Yayi’s Critics Fighting Against Ogun West Political Liberation: Response To Dr Tade Akinmade’s Article
By Kayode Oladele
Dr. Tade Akinmade’s recent article, “Yayi and the Nemesis of 2027 (2): How Yayi’s Ambition Could Close the Chapter on Genuine Ogun West Agitation,” exposes a profound contradiction in the politics of Ogun West.
For five decades, our people have struggled against political exclusion, demanding nothing more than a fair opportunity to produce the governor of Ogun State. Yet, at a moment when Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola Yayi has emerged as a formidable contender capable of advancing that historic aspiration, Akinmade presents his emergence not as an opportunity but as a threat.
It is an extraordinary political argument: Ogun West must continue demanding the governorship, but a prominent Yewa son with the political influence to pursue it must first be discredited on the grounds of ancestry.
Here lies the fundamental political contrast: while Ogun West is struggling to break a 50-year barrier to the governorship, some of its supposed self appointed defenders are erecting a new barrier against a candidate who could help dismantle the iron curtain.
They pretentiously invoke the language of political liberation while advancing an argument that risks perpetuating political exclusion and subjugation. They pompously profess concern for Yewa’s future while questioning the legitimacy of a genuine Yewa son whose political experience, influence and statewide acceptance have strengthened the region’s prospects.
This goes to the heart of the Ogun West Agenda itself. A struggle founded on resistance to exclusion cannot credibly be defended through another form of exclusion. A demand for political justice cannot be advanced by applying discriminatory standards of ancestral identity to one of the region’s most prominent political figures.
Dr. Akinmade must therefore confront the question his article leaves unanswered: How does weakening Yayi’s political legitimacy strengthen Ogun West’s quest for the governorship? How does portraying him as a stranger bring our people closer to the political liberation they have pursued for nearly half a century?
The contradiction is unmistakable. Ogun West seeks to overcome political marginalization; Yayi’s critics seek to make his ancestry the central obstacle to his ambition and a landmine to the fulfillment of Ogun West Agenda. Ogun West seeks an opportunity to produce a governor; his detractors are bent on turning that opportunity into another divisive contest over identity.
There is a deeper historical dimension to this controversy that cannot be ignored. There was a time when the dismissive expression “Yewa kò ní èèyàn,” loosely translated as “Yewa has no influential people,” reflected the condescending attitude of some towards our people. It was an expression of a mentality that underestimated the political capacity, influence and potential of the Yewa people.
Those who subscribed to that prejudice apparently never imagined that a son of Yewa could emerge with the political experience, connections and statewide acceptance necessary to compete seriously for the governorship of Ogun State.
Today, Senator Yayi’s emergence challenges that outdated perception. Yet, instead of acknowledging the significance of this development, some have shifted the argument to his ancestry, as though the legitimacy of a Yewa son’s political ambition must depend upon the approval of individuals who have appointed themselves custodians of our identity and destiny.
The persistent attacks on Senator Adeola’s ancestral identity suggest that the controversy extends beyond ordinary political disagreement. Some of his critics appear uncomfortable with the political significance of his Yewa origin and the possibility that Ogun West may finally produce a governor through his candidature.
Rather than confront his political credentials, they seek to portray him as a stranger to the very region he naturally belongs and whose longstanding aspiration he is seeking to advance.
Dr. Akinmade’s argument is particularly troubling because it attempts to reconcile two fundamentally contradictory positions. On the one hand, it professes support for Ogun West’s longstanding demand for political equity. On the other, it portrays Senator Adeola as a stranger whose ambition could undermine that very aspiration. What remains unexplained is how denying his ancestral identity would advance Ogun West’s interests or bring the region any closer to producing a governor.
The persistent attempts to discredit Senator Adeola’s Yewa ancestry suggest that the controversy is less about his suitability for public office and more about undermining his political legitimacy and weakening Ogun West’s historic struggle for the governorship.
Dr. Akinmade also invokes the political history of Otunba Olumide Osunsina, apparently to suggest a recurring pattern in which individuals with ancestral connections outside Yewa seek to appropriate the Yewa Agenda. However, this comparison exposes the weakness of an argument that treats ancestral identity as though it must be confined to a single geographical or cultural sub-ethnic community.
I know Otunba Olumide Osunsina very well and I am personally familiar with his strong connections to Yewa, just as I am aware of his roots in Ifo. Throughout the years I have known him, he has consistently identified with and supported the Yewa Agenda. His connections to Ifo have never diminished his identification with Yewa or his commitment to the aspirations of its people.
Similarly, Senator Adeola has consistently identified his hometown as Pahayi in Yewa South Local Government Area, with ancestral connections to Isaga Orile in Abeokuta North Local Government Area. His mother is from Kemta in Abeokuta, making her an Egba indigene. I have known Senator Yayi for several years before his decision to join Ogun politics and maintain personal contact with his biological siblings. My knowledge of his family background and ancestral connections is therefore firsthand, not based on political hearsay or speculation.
What, then, is the offence in having ancestral connections to more than one community or sub-ethnic group? Must a person’s ancestry be exclusively Yewa before he can legitimately identify as a Yewa son? Must both parents originate from the same sub-ethnic background before their children can claim that heritage?
Why is it that someone with either an Egba father or an Egba mother may be culturally and legitimately recognized as Egba, yet the same principle becomes controversial when an individual claims Yewa ancestry? Why should the standards of ancestral recognition suddenly change because the person concerned is Yewa?
My own family history provides a useful illustration. I belong to three ruling houses in Imeko, Iwoye-Ketu and Moriwi, all in Imeko-Afon Local Government Area of Ogun State, yet I also have maternal roots in Awori land. Does my Awori maternal heritage make me any less a son of Yewa? Certainly not.
The history of our communities is inseparable from migration, intermarriage and longstanding family relationships. Ancestral connections are not necessarily exclusive. A person’s relationship with one community does not automatically extinguish legitimate ties to another. To insist otherwise is to impose an artificial rigidity upon a history that has always been shaped by migrations, relationships and shared heritage.
Beyond the question of ancestry, however, there is something even more objectionable about the assumptions underlying Dr. Akinmade’s article. By suggesting that the Yewa Agenda has become vulnerable to wealthy aspirants and political brokers, he creates the impression that the Yewa people are incapable of recognizing their own sons and daughters or independently determining their political future. That characterization is both arrogant and condescending.
The Yewa people are neither politically naïve nor intellectually deficient. We understand our history, recognize our interests and possess the independence of judgment to determine who should represent us. We do not require anyone to appoint himself the custodian of our identity or the ultimate authority over our political choices.
Our people have endured decades of political exclusion without surrendering their dignity or abandoning their legitimate aspirations. The suggestion that we can now be manipulated into supporting someone whose identity we supposedly do not understand is an insult to our intelligence and political maturity.
The Ogun West Agenda is not the private property of any political faction, commentator or self-appointed guardian of ethnic identity. It is a collective aspiration rooted in the conviction that political power in Ogun State should reflect fairness and inclusion among its constituent senatorial districts.
Senator Adeola’s emergence represents a significant opportunity to address that historical imbalance. His years of legislative experience, political relationships and record of facilitating infrastructure and community development projects provide a basis upon which the electorate can assess his candidature. These are substantive matters that deserve attention in a governorship contest.
The question should therefore be whether Senator Adeola possesses the competence, experience, vision and political capacity to govern Ogun State effectively, not whether his ancestry satisfies an arbitrary standard devised by his critics.
Indeed, the argument that his emergence could bring an end to the genuine Ogun West agitation reverses the logic of the struggle itself. The objective of the agitation has always been to secure an opportunity for Ogun West to produce a governor. If a candidate identified with the region emerges with a credible prospect of achieving that objective, his candidature cannot reasonably be dismissed as a threat merely because some individuals dispute his ancestral credentials.
Political equity cannot be advanced by introducing new forms of exclusion. Nor can a struggle against marginalization retain its moral authority if it begins to reproduce the very prejudices it seeks to overcome.
There is also a fundamental constitutional dimension to this controversy that must not be overlooked. Under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, a Nigerian citizen is not required to be an indigene of a particular state, ethnic group or sub-ethnic community before contesting the governorship of that state, provided the applicable constitutional requirements are satisfied.
Section 177 of the Constitution expressly sets out the qualifications for election to the office of governor. These include Nigerian citizenship by birth, attainment of the prescribed minimum age, membership of and sponsorship by a political party and education up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent. The Constitution does not impose any requirement that a governorship candidate must establish ancestral origin in the state or belong to a particular ethnic or sub-ethnic community.
The constitutional position is therefore clear. Ethnic ancestry is not an additional qualification for election as governor. Neither political commentators nor self-appointed custodians of communal identity possess the authority to introduce requirements that the Constitution itself does not recognize.
This distinction is important. Senator Adeola’s ancestral connections to Yewa are relevant to his personal identity and to the political aspirations of Ogun West. They are not, however, a constitutional condition for his eligibility to contest the governorship of Ogun State. Even if the allegations against his ancestry were true, which I reject, they would not, by themselves, constitute a constitutional disqualification.
Nigeria’s constitutional democracy rests on citizenship, political participation and the sovereign right of the electorate to choose its leaders within the framework of the law. It does not recognize a system in which ethnic gatekeepers determine who may seek elective office on the basis of ancestral purity.
The people of Ogun State must ultimately decide who governs them through the democratic process. That decision should be informed by competence, character, experience, vision and the capacity to deliver meaningful development, rather than by attempts to reduce political eligibility to questions of bloodline.
The political contradiction is impossible to ignore. Ogun West has struggled for nearly five decades to break its exclusion from the governorship, yet some of those who profess to defend that struggle, though we have since discovered that they are not our fiends, are now seeking to discredit one of its most formidable political figures on the grounds of ancestry.
They demand political inclusion for Ogun West while advancing arguments that would exclude a prominent Yewa son from the very opportunity the region has spent generations seeking.
The Ogun West Agenda was never conceived as a campaign for ancestral purity. It is a struggle for equity, justice and meaningful participation in the political leadership of Ogun State. Its success cannot depend on allowing individuals to redefine Yewa identity whenever a politically influential son of the region emerges.
The 2027 governorship election will not be decided by self-appointed custodians of ancestry. It will be determined by the people of Ogun State, exercising their democratic rights under a Constitution that does not require a governorship candidate to belong to any particular ethnic or sub-ethnic community.
History will not judge the defenders of the Ogun West Agenda by the intensity of their attacks on Yayi, but by whether their actions brought Ogun West closer to the governorship or pushed it further away
Oladele, National Commissioner representing Ogun State at the Federal Character Commission, wrote from Imeko
