governor through the office of the Commissioner for Local Governments.
If the project would be executed as a contract, it is the sole responsibility of the HLGA to sign the contract agreement.
That is what Senator Sarafadeen Abiodun Alli is saying. That he would not make illegal withdrawals from the Local Governments funds. That he will allow the F&GPC for the 33 Local Governments to function without hinderance. That he will allow the Career officers to do their duties assigned to them by Law.
If Governor Seyi Makinde doesn’t believe in the existence of the Local Governments and he is not hiding this fact and Sarafa Alli is saying, I believe in a functional and free Local Government, where is the sensationalism in that?
Truth hurts. Dr. Olanrewaju can not, through his essay, which I consider an afterthought, rewrite the fact that, his Principal publicly declared that he doesn’t believe in the existence of the Local Governments, not to talk of allowing them to function freely.
I am surprised that Dr. Olanrewaju is of the opinion that Senator Sarafadeen Abiodun Alli is not saying what he would do differently.
I know that the Special Adviser on Media to Governor Seyi Makinde is not deaf. Neither is he blind or dumb. He is only being hypocritical.
How else does the Allied People’s Movement, APM and its Gubernatorial candidate want the All Progressives Congress, APC Gubernatorial candidate to say what he is going to do differently?
On this issue of Financial autonomy for Local Governments, Sarafadeen Alli is saying, contrary to the illegalities of the past seven years plus, he will not concern himself with the responsibilities that are ordinarily that of the Local Governments.
On Education, he has declared that he will ensure that we go back to the 30 Pupils per classroom policy of the former Governor, Senator Rasidi Adewolu Ladoja, now, H. I . M, Oba Senator Rasidi Adewolu Ladoja.
He said he will revive the Broadcasting Corporations of Oyo state, BCOS which is gasping for breath under Governor Seyi Makinde.
He was emphatic about the fact that he would set up a Committee to review the crisis created at the Circular Road by Governor Seyi Makinde within 72 hours when he is elected as the Governor of Oyo state.
He said he would review the sales and handing over of our Farm Settlements to Estate Developers amongst other promises.
On these issues, what are the clear positions taken by Adekambi?
If Dr. Olanrewaju wants us to believe his cock and bull stories about the performance of the 33 Local Governments under Seyi Makinde, I challenge him to ask his Principal to publish the statement of income and expenditures for the 33 Local Governments in the past seven years plus.
He should give us a breakdown of the total figure of the monthly allocations received on behalf of the 33 Local Governments, the breakdown of salaries and allowances paid, the number of projects executed, identities of the contractors who handled projects, the contract agreements, total figure of the Internally Generated Revenues, IGR received by the Local Governments and the VAT.
In the absence of these vital information, which I am certain they will never dare to make public, I want to humbly suggest that Dr. Olanrewaju should go and update his knowledge about how certain things are done.
Opinion
Ladoja @82: When the ladder becomes too tall and Makinde’s sin of ingratitude | By Ayinla Joseph
Published
2 weeks agoon
September 28, 2026The Yoruba say, when a man forgets the ladder that took him to the top of the iroko tree, the fall that awaits him will be narrated as a proverb.
On Thursday, Ibadan stood still for its king. Oba Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja clocked 82. Not 82 years of mere age, but 82 years of bruises, battles, betrayals and benediction. A former Senator. A former Governor. An elder statesman who, like Oduduwa, returned as king. The following day, Friday, Oba Ladoja also clocked one year on the throne of his forefathers.
Ibadan celebrated him. Nigeria celebrated him. The Presidency sent greetings. Former governors knelt. Serving governors bowed. The Alaafin of Oyo paid tribute. The Soun of Ogbomoso poured libation of words. Even the Aseyin, far in Iseyin, bought a full page in a national daily to say: our father lives.
But in Agodi Government House, there was silence. Cold, deliberate, imperial silence.
Governor Seyi Makinde did not felicitate his king. No advert. No statement. No courtesy of any sort extended. Nothing. His protégé, Bimbo Adekanmbi, toed the same line of contempt. For 48 hours, Ibadan people waited for a word that never came, until shame forced a whisper.
We must ask: what manner of politics is this?
In 2019, it was this same Ladoja who held Makinde’s hand when Makinde had no hand to hold. It was Ladoja who coordinated the coalition, who gathered the angry, the broken and the hopeful, and stitched them into a garment called victory for a man who had never won anything before. Without Ladoja, there would have been no Omituntun in 2019. And the man knows it.
Philosophers call it the Paradox of Power. Machiavelli warned about it in “The Prince”: that power acquired through the mercy of others must be sustained by gratitude, otherwise it consumes itself. Plato called such rulers philosopher-kings who failed philosophy. Men who know how to win power but not how to carry it.
History is littered with them.
Emperor Nero of Rome who burnt the city that made him emperor. King Rehoboam in the Bible who told the elders who made him king: “My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s waist.” Emperor Commodus who thought Rome was his father’s farm and turned the palace into a circus until the circus swallowed him.
Seyi Makinde governs like them — as an emperor, not as an Omoluabi. A man who believes loyalty must flow upwards to him, but must never flow downwards from him. He rides on the shoulders of giants and then complains that the giants are too tall.
Today it is Ladoja he snubs. Yesterday it was the Alaafin. The day before, the Soun. Tomorrow, which Oba will taste his disdain? He has transferred his personal hatred for the Olubadan stool into a war against all royal stools in Oyo State. That is not politics. That is poison.
And what shall we say of Bimbo Adekanmbi, his political son, who has learnt this ignoble art of ingratitude so perfectly? The Yoruba say, “the child who says his mother will not sleep, he too will not sleep.” To watch a man seeking to be governor practise contempt for the throne he seeks to govern is a disaster foretold.
Oyo people know Omituntun 2.0 for what it is — a poisonous pill coated with sweet advertisement. If 2.0 can openly humiliate an 82-year-old first-class monarch who made him, what will Omituntun 3.0, headed by his anointed, do? It will be the unkindest cut of all. It will be the complete desecration of the Omoluabi ethos that Ibadan and Oyo hold sacred.
Seyi Makinde will be remembered. Not for the roads that crack before commissioning. Not for the parks that lead to nowhere. He will be remembered as the governor who rode on the backs of eminent men and made every one of them regret that they ever lent him their shoulders.
Ladoja at 82 needs no advert from Agodi to be great. The king’s greatness is not conferred by the governor. But the governor’s smallness is exposed by how he treats his king.
Oyo people, shine your eyes. This affliction must not rise a second time.
Opinion
Makinde Deserves No Sympathy: He Brought His Present Predicament Upon Himself
Published
2 weeks agoon
September 23, 2026In response to my brother, Shuaib Idris, who wrote the piece titled “Seyi Makinde Deserves Our Sympathy,” I submit that Seyi Makinde does not deserve our sympathy. How do you sympathise with somebody who brought political calamity upon himself?
There is a point in every political journey when a leader must pause, look around and ask himself a difficult question: How did I get here? For Governor Seyi Makinde, that moment has long arrived.
Much has been written and said about the governor’s increasingly combative public interventions, his exchanges with political opponents and his determination to market the candidacy of his preferred successor. Some have interpreted these developments as signs of pressure surrounding him. But sympathy, in this circumstance, may be misplaced.
If Governor Makinde is under pressure today, much of that pressure is self-inflicted. If his administration is now being subjected to increasingly intense scrutiny, he cannot reasonably blame those asking the questions. And if political opponents have become emboldened enough to challenge his record openly, he should perhaps examine the decisions and conduct that have created the circumstances in which those challenges are now flourishing.
The governor’s recent political conduct provides ample illustration.
At the 70th birthday celebration of Bishop Francis Wale Oke, the governor reportedly used his appearance to introduce Bimbo Adekanmbi, the APM governorship candidate whom he supports. Adekanmbi’s emergence as the APM candidate is not in dispute; the party adopted him as its consensus candidate in May.
Two things continue to haunt him: his subpar performance in office and what critics describe as his imposition of Adekanmbi and Open Salawu, new entrants into his team, on his “first eleven.”
The question, therefore, is not whether Governor Makinde has the right to support a candidate. He does. The question is why a governor who repeatedly speaks of his administration’s achievements appears increasingly eager to make the 2027 succession contest a personal project.
A governor nearing the end of his tenure should ordinarily be concerned about preserving the dignity of the office, defending his record with facts and allowing his preferred candidate to present his own credentials. Indeed, Adekanmbi himself has publicly said he would not be a political stooge and that he would take responsibility for his own decisions if elected. That is political rhetoric. However, everything about Adekanmbi, according to his critics, points to the possibility of his being a stooge waiting to be planted to do Makinde’s bidding after the latter leaves office in 2027.
Yet Governor Makinde has increasingly inserted himself into the political conversation surrounding his successor. That creates an unavoidable question: if Adekanmbi is sufficiently qualified and politically prepared to succeed him, why does the governor so frequently feel compelled to fight the successor’s battles himself?
This is where the argument about pressure becomes particularly relevant. Political pressure does not simply descend from heaven. It can be generated by the choices of the politician himself.
Consider the recent exchange with Senator Sharafadeen Alli over the legal profession. Governor Makinde reportedly questioned Alli’s experience as a lawyer, arguing that he had never entered a courtroom. Alli’s campaign organisation subsequently responded by detailing his legal background and professional experience.
There is nothing wrong with political candidates examining one another’s records. That is part of democratic competition. But reducing a lawyer’s professional identity to courtroom appearances is a curious line of attack, particularly when the political argument ought ultimately to be about competence, experience, policy and public record.
A lawyer can practise in several areas of the profession without making litigation the centre of his career. Administrative work, corporate practice, legal consultancy, governance and institutional management are among the possible avenues available to members of the profession.
The larger point, however, is this: when an incumbent administration turns the professional credentials of an opponent into a central campaign issue, it invites its own record to be placed under the microscope. So, why does he need to be sympathised with over what he brought upon himself?
The response from Alli’s camp has shifted attention towards questions about Makinde’s own record as an engineer and governor, particularly the controversy surrounding diesel-powered streetlights and the renovation of the Lekan Salami Stadium. Those are now matters of public political debate, with competing claims about expenditure and performance. How do you sympathise with someone who threw a stone and received a Scud missile?
This is the unavoidable consequence of political combat: once you open the door to scrutiny of another man’s credentials, you should expect yours to be examined with equal intensity. Governor Makinde cannot reasonably demand immunity from the same standard he applies to others.
The same principle applies to his much-advertised “first eleven.” If the governor describes his administration as being driven by a carefully assembled team of exceptional people, the public is entitled to ask what became of that team when the question of succession arose. Why was the search for a successor extended beyond this celebrated first eleven?
A football coach who constantly boasts about his first eleven naturally invites the question of who among that eleven can step forward when the captain leaves the field. If none is selected, his team’s fans will ask why. That is not persecution. It is accountability.
There is another issue the governor should confront: political loyalty. Governor Makinde did not arrive at the Government House in 2019 in isolation. His political journey involved alliances with people and groups who contributed to the coalition that eventually produced his victory. The political history of that period is well known and should not be rewritten simply because former allies and associates are now on different sides of the political divide.
The problem with “use and discard” politics is that yesterday’s ally eventually becomes tomorrow’s witness. People who helped build a political structure do not disappear simply because their usefulness has expired. And when they begin speaking, the politician who once relied on them may find himself answering questions he never anticipated.
That appears to be part of the political atmosphere surrounding Governor Makinde today. His confrontation with traditional institutions is another matter that requires careful reflection. Whatever one’s political affiliation, Yoruba traditional institutions occupy a distinctive place in the cultural architecture of Oyo State. Political disagreement with individual traditional rulers is legitimate; treating the institution itself with disdain is entirely wrong, and it raises questions about Makinde’s Omoluabi values.
A governor may disagree with a monarch’s political preference. He may even believe traditional rulers should remain politically neutral. But the language employed in expressing that disagreement matters.
The office of governor carries enormous constitutional authority, but it also carries a moral obligation to exercise restraint. A governor should not need to be reminded that words spoken from Government House do not remain personal words. They acquire the weight of the office. That is why some of Governor Makinde’s recent public exchanges have generated such controversy.
The irony is that political power is temporary, while institutions and relationships often outlive individual office holders. The governor should know this better than most.
He is approaching the end of his constitutionally permitted tenure in Oyo State. The political question before him is therefore not how to remain governor indefinitely, but what legacy he will leave behind. Will he be remembered primarily for the projects executed under his administration? For the policies introduced? For the institutions strengthened? Or increasingly for the political battles fought during the final phase of his tenure? The last question is what will occupy people’s minds most after Makinde has left office.
The most consequential political mistake an incumbent can make is to interpret every criticism as persecution and every opponent as an enemy. Criticism is not necessarily hatred. Opposition is not necessarily sabotage. Questions about public expenditure are not necessarily attacks on a person. And scrutiny of an administration is not evidence of an organised conspiracy.
A mature government answers questions. A confident administration publishes records. A secure political movement allows its candidate to speak. And a governor who believes his record speaks for itself should have little reason to spend every available political moment speaking for his preferred successor.
That is why sympathy for Governor Makinde is evidently misplaced. The political pressure surrounding him today is not simply something that happened to him. It is also the product of political decisions, alliances, rhetoric and strategies that he and his political associates have consciously pursued.
He chose his successor. He chose his political platform. He chose to engage his opponents. He chose to make their records a subject of public debate. He chose to defend his administration through increasingly political exchanges. Those choices have consequences.
The electorate is now watching. And when the people begin to ask questions, the appropriate response from a governor is not to complain about pressure. It is to provide answers. Oyo people do not owe any politician sympathy for the consequences of his political choices. They owe themselves something far more important: a careful examination of every candidate, every record, every promise and every claim before making their decision in 2027.
MEGAICON TV
Two-Term Ex-Oyo Lawmaker Dumps APM, Accuses Makinde Govt Of Neglect
2027: Ibarapa will deliver massive votes for APC, Ayandele tells Makinde’s commissioner
Oyo South: Oseni restates commitment to people-centred legislation
Trending
-
Politics2 weeks agoAPM Rally: APC Tackles Makinde Over Use of ‘CAF-Rejected’ ₦5.5bn Stadium
-
News4 weeks agoOyo South: Oseni Approves N100m for Ibadan Community Road Rehabilitation
-
Politics4 weeks agoOyo 2027: Alli appoints Oladele, Olaosebikan, Tunji media directors
-
Metro4 weeks agoOndo alcohol deaths: 29 die, 60 affected