There is something curious about the latest political argument coming from the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Oyo State.
The party wants Governor ‘Seyi Makinde to stop talking about his preferred successor, Bimbo Adekanbi, and concentrate on selling the former Commissioner for Finance’s credentials.
It also insists that Makinde is not on the ballot in 2027 and should therefore leave the contest to those seeking the governorship.
Fair enough. Every candidate should be able to defend his record. Every political party should explain why its candidate deserves the people’s mandate. And every voter should have the freedom to compare the candidates and make an informed choice.
But there is a question the APC must answer. If Governor Makinde has truly done nothing in Oyo State, why is the party so uncomfortable with his record becoming part of the 2027 campaign?
Why is a governor who, according to the opposition, has achieved little or nothing suddenly being treated as someone whose political influence must be restricted?
Why is the APC insisting that the electorate should focus on the candidates while simultaneously trying to shut down the conversation about the administration whose record is central to the argument for continuity?
These questions are not raised to suggest that Governor Makinde is beyond criticism. He is not. No administration is. They are raised because political arguments must be consistent, and the APC’s latest position appears to be built on a very selective understanding of how election campaigns work.
The party cannot ask Oyo voters to examine records and, at the same time, decide which records they are allowed to examine.
In a recent statement by its Director of Public Affairs, Bolaji Tunji, the APC governorship campaign organisation criticised Governor Makinde over what it described as a veiled reference to a recent video involving Senator Sharafadeen Alli and a student visitor.
The campaign said Makinde should stop attacking Alli and instead promote the credentials of Adekanbi, the candidate he supports.
It reminded the governor that he would not be on the ballot in 2027 and declared that the election would be a contest among the candidates presented by the various political parties.
The APC also challenged Adekanbi to explain his governance pedigree, his achievements as a former Commissioner for Finance and his vision for Oyo State.
First of all, if APC now questions Adekanbi’s governance pedigree knowing he was central to whatever the party boasted of as success between 2015–2019 while in power but now suddenly questions the same man who singlehandedly managed the finance of the entire state under APC because he is running under the APM, is that not a serious self indictment?
There is nothing wrong with asking these questions. In fact, they are questions that should be asked of every candidate, including Senator Alli.
What did he achieve in public office as a former local government chairman, Secretary to the Government of the State, and now a serving Senator?
This and many more, are legitimate questions but the APC’s argument becomes difficult to defend when it suggests that because Makinde is not contesting, his administration’s record should no longer be part of the conversation.
That is not how democracy works. A governor does not need to be on the ballot before his record can influence an election. A government’s achievements, failures and policies naturally become part of the political debate surrounding its successor.
That is especially true when the outgoing governor is openly supporting a candidate who promises to continue or build upon his administration’s direction and legacy.
Adekanbi is not contesting in isolation, he is actually seeking to succeed Makinde, the very man APC does not want his records to be included in the electioneering debate.
That relationship is politically relevant and the APC knows this very well, and perhaps, it knows the risks and hurdles before the party at the governorship poll when Makinde’s records of achievements become central to the debate particularly as bothering on continuity.
Even the Accord, the party knows this as well. Because its controversial (Oriyomi’s emergence is still a subject of litigation) governorship candidate, Oriyomi Hamzat, has also made similar remark in one a viral video. And Oyo voters certainly understand it.
Since when did the APC become afraid of a governor’s record? One would think, from the APC’s latest argument, that outgoing governors have no business discussing the work of their administrations once they are approaching the end of their tenure.
But that has never been the tradition of Nigerian politics. Political parties have always campaigned on the achievements of their leaders.
They have always invoked the legacies of past administrations and political figures. They have always asked voters to remember what their political family had done before and to trust them to do more.
The APC is no stranger to this practice.
In fact, the political tradition from which the party emerged has built much of its identity in Nigeria around the records of leaders such as Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Chief M. K. O. Abiola, Chief Bola Ige and now President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
These names have been used repeatedly in political arguments about progressive governance, institutional development and the transformation of society. That is not a crime.
It is how political movements build identity. It is how parties persuade voters that they have a history of service. It is how political legacies become campaign assets.
But if the APC can campaign on the achievements and legacies of its political leaders, why should Governor Makinde be denied the same opportunity?
If the APC can ask voters to remember Awolowo, Abiola, Bola Ige and Tinubu, why should the electorate be told to forget Makinde and just focus on Adekanbi, what are they afraid of?
If the APC can say that the achievements of its political family are evidence of its capacity to govern, why should APM not make the same argument about the administration it is seeking to sustain?
This is the hypocrisy that the APC needs to confront; the hypocrisy of selective deception. It cannot be right for one party to campaign on its record and wrong for another party to do the same.
It cannot be acceptable when the APC invokes its political history but unacceptable when Makinde’s supporters invoke his administration’s achievements. The standard must be the same for everybody.
Chief Obafemi Awolowo remains one of the most important figures in the political history of the Southwest.
His administration in the former Western Region is remembered for policies and institutions associated with education, agriculture, public welfare and regional development, which the administration of governor Seyi Makinde appears to resonate with in its blueprints and policy implementation so far.
Politicians who never served under him, never contested alongside him and never participated in the original implementation of his policies back then have continued to invoke his name.
Why?
Because political achievements do not disappear when the person who created them leaves office. They become part of the identity of the political movement that claims them.
The political tradition associated with Awolowo has continued to use his legacy as evidence of progressive governance, and there is nothing wrong with that.
But it creates a problem for the APC’s current argument. If the party believes it is legitimate to invoke Awolowo’s record when seeking public support, it cannot reasonably argue that Makinde’s record should be kept out of the 2027 campaign.
Awolowo was not on the ballot in 2015, 2019, 2023, and will certainly not be in 2027. Bola Ige was also not on the ballot.
Tinubu, before his emergence as President, was not on every ballot in every election where his political influence was invoked, yet their records and political legacies have remained part of the conversation.
That is because voters do not only vote for individuals. They also vote for political traditions, ideas, records and the direction they believe a party represents.
If the APC wants Oyo voters to consider its political tradition, it must allow the APM to present its own political argument because the people are capable of deciding which record is more convincing rather than flowing with deceptive narratives.
Chief Bola Ige’s place in the political history of the Southwest is equally significant. He represented a political tradition associated with public service, democratic values and progressive governance.
His name remains part of the political conversation because of his influence and the historical significance of his career, but the point here is not to turn Bola Ige’s legacy into a campaign slogan.
The point is to ask why the APC’s standard changes whenever the record belongs to a political opponent, or better still, why does the APC desire change of the goalpost simply because an opponent is taking the shot at a goal?
If Bola Ige’s legacy can be invoked to reinforce the identity of a political movement, why should Makinde’s record be treated as irrelevant or isolated from the conversation? After all, the opposition have continued to claim Makinde did nothing.
If the APC can ask voters to remember the achievements of leaders associated with its political tradition, why should the APM not ask voters to consider the achievements of the Makinde administration?
The APC’s argument appears to suggest that only its own history deserves to be remembered. That is not a fair way to conduct politics in any civilized manner.
Every administration must be judged on its record, candidates must be judged on their competence, parties must be judged on promises made and their performances but no party should be allowed to decide that only its own history is relevant.
The APC’s own political history provides perhaps the clearest example of why the argument against Makinde’s record does not hold water.
Long before Bola Ahmed Tinubu even became President of Nigeria, his political identity was closely associated with the governance narrative of Lagos State.
The achievements and reforms attributed to the Lagos political establishment became part of the argument used to defend its leadership and political direction.
That record was not treated as something that belonged only to the governor who occupied office at a particular time.
It became part of the political capital of the movement. The Lagos experience was invoked to argue that the political family had the capacity to transform governance even in Oyo state.
It was used to persuade voters and establish credibility. That is how politics works because a governor’s record becomes his party’s campaign material.
A party’s record becomes a candidate’s political advantage and a political administration’s achievements become part of the argument for continuity. There is absolutely nothing unusual about this.
If Tinubu’s record in Lagos could be invoked as part of the political argument for the APC’s emergence and success in Oyo in the past, why should Makinde’s record in Oyo State be excluded from the argument for Adekanbi ahead of 2027?
If the APC can say, “Look at what our political family achieved in Lagos,” why should APM not say, “Look at what the Makinde administration has achieved in Oyo State”?
The difference is not that one governor is on the ballot and the other is not. The difference is that one political party wants to use the principle when it suits its interests and reject it when it benefits its opponent, and that is a clear selective deception.
The APC keeps repeating that Governor Makinde will not be on the ballot, yet nobody disputes that but the fact that he is not contesting does not mean that his record has suddenly become irrelevant.
A governor’s tenure does not end politically the moment he stops contesting an election. His administration’s policies remain in place.
Its projects remain visible. Its decisions continue to affect the people. Its successes and failures remain part of the state’s political history and if the governor supports a successor, the electorate is entitled to ask whether that successor can sustain the direction of his governance.
This is not unique or peculiar to Makinde. It happens everywhere. A governor who believes his administration has performed well will naturally support a candidate who promises continuity while an opposition party that believes the administration has failed will naturally ask voters to reject that continuity.
That is the essence of an election and the APC cannot complain that Makinde is discussing his record while simultaneously asking voters to reject the direction of his administration. It cannot demand that the governor should not campaign for his preferred successor and it certainly cannot insist that the record of the administration should be removed from the debate.
The governor has every right to say what his administration has done. The APC has every right to challenge those claims and the electorate has every right to decide. That is democracy in full display.
The APC’s challenge to Adekanbi is straightforward. What did he achieve as Commissioner for Finance, what is his governance pedigree, what is his vision for Oyo State?
These questions deserve answers but they should be asked in the context of the political platform on which he is contesting.
Adekanbi is the APM candidate and the preferred successor of Governor Makinde.
That means the electorate will naturally want to know what he represents. Does he represent continuity, does he intend to preserve the administration’s policies, does he intend to improve upon them, does he believe the administration made mistakes that need correction, or does he have a different vision for the state other than the Makinde blueprints?
These are important questions and Adekanbi should answer them but the answers cannot be separated from the record of the administration he is seeking to succeed.
If he believes Makinde has performed well, he should explain why. If he intends to build on the administration’s achievements, he should tell voters how, and if he intends to change some of its policies, he should explain what he would do differently.
The APC cannot ask Adekanbi to defend his political credentials while insisting that the electorate should ignore the political record of the administration he represents. That would be like asking a candidate to explain the future without allowing voters to examine the past.
The Makinde administration has no doubt made infrastructure, education, healthcare, security and economic development central to its governance narrative.
The government has also highlighted worker welfare, road construction, regional connectivity and institutional reforms.
Whether those achievements are sufficient is a matter for public debate. Whether they have been properly implemented is a matter for scrutiny. Whether they justify continuity is a matter for the electorate to decide but they are not matters that can simply be wished away by opposition because it threatens their chances.
The APC should present its own position, Accord party should do the same, likewise the APM and the electorate should decide their fate at the poll.
That is better than attempting to prevent the record from being discussed. That would imply opposition’s fear of Makinde’s record
The APC and Accord Party are competing for the same electorate. They want voters to reject the political direction represented by Makinde and choose their candidates instead. That makes the administration’s record important.
If voters believe Makinde has performed well, they may be more inclined to support a candidate associated with continuity. If voters believe he has failed, they may be more inclined to support the opposition. This is the political reality because records matter, and the APC, Accord party know it.
That is why the debate should be about the record itself not whether the governor is on the ballot.
Oyo voters deserve to hear every side. They deserve to examine every record. They deserve to compare every candidate. And they deserve to make their decision without being subjected to selective political memory or deception.
The APC and Accord Party should stop trying to decide which records matter and let the people decide, let the candidates speak, let the records speak, and most importantly, let the electorate have the final word with their ballot without intimidation, coercion, or manipulation using selective deception as a political tool.
Ibrahim Adekola writes from Yemetu, Ibadan North, Ibadan.