Connect with us

Opinion

Will Buhari learn from Zuma in Estcourt Prison?

Published

on

In ex-President Jacob Zuma’s jailing for 15 months by South Africa’s Constitutional Court, Africa and humanity in general are dragged to school by the nape of their dresses. Author of celebrated Yoruba classic, Igbi Aye Nyi – Life swivels like a wind – Chief T. A. A. Ladele, had earlier taught the world one or two of the Zuma lessons. Written in 1978.

Ladele, an Okeho, Oyo State-born History teacher at Durbar College, Oyo and pioneer Headmaster of Baptist School, Iwere-Ile, was one of Nigeria’s early writers. In, Igbi Aye Nyi, the 1920-born writer sought to teach us all about the ephemeral worth of political power and the unenduring texture of raw brawn.

Set in a town called Otolu at the outset of colonial incursion into Nigeria, Oba Bankarere, the Otolu king, in concert with his sons, inflicted huge terror on his subjects through excessive wielding of power. He flaunted the wealth that accrued from power and defied all known societal norms. Two of Oba Bankarere’s subjects however rose to save the sanity of the traditional institution and the lives of the people.

In the end, the colonial government waded in to curtail these excesses in a manner that rubbished the king and curtailed his outlaw sons.

Though it is not known whether Zuma’s son, Emmanuel shared same outlawry with the sons of Oba Bankarere while he was in power from 2009 to 2018, Zuma was the Oba reincarnate in profligacy and amassment of ill-gotten wealth. He deployed his grips on political power as an enabler of access to the purse and wealth of the state.

The former president was also showcased as a moral dis-advertisement with his amoral relationship with the opposite sex. It began with his charge in 2005 for raping AIDS patient and activist, Fezekile Ntsukela Kuzwayo via unprotected sex.

The 31-year old family friend of his, who used the alias Khwezi during trial to protect her identity, had alleged that the rape took place in Zuma’s Forest Town, Johannesburg home but the court eventually freed Zuma, ruling that the sex was consensual.

In 1999, Zuma faced a multi-billion dollar arms deal charge and in the same year, a court-ordered 18-count corruption charge. In 2016, a court ruled that he diverted government money to upgrade his Nkandla private property which he later repaid to government coffers. Yet another 2017 inquiry came up alleging that Zuma unduly profited from an incongruous relationship with the renowned and wealthy Gupta family. In all these, Zuma wore a coat of many blemishes, apology to American singer, Dolly Parton.

This is not to talk of an inquiry set up to look into allegations that he looted the South African treasury in 2018. Another National Prosecuting Authority’s 12-count charges against him for fraud, racketeering, corruption, money laundering and arms deal threatened to unseat him. The height of it all was his sentencing for 15 months for his refusal to honour a commission’s invitation to him to testify in matters of state looting. He is right now in the Estcourt Prison, a jailhouse he built. It also must be noted that many of these trials took place while he was president.

Zuma’s jailing is a double-edged sword for Africa. While it disclaimed Trevor-Roper and other imperialist historians who said Africa had no history and insinuated that the continent’s gene was deleteriously different from the rest of the world’s, his sentencing shows the world that Africa also possesses strong institutions that can deal with its reprobates.

However, on the other hand, arguments are canvassed to state that, but for the presence of whites and supremacists in Pretoria, left to Africans, South Africa would have gone bonkers like the rest of its ilk like Nigeria. Zuma acted this script when he refused to honour the court’s invitation and blatantly declined to hand himself over upon conviction. His son, Emmanuel, led a revolt against the state when he kept vigil by Zuma’s Nkandla homestead in rural KwaZulu-Natal province with a stick, threatening that there would be “blood on the floor” if the state attempted to arrest his father.

South Africa’s institutions have always been Rock of Gibraltar-imposing and solid. Not minding the global renown of her husband, Nelson Rolihlahla, as anti-apartheid revolutionary and political leader, who was by then imprisoned, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela underwent trial for murder on December 29, 1988 for the abduction and murder of 14-year old James Seipei (known as Stompie Sepei).

Seipei and three other youths, members of the Mandela United Football Club, were said to have been alleged by Winnie of sexual abuse by Methodist church minister, Paul Verryn. They were tortured to admit same. In real terms, however, Winnie allegedly accused Seipei of being an informant, had him beaten to death and his battered body, pockmarked with stab wounds on his throat, was found on a football field on January 6, 1989.

Winnie was also in 1991 accused of murdering prominent Soweto doctor, Abu Baker Asvat, who examined Sepei. She was jailed six years and found culpable later in 1998 by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) for being “politically and morally accountable for the gross violations of human rights committed” and “responsible, by omission, for the commission of gross violations of human rights.” Winnie’s marital relationship with Mandela, South Africa’s iconic freedom fighter, did not swing the trials in her favour.

Of all the lessons Zuma’s term at Estcourt teaches or should teach Nigeria and its power wielders, two jut out. One is same conveyed by Ladele’s Igbi Aye Nyi and the other being that, until Nigeria begins to build strong institutions that can resist the Kabiyesi mentality of Nigerian political class, Nigeria will continue to regress on the ladder of social justice and equality.

These have within them the kernel of what drives development in the world.

It is no longer a mere cant to submit that Nigerian political class seeks power to oppress fellow countrymen. In what has been posited as a flow into and carryover from traditional African cultural history which turns mere mortals into despots, the political class’ impunity with power is unimaginable. Elected and appointed men clone the imperial powers of the monarchical system, extort the state and live the unquestionable – Ka bi e o si – life of gross impunity lived by kings of yore.

Their oppressive convoys and retinue of aides also reflect this carte blanche.

As William Golding’s Lord of the Flies was used to mirror the innate bestiality in man, Zuma’s greed, tendency to pervert laws and obscene acquisition are natural gravitation by the human flesh. In countries that jealously built their institutions to be above the whims of anyone, this human propensity is effectively tamed. In Nigeria, Smart Alecs that Nigerian political class are, have found clever ways to sidestep and subordinate laws, while manipulating them for their selfish usage.

Today in Nigeria, there is a set of laws for the rich and the powerful and another for the lowly and ordinary. Coupled with the unspeakable corruption in the Nigerian judiciary, the political class has literally castrated institutions, making Nigeria a perfect plot for George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

The Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission was set up by President Olusegun Obasanjo shortly after he was elected in 1999 and headed by Justice Chukwudifu Oputa. The panel summoned the trio of former military rulers, Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Babangida, and Abdulsalami Abubakar, to answer allegations bordering on rights abuses, summonses they flagrantly defied.

Obasanjo had cloned similar one in South Africa, the TRC, which produced therapeutic healings from the trauma of Apartheid rule.

As Babangida refused the summons to answer questions on the 1986 parcel-bombing of Newswatch magazine editor, Dele Giwa, Buhari was found culpable, liable and accountable for his 1984 execution by firing squad of three suspected drug traffickers. They were 30-year old Lawal Ojuolape, 29-year old Bernard Ogedengbe and 26-year old Bartholomew Owoh, executed for an offence which, at the time it was committed, did not carry a capital punishment. World religious, civil rights, political, trade union leaders cried to Buhari, to no avail.

Abubakar was equally summoned to explain the murder in detention of billionaire winner of the June 12, 1993 election, MKO Abiola. The three former Heads of State subsequently approached the Appeal Court which voided the Oputa panel as strange to law. However, underground searchlight into the panel’s recommendation, like the judgment on Zuma, was that the three authoritarian military rulers should “be considered to have surrendered their right to govern Nigeria” having failed to honour subpoenas to appear before the commission. Buhari nevertheless went ahead to become Nigeria’s president. Babangida, on the other side, is convalescing in his imperial castle in Minna and Abdulsalami is junketing all over the world as Nigeria’s peace envoy to Liberia, Ivory Coast and Sudan. The three alleged clones of  Zuma are today living happily ever thereafter.

Rather than build institutions, Nigeria builds persons whose representations die prematurely as soon as they crash politically or exit their high offices. We built Attahiru Muhammadu Jega, Dora Akunyili, Nuhu Ribadu and Ibrahim Magu, rather than building electoral, drug sanitizing and crime-fighting institutions. Yes, we can afford to have in power rotten cabbages like the Zumas, even with brimming maggots crawling all over their  babanriga  and  agbada  apparels, we however cannot afford a judiciary that has become bendable and pliable in the hands of politicians and the well-heeled. South Africa just demonstrated this by sending its former president to the Estcourt Prison.

The moment the judiciary as an institution becomes totally subsumed as it is as a tool in the hands of the powerful, then we can as well throw our hands unabashedly in the air in hopeless submission, close shop and call it a day. Give it to it, the Nigerian political class sometimes goes into purgatory once in a while by pushing tokenism as narrative of its redemption. This it does with the likes of Joshua Dariye, Orji Kalu, Farouk Lawan and a few others who were sent to our own Estcourt Prison. The larger narrative is however that Nigeria is a home of gross impunity which the judicial institution abets, with reckless abandon.

The other lesson that the Zuma travail teaches, as I said earlier, is that, as the holy writ sermonizes on human life, power is like vapour which whooshes in a moment but cannot be traced the next moment. When power-wielders build castles in the air as if life is their inheritance, they exhibit a palpable ignorance of life and lack of understanding of even the power in their hands.

The perishability of the human life should ordinarily teach leaders that they are not made of stronger stuff than the beggar on the street. Once breath vacates their nostrils and that of the beggar today, maggots will feed on the body of the beggar as it will on theirs. When they both go to the restroom to ease themselves, their excrements emit same foul odour, suggestive that they are both future venisons for maggots.

If we reckon with the above, why then do we confer unearned supremacy on life by tormenting our fellow man? As I have always maintained, of all human endowments – wealth, power, beauty and others – the most ephemeral is power. When it leaves, it leaves in totality. That is why the Yoruba would say, no one scurries off the road for a man who once drove a horse, except at the approach of one who is currently riding it. Power is that proverbial horse and it is spiritually structured to be used to benefit humanity and not to torment it. That is the lesson of Zuma in Estcourt prison.

 

Dr Festus Adedayo, is a Scholar, Author and ; Journalist

Comments

Opinion

Re: Adekambi vs Alli: Dr. Olanrewaju’s Descent To Soliloquizing | Sola Abegunde

Published

on

 

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.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Ladoja @82: When the ladder becomes too tall and Makinde’s sin of ingratitude | By Ayinla Joseph

Published

on

The 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.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Makinde Deserves No Sympathy: He Brought His Present Predicament Upon Himself

Published

on

In 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.

Continue Reading

Trending