Get Guardian on GoogleBy Remi Ladigbolu
I was part of the backroom communications team of the late Governor Abiola Ajimobi during the final 15 months of his administration. That experience gave me some insight into the manoeuvring that preceded the last-minute substitution of Joseph Tegbe with Adebayo Adelabu as the preferred All Progressives Congress (APC) gubernatorial candidate for the 2019 elections. Adelabu eventually lost to Seyi Makinde.
I sometimes wonder how that episode would have unfolded if Makinde had been in Ajimobi’s position. From what I have come to understand about his political temperament, I suspect he would have resisted the pressures reportedly brought to bear and stood by his original choice, come rain or shine. This is my assessment, reflecting my impression of a politician prepared to resist powerful interests when he believes they are dictating his choices.
That disposition lies at the heart of the argument surrounding Makinde. To some, he makes difficult choices at the cost of alliances. To others, ambition takes precedence over loyalty. Some dismiss his presidential campaign as a joke; others see it as retaliation against Tinubu for what Makinde considers a betrayal.
Makinde’s political conduct must be judged by the principles behind his decisions, their consistency over time and their consequences for the public. Resisting pressure does not automatically make a decision right, just as abandoning an alliance does not prove courage. Political independence is meaningful when it serves a purpose beyond the freedom to make personal choices.
Makinde’s account of the ministerial appointment is revealing. He said Tinubu had told him that he wanted a development economist for the budget and economic planning portfolio, prompting him to recommend former Oyo State Commissioner for Finance, Bimbo Adekanmbi. Makinde said the President later settled on Adebayo Adelabu for the ministerial slot allocated to Oyo State and asked him to present Adelabu as his own choice. Makinde said he declined, insisting the appointment be acknowledged as Tinubu’s decision.
Adekanmbi served as Deputy Chief of Staff from 2011 to 2015 and later became Commissioner for Finance, Budget and Planning under Ajimobi. Makinde subsequently appointed him to chair the committee overseeing the Ibadan Airport upgrade, citing his contribution to the Ajimobi administration.
Makinde has since endorsed Adekanmbi as his preferred successor in Oyo State, and Adekanmbi has emerged as the APM candidate for the 2027 governorship election. Makinde says he has advised him to chart his own course and that he does not intend to be a political godfather. Whether he can endorse a successor and allow him genuine independence remains to be seen.
On X, commentator Mr. Lurvy alleged that Makinde had abandoned or undermined former associates, including Atiku Abubakar, Ademola Adeleke, Hosea Agboola, Rauf Olaniyan, Bisi Ilaka, Joseph Tegbe, Mukaila Lamidi (Auxiliary), Oriyomi Hamzat and Dotun Sanusi. The allegation does not prove that every person named was betrayed, but it raises questions about the durability of Makinde’s political commitments.
There is a wider political principle at stake. Those who support a candidate do not own the mandate voters eventually give him, nor are they automatically entitled to appointments, privileges or permanent influence. But political leaders should not treat relationships built before attaining office as expendable once they gain the freedom to make independent decisions. Where genuine agreements exist, they should be honoured or any change explained. Where expectations were never agreed, political supporters must also recognise that access to power is not an entitlement.
The G5 dispute ahead of the 2023 presidential election illustrated these competing interpretations.
Makinde and the other governors opposed Atiku’s candidacy amid the PDP leadership crisis and their demand that power return to the South. Supporters saw a stand for fairness; critics called it betrayal. Some members of the coalition that helped Makinde win in 2019 also complained of being sidelined. These disagreements cannot all be assessed in the same way, but they raise a question that extends beyond Makinde. Political alliances are often built around shared interests and electoral objectives, but leaders must be prepared to explain when they depart from the commitments that brought those alliances together. Equally, political partners must recognise that an elected leader’s primary obligation is to the electorate.
The departures from his administration have brought these questions closer to home. Segun Ogunwuyi, Chief of Staff since July 2021, resigned on October 12, 2026. His letter gave no reason. On November 10, he joined the APC in Ogbomoso alongside Rasak Gbadegesin, popularly known as Agbeti. The defection also involved chairmen of three local councils and other APM chieftains. Reports linked the split partly to disagreement over Makinde’s choice of Adekanmbi as successor.
Former appointee Joshua Afolabi claimed Ogunwuyi had not been consulted about the APM move and had earlier expressed reservations, although his resignation letter did not confirm this. Other departures included Fatai Owoseni, Babatunde Oduyoye, Funmi Arulogun, Tara Adefope and Kabiru Salami. In November, Commissioner for Budget and Economic Planning, Ayobami Oluwaseun Ojo; Special Adviser on Budget and Economic Planning, Simeon Adegbola Oyeleke and Sunday Olugbenga Falana, a member of the Oyo State Independent Electoral Commission (OYSIEC), also resigned. Oyeleke cited an uncomfortable work environment.
At the November 10 budget presentation, Makinde said the departures would not change his government’s direction. He also said a female official resigned after he rejected what he called an impossible request, but did not identify her or disclose the request. The governor is entitled to make decisions he considers necessary, but the departure of several senior officials raises legitimate questions about the working relationships and disagreements within his administration. The responsibility to govern independently does not remove the need for effective relationships within government or honest explanations when those relationships break down.
The public consequences of Makinde’s decisions provide another basis for assessing his leadership. His administration has advanced the Ibadan Circular Road, conceived under Rashidi Ladoja; developed agribusiness in Fasola and Eruwa, removed the secondary school education levy, invested in primary healthcare and expanded Amotekun. Their value rests on results for residents, not announcements or expenditure alone. Continuing projects initiated by previous administrations is also worth acknowledging. Public projects should not be abandoned because political opponents conceived them.
The same principle of responsible stewardship must apply to public assets and environmental decisions. The proposed conversion of parts of the Ogunpa Forest Reserve for Baywood Estate has raised environmental concerns. The government says due process was followed and an environmental impact assessment was conducted. Environmental organisations, however, say they were not consulted and that the EIA report had not been produced in court. A government that expects its political independence to be respected must also be prepared to explain decisions affecting shared public resources and respond to legitimate concerns about their consequences.
Presenting the 2027 budget, Makinde said the Fasola Agribusiness Transformation Centre, designated Nigeria’s first agricultural transformation centre by the African Development Bank, had generated over 1,000 direct and indirect jobs. He reported 16 agribusinesses with investments worth more than N20 billion and over 30,130 biometrically captured smallholder farmers. He also cited a 288 per cent rise in internally generated revenue, from N26.59 billion in 2019 to N103.25 billion in the last full financial year, 2025; Oyo’s third-place ranking in the 2025 Subnational Ease of Doing Business assessment and the return of about 65,000 out-of-school children to classrooms.
He also cited three examples of people accessing government services or opportunities without relying on godfathers or personal connections in government: a lawyer shortlisted among the top three candidates for a position in the state anti-corruption agency, a farmer who approached the Agriculture Ministry and received the service he needed, and a civil servant whose promotion to Grade Level 16 was resolved. These examples point to a governing philosophy in which access to public institutions should depend less on personal connections and more on fair procedures. The real test is whether ordinary citizens can experience that principle consistently, not just in individual cases presented by the government.
This brings the discussion to Makinde’s Reset Nigeria Agenda, unveiled on November 4. Built around four pillars—the economy, security, education and the socio-political system—the agenda connects his experience in Oyo with a broader argument about how Nigeria should be governed. Its significance lies not only in the proposals it contains but also in the relationship between them.
The economic proposals address the structural costs of living and doing business, the connection between production centres and markets, and the relationship between government and businesses. These are questions of opportunity and access. Farmers need more than the capacity to produce; they need roads, markets and institutions that allow them to earn from their work. Businesses need more than government incentives; they need predictable policies and public officials who apply rules fairly. Economic development therefore requires a system in which opportunity is not determined by proximity to political power.
The same thinking runs through the proposals on security and education. Stronger intelligence and coordination among security agencies, alongside reviews of major incidents to identify failures, point to a security system that must learn from its mistakes and take responsibility for its performance. In education, the emphasis on foundational literacy and numeracy, keeping children in school and linking learning to vocational skills recognises that access to education must lead to meaningful opportunities.
Security, education and economic development cannot be treated as isolated government responsibilities.
Insecurity disrupts production and schooling, while weak education limits the ability of citizens to participate fully in the economy.
The socio-political pillar brings the argument together through proposals for devolution, stronger institutions and accountability. Devolution is important because decisions should be taken closer to the people affected by them.
But transferring powers from the Federal Government to states does not automatically produce better governance. State governments must also develop institutions capable of exercising those powers responsibly, managing resources transparently and answering to their citizens. Otherwise, excessive concentration of power at the centre is simply reproduced at the state level. Strong institutions should make public services less dependent on the goodwill or personal influence of whoever occupies political office.
These proposals point towards a governing philosophy in which public institutions, rather than personal connections, should determine access to opportunity and public services. That is also the standard by which Makinde’s own administration should be assessed. A national agenda must demonstrate how its principles will work in practice, with credible financing, clear responsibilities, measurable targets and safeguards against abuse.
Voters should examine Makinde’s record, his treatment of political agreements and the substance of his manifesto. They should look beyond official figures to the impact of policies, the accessibility of public institutions and whether the principles he invokes in political disputes are reflected in the use of public resources.
Makinde is entitled to political independence, but independence does not place him beyond accountability.
Those who helped him win elections cannot claim ownership of his mandate, just as he cannot expect every broken alliance to be accepted as proof of conviction. His presidential ambition will ultimately be judged by the quality of his decisions, the public interest they serve and his willingness to accept responsibility when his judgement is wrong.
*Ladigbolu is a journalist based in Lagos.
