He is an enigma. Perhaps his engaging life could be said to be a farrago of complexities. The more you try to know and understand him, the more puzzling he gets.

His outspokenness may have angered some people and thrown up controversies, but this engineer, war veteran, farmer, Commonwealth Eminent Personality, global citizen, former military Head of State and civilian President, author, teacher, lover of education and theologian is not ready for “sit-down-look” while the ship of state drifts off the right nautical direction in the hands of its captains.

Another thing nobody can deny about him is the passion with which he delves into issues of national concerns when he bares his mind.

This is vintage Chief Olusegun Matthew Okikiolu Aremu Obasanjo.

He has been variously described as a navigator and pathfinder. In many respects, life has been kind to him, and he remains a man of history, despite his shortcomings.

In blissful retirement, Chief Obasanjo, like other former leaders, is not off the radar.

He has often positioned himself as an issue and a respected leader of opinion. His style, which has worked well, is to gauge public views and sentiments before building on them to make a critical and somewhat logical intervention.

Whenever he speaks up, he polarises the polity. Many would hail his suggestions; others would decry them. But, the goal is fulfilled: the man fills the consciousness of the people at critical times.

Although he tore down his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) membership card almost 10 years ago, signalling a semblance of political retirement, the move has paled into a decoy. As an elder statesman, the “Ebora Owu”, as he is fondly called by admirers, has carved out a prominent role for himself in Nigeria’s national life by playing the politics of rebuke. Through criticisms, he may have succeeded in whipping into line some erring members of the political class, particularly those holding the levers of power.

This great leader is still physically agile, although he is nearing to breast the nonagenarian tape. He has never strictly held on to a specific date of birth. The testimony he inherited is that he was born on a market day.  This is enough to even silence those probing the birth records of presidential candidates, the shadow chasers.

Obasanjo is always studying and learning. He is abreast of events. The old soldier is not tired of physical culture. He exercises regularly to keep a healthy lifestyle. He also retains a huge brain; his head is full of facts and figures, military tactics and civilian tricks, practical statecraft, wisdom bestowed by longevity and vast experience acquired through countless exposures.

His Hill Top residence, which accommodates his sprawling library, is like a Makkah of sorts. It is where he hosts visitors from far and near. In this electioneering, consultation with movers and shakers of the society is incomplete without a visit to OBJ, Balogun of Owu Kingdom and Ekerin of Egba ‘Confederation’.

Obasanjo is unique. He has played important roles in shaping events that have defined Nigeria. He was a civil war hero who, as General Officer Commanding the Third Marine Commando, accepted the Biafran surrender. He has commanded large military battalions and served as minister and Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters, before assuming full control as Commander-in-Chief. He is the only military ruler who later had the rare opportunity of serving as elected President for eight years.

Two former military Heads of State – Generals Yakubu Gowon and Ibrahim Babangida – tried to stage such a comeback. They did not succeed. Babangida failed at the regional selection level; Gowon crashed at the ward level. Also, General Sani Abacha’s attempt to transmute into a civilian president hit the rock.

Having ruled for 11 years, it is doubtful if Obasanjo’s record can be beaten in the foreseeable future.

It would appear that he is the most influential among the ex-Heads of State. At least, Obasanjo has networks beyond Nigeria. He is popular in the international community, having voluntarily relinquished power to civilian authorities in 1979 at a time Africa was battling with sit-tight rulers.

The only thing Obasanjo could not achieve in the past was serving as Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN).

The General is a man of battles. His triumph over past vicissitudes, particularly life-threatening obstacles under the maximum ruler, the late General Sani Abacha, was an act of God. Obasanjo himself is not a soft soldier. His jokes should not be misunderstood as an atom of weakness and permanent accommodation. Nobody can take him for a ride. He is a no-nonsense gerontocratic monitor: poignant, assertive, strong-willed and dictatorial, like a soldier that he is.

Read Also: What transpired during Obasanjo, Tinubu’s meeting — Gbajabiamila

It is a component of behaviour that made him to break gadgets of reporters in the past and tear the selection list of aspirants to the highly revered stool of Olowu.

An elected governor of Ogun State once told reporters in Abeokuta that his greatest achievement was living in the same town – the state capital – with Obasanjo for eight years without a single quarrel.

“You didn’t ask about my relationship with former President Obasanjo. We have lived in this town together and there is no fight. I deserve congratulations for that,” he said.

Obasanjo’s fading political influence is dramatically concealed. As candidates for various offices cannot but consult with the former leader as a matter of courtesy, his relevance, more or less, is somehow sustained. What they hope to gain from consultations with him is not clear.

There is no proof that in recent times, Obasanjo’s support for aspirants or opposition to their ambitions has played a role in the victory of such candidates beyond the efforts of the candidates, their personal structures, financial muscles and the public acceptance of their candidature and political parties.

Yet, a visit to the Ota farmer has become a condition to be fulfilled by elective office seekers.

Obasanjo has always had preferred candidates since 1979. As military Head of State, he inadvertently divulged information about his preference when he said the best material might not win the presidential race. Although he never officially endorsed any contender, he isolated one of the aspirants from the pack.

Then, five candidates – Alhaji Shehu Shagari (National Party of Nigeria, NPN), Chief Obafemi Awolowo (Unity Party of Nigeria, UPN), Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe (Nigeria Peoples Party, NPP), Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim (Great Nigeria People Party, GNPP) and Alhaji Aminu Kano (Peoples Redemption Party, PRP) – were in the race. It was believed that in terms of antecedent, pedigree, plans, competence and capacity, Awo was the best.

Obasanjo was later to mock the former Premier of defunct Western Region in his controversial book, titled: “Not My Will”, where he stated that the presidential power that Awo had been struggling for when he (Obasanjo) was a bare-footed pupil and which eluded the great politician for many years landed on his palm, without asking for it.

Yet, if Nigerians of Yoruba extraction are asked today to queue behind their true leader, majority will not line behind OBJ, who is still alive; they will prefer to line up behind the tomb of Awolowo in Ikenne, despite the fact that the indomitable Awo passed on 35 years ago.

In 1993, Obasanjo’s choice for president was not in the public domain. Some commentators suggested that the former Executive Secretary of Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), Prof. Adebayo Adedeji, could not have joined the race without due consultation with the General.

After the annulment of the historic, peaceful and credible presidential poll by military President Ibrahim Babangida, and the battle for revalidation of results intensified, Obasanjo declared that the deprived winner, the late Chief Moshood Abiola, was not the Messiah.

Nigerians elected a president in a free and fair poll. But an Interim National Government (ING) contraption was foisted on the country. Obasanjo supported the ING, saying although it was unfortunate, it was understandable.

OBJ, a supporter of defunct Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM), the political machinery of his loyal deputy, Major-General Shehu Yar’Adua, was picked to fly the ticket of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Though he was an effective leader, he could not easily adjust to the pattern of civilian politics. A nationalist bubbling with unitarist orientation, a fallout of the centralised command structure that professionally nurtured him, Obasanjo avoided the fundamental national question critical to peaceful co-existence. In the past, he believed the unity of Nigeria was non-negotiable.  The example offered by the traditional political arrangement in Egba land should have ordinarily offered some lessons in decentralisation and autonomy. In Egba are five major towns with their distinct identities. They co-exist in unity; indeed, unity in diversity.

But, as president, Obasanjo sustained the pre-existing flawed and lopsided federal structure, thereby compounding the challenge of Nigerian federalism.

He opposed the creation of more local governments by states and frustrated the move for decentralisation of power supply. There was no attempt at devolving policing powers to states and governors remained mere decorative chief executive officers of their handicapped states. Some of the complaints from OBJ later on would have been resolved in those eight years that he was in the saddle.

In 2007, Obasanjo preferred Katsina State Governor Umaru Yar’Adua as his successor. Other aspirants, including Dr. Peter Odili, Abdullahi Adamu and Ahmed Makarfi, had to defer to him. The president, as Yar’Adua later noted, was severely flawed.

After Yar’Adua’s demise, he also endorsed President Goodluck Jonathan, who succeeded Yar’Adua, for a fresh term in 2011.

When his former deputy, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, unfolded his ambition again in 2015, Obasanjo, in a fit of comic, retorted: “I dey laugh o,” (I’m laughing). He was Jonathan’s coach during the party primary, whispering to him on the campaign podium.

Four years later, Obasanjo could not endorse the Ijaw-born politician for another term. He fired salvos at him in an open letter, accusing his administration of ineptitude and corruption, and advising him to drop his ambition.

All Progressives Congress (APC) leaders saw an artificial political opening. They stormed Abeokuta for Obasanjo’s warm embrace. He pitched his tent with former military Head of State, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, who he described as an incorruptible politician.

The romance ended, barely two years later. Atiku, who he once said was unfit to succeed him, became his adopted candidate. Many Nigerians could not reconcile his past comments with his course of action. It smacked of inconsistency.

Obasanjo wrote a letter to President Buhari, urging him not to seek re-election. He said Buhari had failed to fight terror successfully and revive the economy. Indeed, these unresolved problems created a hollow in Buhari’s score card.

But, Buhari disagreed. Like Obasanjo, he won a second term.

As the country warms up for the 2023 general election, Obasanjo has not unveiled his anointed candidate. It is unusual. May be he is cautious, trying to assess public mood.

Although the influence of the former leader was not a factor during the primaries of political parties, nearly all the presidential aspirants took their turns to visit him.

Atiku, who boasted that he had always won primaries, held a meeting with Obasanjo in Abeokuta, shortly after unfolding his aspiration.

Recently, the Labour Party (LP) candidate, Peter Obi, stormed Obasanjo’s place. The visit was dramatised in the media by the “Obidient” faithful as an endorsement.

But no visit by any other presidential candidate or politician has attracted the kind of glitz and attention that this week’s visit to Obasanjo by APC presidential candidate, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, has had. The hitherto personal visit turned to near carnival by many APC members in the “Rock City”.

They were at the former President’s home to show solidarity to their candidate. They sang, they danced, they eulogised the Jagaban of Borgu.

It appeared Asiwaju Tinubu was familiar with most members of the Obasanjo household. He greeted them warmly, calling them by their first names as they welcomed him.

By the time the visit was over, Obasanjo held the hand of his visitor in a gesture that clearly disabused the minds of those who perceived rivalry between the visitor and his host.

The personal visit has elicited comments from various quarters. To some people, it was antithetical for the former Lagos governor, believed to be an ardent critic of the former President, to visit him, courtesy or otherwise. The have forgotten that Tinubu also led the APC leaders to OBJ’s house in 2015.

The sad experience of Lagos under Asiwaju Tinubu when Obasanjo denied the state the legitimate funds it was entitled to, following the creation of additional local council development areas (LCDAs), is still fresh in the memories of most Nigerians, especially among Lagos residents.

Also, most people still remember the political tsunami of 2007, which swept away all Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) governors in the Southwest, except Asiwaju Tinubu, in an election that was superintended by the Obasanjo administration.

But, as they say, there is no permanent friend or enemy in politics, only permanent interest.

Ahead of the 2023 general election, Nigerians will continue to expect more conducts befitting an elder statesman’s status from Obasanjo, even for many more years ahead. But, expectedly, those conducts may not be devoid of controversies, which have become his second nature.

The Yoruba have excellent wise sayings for every situation. The race puts you on the lane of circumspection and precautions with their apothegmatic remarks to help you take informed decisions in different circumstances. With their axioms at the back of your mind, you are never lost in taking rational decisions to guide your steps.

One of such axioms says: “Omo eni kii se’di bebere ki a fi ileke si idi omo elomiran.” (You don’t give to another man’s daughter the waist beads meant for your own daughter on account of her big waist).

The moral: do not cut off your face to spite your nose. It is not wise to give to someone else what your own deserves because you find a fault with your own.

Another adage says: “Omo eni kii buru titi, k’a fi f’ekun pa je.” (However obstinate your child may be, you do not cast him to the leopard to devour).

Again, the Yoruba teach self-restraint in times of anger. “Inu kii bi ‘ni ka gbe omo eni sinu eerun. Bi inu ba ro, inu eerun ko ni ro.” (You do not, in a moment of anger, dump your child into the colony of soldier ants. When your anger subsides, the soldier ants’ sting will not go).

For the pan-Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, this is the time to apply the race’s axioms for the welfare of the people. It appears that the organisation has so far violated these dicta in this electioneering period. It is doing so in utter insensitivity, and without sparing a thought for the future.

The puzzle is: should Afenifere reject a Yoruba presidential candidate and embrace an Igbo flag bearer?

Without mincing word, the ethnic mouthpiece, posing as a national platform, has unleashed a curious contradiction by deviating from the vision and practices of its illustrious founding fathers.

In a dimension, it smacks of ideological confusion that a regional progressive platform is protecting the interest of another region while jeopardising its own.

The highly decimated organisation has breached its own code. It has also forgotten its glorious past: its cherished history, antecedents, struggles, travails, exploits, vision, mission and its place in the Southwest and beyond, including Kwara, Kogi and Republic of Benin, where the Yoruba have kith and kin.

Afenifere cannot be insulated from politics. It is a regional socio-political group. All the chieftains of the group are politicians. They are expected to operate under the progressive umbrella, in accordance with the teaching of its indomitable progenitor, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo.

But, in this political season, Afenifere, unlike in the past when it floated the Alliance for Democracy (AD) and later the Democratic Peoples Alliance (DPA) in the Southwest, is now “partyless.”

It is currently pursuing a divisive agenda in the region and setting an unusual precedent by identifying with a political tendency without first building a consensus at home.

Although Afenifere was formed principally to defend the interest of the Yoruba, and by extension, its sons and daughters, the group is trying to illogically tamper with the political interest of many of its members by assisting outsiders to attack their aspiration.

The position of Afenifere Leader, Pa Rueben Fasoranti, on the 2023 elections is never at variance with the opinion of the vast majority of Yoruba people. A role model and mentor, the elder statesman is not a leader who can deviate from the pursuit of the best for the race.

Fasoranti came as a unifier. He was given the mandate to deputise for the former leader, Senator Abraham Adesanya, when complaints about domination by the “Ijebu Mafia” filled the air. In post-Adesanya era, it was reasoned that the leadership of the group should “rotate” or be “zoned” to “Ekiti/Ondo axis”.

It is noteworthy that the old man of Akure and one of the finest Yoruba breed, an accomplished education statesman, incorruptible and selfless politician, and highly esteemed, reticent community leader, once resigned as leader of the group over what he called indiscipline.

Read Also; Tinubu: The man who would be president

Although members prevailed on him to continue his leadership role, he finally decided to step aside last year. But, he is still acknowledged as the undisputed leader.

If Sir Olaniwun Ajayi were alive, he would have succeeded Fasoranti. But, having passed on, the lot to deputise for Fasoranti fell on Adebanjo, lawyer and fearless activist, pioneer Action Group (AG) Organising Secretary, a loyal disciple of the late sage, Awolowo, and a hero of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) onslaught against the brutish military.

The group he inherited had split during the controversial ‘Akure Declaration’ that Senator Mojisoluwa Akinfenwa, and not Chief Bisi Akande, was the authentic AD National Chairman because the convention that produced him in Abuja, and not the convention that produced Akande in Lagos, appeared to Afenifere to have followed the laid down guidelines.

While Fasoranti continued to lead a section of the group, made up of leaders like Chief Olu Falae, Senator Kofo Bucknor-Akerele, Senator Femi Okunrounmu, Basorun Seinde Arogbofa, Chief Korede Duyile and Chief Segun Adegoke, his compatriot from AG days, the late Senator Ayo Fasanmi, continued to lead the second group, which had the late Senator Biyi Durojaye, Aremo Olusegun Osoba, Alhaji Olatunji Hamzat, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, Chief Bisi Akande, Chief Michael Koleoso, the late Senator Sikiru Shitta-Bey and Chief Busura Alebiosu.

Efforts by the intellectual wing, Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG), to unite the two camps at a meeting in Ibadan, Oyo State capital, collapsed.

Due to the factionalisation, Afenifere became fragile and its media and public ratings as a formidable and united front for Yoruba diminished.

The crux of the matter now is the position of Chief Adebanjo, who is acting for Chief Fasoranti, on next year’s polls. The deputy leader’s preference is in public glare. He has declared support for the presidential candidate of Labour Party (LP) and former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi.

Observers say the elder statesman is entitled to his opinion. He has the inalienable right to mobilise for any candidate of his choice.

But, what is puzzling is whether the combative Acting Leader has the moral right to brand his personal wish and present it as the collective agenda of the Southwest.

Many children of Oduduwa are asking: Is it proper for Afenifere to declare support for Obi, an Igbo, at a time an eminent Yoruba son, one of the chieftains of the group and former Lagos State governor, Asiwaju Tinubu, is the presidential candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

Would Ohanaeze Ndigbo, led by Prof. George Obiozor, ask Afenifere to support Asiwaju Tinubu while castigating Obi, an Igbo son?

Is it not better under the present circumstance for Pa Adebanjo to maintain a dignified silence instead of villifying Tinubu and heaping praises on Obi, while leaning on the umbrella ethnic mouthpiece?

How will Afenifere resolve the contradiction? When was it resolved in Afenifere that the organisation should turn its back against a Yoruba man and support an outsider?

Many Yoruba leaders subverted Awo. He never realised his dream of ruling Nigeria. Some Yoruba also undermined the late Chief Moshood Abiola. He won the 1993 election but never assumed the reins. Why should Afenifere wage war against Tinubu, another Yoruba icon?

The old political warhorse, Action Grouper and warlike deputy leader is an experienced politician. He is aware of the organisation’s strengths, weaknesses or limitations. He is also aware of the fact that his stand on 2023 is not representative of the popular yearning in Yoruba land. The question is: why the gamble?

Pa Adebanjo has tried to justify his controversial position, although his arguments lacked persuasion. Neither is his remark conciliatory at a time the politically distressed organisation is yearning for unity and harmony, which have eluded it for almost two decades.

Pa Adebanjo has been attacking Tinubu for supporting Muhammadu Buhari since 2015. He has transferred his hostility to the APC candidate, saying that if elected in next year’s election, his administration will be a continuation of Buhari’s government.

The Acting Leader said he knows Obi very well. It is debatable. The claim has to be further interrogated. Pa Adebanjo insinuated that the LP candidate is better than Tinubu. But he never attempted a comparative analysis of the contributions of the two candidates to substantiate the doubtful claim. He said: “Ahmed Tinubu will only give continuity to Buhari’s incompetence. We know Peter Obi very well. That is why we endorse him. He will not disappoint Nigerians. Let’s put tribal sentiment apart and vote for right leaders.”

The outburst may have compounded the challenge of disunity in the fold and reduced the prospect of reconciliation, now and in the future.

Some issues may be deduced from Pa Adebanjo’s comment. A case of transferred aggression is clearly established. His Afenifere only reenacted the Awoist’s hostility towards Buhari, whose administration humiliated Awolowo by seizing his passport after the December 31, 1983 military coup. This may be justifiable.

The Yoruba elder never said Tinubu is incompetent. But he committed a fallacy of easy generalisation by insinuating that if elected as president, Tinubu will continue what he called “Buhari’s incompetence”.

What incompetence has Tinubu exhibited that made the chief to think that he will preside over an incompetent government in post-Buhari period? Was Tinubu an incompetent Mobil treasurer, senator, governor, NADECO activist, opposition arrowhead, or an incompetent National Leader of the ruling party?

Adebanjo claims that he knows Obi, probably as a former banker, former governor, member of All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), defector to Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), former running mate to a PDP presidential candidate, and a serial defector by virtue of his defection to the LP.

One thing that Pa Adebanjo, a man of principle, dislikes – and this is public knowledge – is jumping ship. He prides himself as a consistent progressive from the days of Awo, who has shunned conservative platforms.

By supporting Obi, who could as well be assessed within the context of serial defections, the eminent Yoruba chief seemed to have reviewed his stand on the virtue of consistency, which has now been sacrificed by his preferred candidate on the altar of survival.

The Acting Leader said it was time to downplay tribal sentiment. Those who disagree with him may be quick to point out that Nigeria, with its quota system, federal character, catchment area, rotation and zoning struggles, is not one. It is thirsty for unity in diversity. Adebanjo himself has often retorted that national unity is negotiable. It is because Nigeria is not one; it is an amalgam of incompatible social formations.

Cross-regional political collaboration is good. But, should the terms not be spelt out and mutually understood?

If people should forget ethnicity, as Pa Adebanjo has counselled, where do we now place Awo’s admonition that you must first of all be a good indigene of your town, your state and your region before you become a good citizen of Nigeria?

Afenifere’s position on 2023 means the organisation has never learnt from its past mistakes. Yet, the lessons are very instructive.

In the past, the organisation exhibited the tendency for forging a questionable alliance with strange bedfellows, thereby mocking its puritanical posturing.

It appears that Afenifere leaders, particularly members of the “Controlling Leadership,” are experiencing boredom outside power, having been left in the cold. That was the fallout of the mismanagement of its political achievements and opportunities in the Southwest between 1999 and 2003.

What has led Afenifere to serious deviation and turbulence was its weak crisis resolution mechanism and lack of forgiving spirit. Two unresolved crises – the Bola Ige/Olu Falae rift at D’Rovans in Ibadan during the historic AD presidential primary and the protracted feud in the Lagos AD/Afenifere chapter between Tinubu and Alhaji Ganiyu Dawodu – laid the foundation of an enduring friction, distrust and division among the Awoists of Yoruba land, who, in post-Awo era, legitimately craved greater political relevance.

After visiting former military President Ibrahim Babangida (IBB), the late Awo warned his disciplines to always learn to eat with the devil with a long spoon. When he died, they refused to heed his prophetic advice.

Many of them participated in the elusive search for a new order in the aborted Third Republic, which was packaged to fail by IBB. At the end, they were terribly disappointed.

Again, Southwest Awoists on the joint platform of Afenifere/AD erroneously struck a deal with former President Olusegun Obasanjo in 2003. The end was catastrophic.

Members of Awo political family forgot that Obasanjo’s meddlesomeness in the Ige/Afolabi rift aggravated the tension in Oyo State chapter of defunct Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) in the Second Republic.

Twenty-one years after, they fell into another trap by sealing an inexplicable pact with trickish General Obasanjo, who they later accused of political betrayal. A political earthquake swept across the poll-confident Southwest. The five AD governors supported by Afenifere-Lam Adesina(Oyo), Akande (Osun), Osoba (Ogun), Adebayo Adefarati (Ondo) and Niyi Adebayo (Ekiti)-never survived it. Only Tinubu of Lagos, who was rejected by the organisation, survived.

Afenifere never recovered from the political tragedy. That loss of political control in its traditional stronghold marked the eclipse of regional relevance. By the time a section of the progressive bloc bounced back in Ekiti, Ondo, Oyo, Osun and Ogun, without the backing of Afenifere, it was evident that the group could only hold on to old glory.

Majority of Afenifere chieftains, who can really mobilise for election and win power, share a contrary opinion to Pa Adebanjo’s group. Can the Adebanjo camp mobilise for political action with success more than the Afenifere group, to which Olusi, Osoba and Akande belong?

Could it be said that in the last one decade Afenifere under Pa Adebanjo has contributed to the development of Yoruba land more than ARG, which has designed and mobilised for the implementation of sound educational, cultural, socio-economic and political programmes for the benefit of Yoruba land?

Observers believe that Afenifere has been battling with a fading influence and losing its potency, following its unresolved protracted crisis.

It got to a climax when the group started looking for new friends outside its ideological circle. Afenifere supported former President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015. In 2019, it gravitated towards Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. Both contested on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

On both occasions, the two candidates lost, based on the results declared by the independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and verdict of the Supreme Court.

In its Southwest base, Afenifere could not spring any surprise.

In retrospection, the group’s support for Jonathan and Atiku amounted to an avoidable ideological summersault.

Afenifere was uncritically carried away by the carrot dangled by Atiku, who campaigned four years ago on the borrowed platform of restructuring, which is one of its priorities and proposed solutions to the defective and lopsided federal structure.

But those who disagreed with the organisation raised a question: what effort did Atiku make as Vice President along the line of restructuring to rekindle hope that he would push for true federalism, if he captures power in 2023?

It may also be asked: Why has Afenifere abandoned Atiku for Obi?

The former Vice President, at least, promised restructuring. What has Obi promised Afenifere?

In 2023, it is doubtful if Afenifere will be a factor in winning or losing the presidential election.

Nigeria is enmeshed in a security mess. For more than a decade, insecurity has festered from a state headache to regional predicament and now to a national burden. It has defied all solutions.

It is a knotty problem to which respite appears to be far from sight. The Federal Government acknowledges the complexity of the security challenge, but it is in want of more effective strategies to combat the entrapment.

Security is the most important task of government. But if the effort to make it work is still elusive, it means the government has failed in this most critical sector for the other sectors to function well and make the people to live in peace and thrive.

This is not just pathetic, but also disgraceful for a nation that has expended huge resources into fighting the battle. More disheartening is the fact that a lot of patriotic military personnel have died on the battlefield; others have been disabled for the rest of their lives.

Despite the huge cost of fighting terror, Nigeria has, so far, very little to show for the investment in the war. The nation looks forlorn as the aggressors spread their mission of disintegration. It is becoming more difficult as the days roll by for Nigerians to sleep comfortably in many homes and travel long journeys without fearing attacks by bandits and kidnappers.

The government and the people are confused. Who will save the beleaguered country from terror?

Analysts are enquiring into why terrorism has continued to flourish. During the week, a searchlight was beamed on the entire war effort. Observers have raised some pertinent questions. Is intelligence gathering in vain? Is intelligence report adequately used by those prosecuting the war? Why are military installations caught unawares? Why are correctional centres attacked and preemptive actions delayed before other correctional centres are invaded in the spate of a month?  Are our gallant officers and men now sleeping on guard?

Also, many Nigerians fear that terrorism or banditry has become a big business; a curious racket. It has become the highest paying non-institutionalised remunerative labour and unlawful career. Observers suspect a complicity of sorts; a formidable network of collaborators and saboteurs, and inexplicable political motives.

The heartless kidnappers are enjoying their lucrative trade at the expense of the government and the citizens, collecting bags filled with millions of naira, perhaps, on daily basis, and deriving impetus in the capacity to pay ransom.

It is possible that many cases of kidnapping are not even reported in the media. Many families and communities are hit by tragedy of monumental proportions in the countryside that are not immediately brought into government’s attention. To secure the release of relatives in bondage, family members usually look for money in panic to prevent the death of captives.

Any governor or leader who dissuades families of victims from paying ransom incurs the wrath of terrorists.

It is a season of shared disaster and collective stress. Those holding the country to random are few, untrained bandits. The unscrupulous elements have set up their own country within the country in the forest where they govern. They feed their captives, sparingly, after tormenting them. The captives are at their mercy.

Bandits supply medication, which means they may have hired some professional or auxiliary nurses to minister to the health needs of abductees. They buy clothes for their victims to change dresses.

Some reports claim that the terrorists supervise the nurses who provide midwifery services for abducted expectant mothers when they are due for delivery.

The captors lack the milk of human kindness for their victims. They are never in a hurry to release the victims until they milk their distressed families of millions of naira.

The amount being raked from hapless citizens in their custody may soon dwarf the defence budget. This is how the terrorists are able to procure sophisticated weapons. It is disheartening that terror groups have acquired sophisticated weapons, including aircrafts.

But more worrisome is the cost of emotional trauma: the stupor, the suspense and the sorrow.

The children abducted along with their parents will bear the traumatic experience for life. They are deprived of schooling, effective parental care and general freedom for the period they are held hostage. Their loved ones are sentenced to prolonged nightmares at home. Unless there is a planned and systematic psychological intervention for tackling post-traumatic stress disorder, the victims may slide into some forms of abnormal, disordered and depressed behaviour.

Psychological counselling should also be targeted at kidnapped children so they may not grow up into adults who will become distrustful of the beleaguered society.

Nigeria has become a country of bloodletting. Internally displaced persons (IDPs) are multiplying. Families weep over missing kith and kin. Many have been slaughtered on farmlands, homes, streets, churches and mosques.

Where in the country is safe? Train, sky, waterways, or roads?

The heartless bandits appear to be visitors who have refused to return to where they came. There are some documentaries that show the terrorists comprise people from other parts of West Africa in search of greens for their herds due to dwindling pastures in parts of the Sahel.

The porous border is also responsible for the influx of the aggressive visitors. But can’t the influx of aliens who allegedly wreak havoc be checked?

The motivation for terrorism, at the initial stage, could not be ascertained. It was said that children and youths who were abandoned and now wallow in misery were resorting to revenge. But, the dimension of the onslaught is now overwhelming.

Yet, reactions to the banditry differ. While the nefarious activities have elicited condemnation, almost from across the country, there is an exception in a corner of Zamfara, where kidnap kingpins are treated as celebrities.

To the surprise of Governor Bello Mattawale, a traditional ruler even had the effrontery to confer a chieftaincy title on a suspected kidnapper who had been declared wanted by the police in neighbouring Katsina State.

As banditry grows in leaps and bounds, what is the assurance that Boko Haram insurgents will let the nation be during the approaching general election? Can voters come out to exercise their franchise in the trouble regions in an atmosphere of fear?

During the week, the terrorists threatened to seize President Muhammadu Buhari and Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai on the road. They also threatened to kill and sell off into slavery innocent citizens in their den, if ransom was not paid.

Some people thought the threat was a joke taken too far. But, it was not an empty threat.

Two days later, the insurgents attacked the Presidential Brigade of Guards. No fewer than three officers were killed. Some reports insinuated that five others were missing.

In their first series of onslaught against soldiers, they invaded some barracks. It became more serious when they stormed the Nigerian Defence Academy (NDA) in Kaduna to terrorise the foremost military institution. They later invaded correctional centres where suspected Boko Haram sect members were detained. Many of them were forcefully freed.

If these daring men of the underworld can attack the President’s convoy on the way to Katsina and ambush the Brigade of Guards in Abuja, and no single person was caught, the country is in a big security mess. The question is: who is safe?

Ironically, as the bandits were on the prowl, the Commander-in-Chief was on his way to Liberia to deliver a lecture on security.

No particular region is insulated from the activities of bandits, terrorists, killer herdsmen. In the Southeast, unknown gunmen are also enforcing sit-at-home, killing, maiming, burning public property and destroying public institutions, including state and local Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) offices.

Today, the economy is on crutches. In the Southwest, unscrupulous elements are replicating the strategies for kidnapping. They are unable to cope with the adverse effects of the malevolent economy. In their maladjustment, they engage in acts of negative value. Armed robbery rate is growing in geometric proportions. Ritual killings and culpable homicide make a mockery of decent living.

In the future, economists will have a woeful tale to tell about the impact of insurgency on the economy. The impact on agriculture is confounding. Farmers have alerted the country to the imminence of hikes in the prices of food items. How can Nigeria sustain its food sufficiency drive when farmers no longer have access to their farms?

In the last 10 years, it has been speculated that Nigeria has lost thousands of its citizens to terrorism. The cost of destruction is unquantifiable.

Is Nigeria not fast becoming a Banana Republic where life is short, brutish and nasty?

Since Nigeria is in electioneering, security is now being politicised by the opposition.

The Federal Government cannot be accused of lack of efforts, as it is being currently done by opposition senators and their aggrieved counterparts on the platform of the ruling party who lost return tickets.

They have seen a loophole to play politics. By asking the President to resign or be impeached if he cannot restore total security that has eluded the country for a decade, they were being unrealistic. They were only playing to the gallery, inciting the public against the government and voters against the candidates of the ruling party.

The failed anti-terror war has now strengthened the opposition to dent the image of the ruling party and government, unmindful of the genesis of the problem. They forget that the problem started under the PDP government.

The question that unpartisan Nigerians ought to be asking is: what is the solution?

More problems have to be dissected. It has been suggested that coordination and supervision of the Armed Forces are crucial factors. There is need for synergy among the Army, Navy, Airforce and DSS. Also, there is need for unity, unlike in the past when there were conflict, suspicion and mistrust.

The supervision by the Commander-In-Chief should be adequate.  This is central to success. The Chief of Defence Staff is a ceremonial coordinator, who is not in charge of discipline, promotion and evaluation of service chiefs.

Another issue is that the best brains should be drafted into the armed forces, particularly the intelligent units.

How can government stem further recruitment into the terrorist gang? Carpet bombing has been suggested. But, what will be the fate of civilian inhabitants who may also become casualties?

The Army is overstretched. Soldiers are not trained for the enforcement of law and order. It is the work of the police, like the ‘Mobile Police Force ‘ of old, which was used as a fighting force.

Policing should be decentralised. Intelligence gathering is easy if policemen know and understand the geography, sociology and terrain of the area of operation.

Security is a collective responsibility. An improper blame game may be counterproductive. Nigerians should encourage the gallant and courageous soldiers to do more.

Increased funding and new strategies are required to bail the country out of the current bondage of banditry.

Crisis of choice has hit the two major parties and two other struggling platforms. It may be temporary or a passing phase. But, it may also permeate the campaigns and the most critical stage of the electioneering, if utmost care is not taken.

The crisis is not strange. It is typical of political parties and the political class. Remarkably, it may also be peculiar to Nigeria, a divided heterogeneous polity trying frantically to forge ahead in an atmosphere of debasing unitary tremor.

But the dimension and gravity are beyond what were anticipated. The way and manner the challenge is finally tackled by the parties would enrich the experience of future contenders and students of political history.

The first preliminary lesson is that it is now old fashioned to think that a flag bearer has the prerogative over the choice of his running mate. An exclusive right in that regard is clearly outdated. The choice can either become an asset or a liability, depending on how he was selected.

The reason is not far-fetched. The candidate is projected as a candidate of a zone, a bloc, or a tendency. The person who is to pair with him is also perceived as a representative of a region or zone. The input of top stakeholders from the regions becomes crucial in making a concrete and acceptable decision on filling the slot.

The second lesson is that the process that throws up the running mate should be inclusive, mutually agreed upon and accepted by majority party stakeholders, or put succinctly, the aggregate interest groups within the party.

The implication is that if the standard bearer decides to choose without extensive consultation, team work and collective approval, those who may be sidelined, ignored or not adequately consulted may feel neglected and raise an objection. This implies that in a party, the choice of a running mate cannot be the personal affair of the standard bearer.

The third is that the choice should also appeal to stakeholders outside the parties and regional interests, including, sometimes, the mouthpieces of ethnic groups. The first facial validity may also come from a quarter like the media.

Religion has been cited by some observers as a factor; yet, it can be exploited and manipulated. The problem with religious bigotry is that it may permit only the promotion of one side of the coin. The religious associations seldom think alike in their political interventions. They defend real, imagined or perceived interest of their sect or religion, sometimes in sheer insensitivity to the interest of other religions.

Thus, while the Muslim-dominated North is assiduously working for the actualisation of a Muslim/Muslim ticket in the ruling party, some Christians in the South are uncritically raising eyebrows.

How have the standard bearers complied with these seeming non-negotiable criteria? How are they resolving the odds?

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, moved swiftly to name his running mate, Delta State Governor Ifeanyi Okowa, probably to score a point in a hurry. But, how meaningful is speed without accuracy, judging by the contrasting intra-party reactions to his decision? Indisputably, the choice of Okowa has compounded the challenge of post-primary reconciliation in the main opposition party.

Atiku was trying to avoid a situation whereby an influential bloc in the PDP would persuade him to pick his rival at the primary, Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike. While 14 of 17 members in the search team were said to have recommended Wike, the candidate opted for Okowa, who allegedly got three votes. At issue is whether Atiku realistically engaged the pro-Wike forces before turning down the report of the committee and opted for his Delta State counterpart.

It is the third time the Waziri Adamawa would be accused of lack of extensive consultation.

As candidate of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), he had opted for Senator Ben Obi. The Southwest wing of the party was scandalised. Many chieftains cried foul, lamenting that an experienced politician made an avoidable mistake.

Yet, the mistake was repeated in 2019. Southeast governors complained in hush tones that they were never informed before Peter Obi, former governor of Anambra State, was picked by him as running mate on the platform of the PDP.

The Atiku/Wike post-primary tango has underscored the fact of a habitual blunder. A wrong judgment is not an ingredient of political intelligence.

Read Also; Who is afraid of Muslim-Muslim ticket?

But, who can blame the Waziri? He may also be  acting from the vantage point of experience. Atiku was conscious of the risk posed by a strong person, a rival and fighter. He may have been instructed by the lessons of the resultant cat and mouse relationship that has become part of contemporary history: Adekunle Ajasin/Akin Omoboriowo, Ambrose Ali/Demas Akpore, Bola Ige/Sunday Afolabi, Bola Tinubu/Kofoworola Akerele-Bucknor, Rotimi Akeredolu/Agboola Ajayi, Olusegun Mimiko/Ali Olanusi, Ayo Fayose/Abiodun Aluko, Orji Kalu/Enyinnaya Abaribe, Seyi Makinde/Rauf Olaniyan, Ibikunle Amosun/Segun Adesegun, among others.

The candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, appears to be more clever. So far, he is strategically slow, but steady in announcing a decision. He has put in place an expendable vice, thereby conveying an inconclusive process. Observers, stakeholders and other anxious Nigerians are steered into a debate of national significance on who should be his running mate, where he should come from and the nature of the process that should bring him up. What can be discerned from the scenario is that those who will eventually vote for the ticket seem to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. The consequence is the development of emotional attachment to the joint ticket in the embryo.

There is no need to rush. Until the inputs of those who matter are collated, it may not be wise to unveil a running mate whose selection would appear to be essentially divisive and potentially destabilising.

The New Nigerian Peoples Party (NNPP) candidate, Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, has found the choice a herculean task. The main strength of the party is Kano, now buoyed by Alhaji Ibrahim Shekarau’s defection to the fold. Veteran political foes are closing ranks. If Kwankwaso, a former governor and one-time minister, had not defected from the APC, it is likely he would have been a serious contender for running mate in the ruling party.

It has become increasingly difficult for him to shop for a suitable running mate, following the breakdown of the NNPP/Labour Party (LP) alliance talk. From the beginning, it was a proposed alliance that was destined to fail. What idea was driving it? Where was the meeting point? Are the NNPP and LP blueprints the same?

The former Kano governor dangled the carrot at Peter Obi, who also wanted the engineer to be his own running mate. There was a clash of ambitions and egos, suspicion and mistrust.

Kwankwaso appeared to be realistic. He was only disposed to making the LP a junior partner in the NNPP/LP deal. Obi, in a fit of excitement at the growing population of “Obedient” faithful in the social media, could not digest the gist. It was a moment of emotional wrenching for the presidential hopeful.

Kwankwaso will name a running mate even tually. But, it is doubtful if his choice, at the end of the day, will garner any substantial vote from the South.

Obi is facing the same difficulty. He claims to be surrounded by obedient youths today. What is the assurance that they will not be disobedient on Election Day? How formidable is the LP as a political structure?

The LP has been at crossroads since Kwankwaso told Obi that he could only be his running mate. His motive is the driver’s seat. He has got it on the platform of LP. But it is not enough. He is gazing at the North for a partner. How formidable will his running mate from the North be, in view of the influence of APC and PDP in the region, and now NNPP in Kano and few areas?

The search for a running mate is an element of presidential system. Nigeria’s experience is exciting and at the same time worrisome. The distribution of presidential candidate and running mate tends to follow the pattern of a quota system, federal character, catchment area and “turn by turn”.

Ordinarily, the first criterion should be competence. It is not a serious problem because competent and capable people who can be vice president abound across the major parties.

Other issues in the choice of a running mate aptly reflect the nature and character of the unitarised federating country. They include ethnic consideration, geo-political balance, North-South dichotomy, majority-minority squabble, gender balance, and religion. In some instances, age (old/young) is also a factor. These factors, in many instances, are also applicable at the state, and even local government levels.

However, the candidates also have one sole criterion. It is loyalty. This is often tested in the time of grave crisis and emergency. A former President and some governors who thought they had picked loyal deputies later regretted their choices.

The Fourth Republic is replete with cases of personality clashes between president and vice president, many governors and their deputies who were eventually shoved aside through impeachment. It also happened among chairmen and vice chairmen of local governments.

In contrast, the parliamentary system is insulated from these anxieties, more or less. The prime minister is elected from the Parliament as an elected legislator, only if his party wins the majority seats. In the First Republic, there was no official deputy prime minister, although some historians suggested that the powerful Minister of Defence, Alhaji Muhammadu Ribadu, a northerner, played the role.

In the Second Republic, the vice presidency was not considered to be a big position. It was like a spare tyre. Alhaji Shehu Shagari of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) had wanted to pick a woman from Anambra State. She politely declined, saying she could not cope with the murky waters. She was also said to have alluded to the age-long culture that subjugated womenfolk. Therefore, Shagari settled for an inexperienced and unpopular party chieftain, Chief Alex Ekwueme, a successful architect, matured and intelligent person. He was loyal to his boss.

But, the main opposition Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) presidential candidate, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, picked Chief Philip Umeadi from the Southeast. Many believed that it was a choice made in error. It was made in utter insensitivity to geo-political balance. But that consideration was not a big issue at that time as it has become today. Consequently, Awo was not only rejected by many northerners, but also by the Southeast.

Four years later, when he chose Alhaji Muhammadu Kura (Makaman Misau), a First Republic Federal parliamentarian, as running mate, it was still futile. Kura never added any substantial value to the ticket, although he was a credible politician.

The Nigerian Peoples Party (NPP) candidate, Dr. Nnamidi Azikiwe, picked Prof. Ishaya Audu, a former Vice Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria. The North did not vote for him beyond Plateau State. Yet, Plateau, Imo and Anambra votes were not enough to make Zik the president.

It, therefore, means that while geo-political, ethnic and religious balancing are important, they do not work in isolation. Only a suitable combination of all factors can make the ticket to get to the Promised Land.

The most formidable ticket, so far, was that of Abiola/Kingibe. At the 1993 Jos convention, the business mogul, Chief Mosbood Abiola, had defeated Ambassador Babagana Kingibe. But Social Democratic Party (SDP) governors and state chairmen insisted that Abioda should pick Kingibe, instead of Atiku, who was put forward by Major-General Shehu Yar’Adua. Abiola sensed danger. He embraced the choice of the governors and party leaders. The combination swept the poll across the land. The rest is history.

In 1999, PDP candidate, General Olusegun Obasanjo, chose Atiku, governor-elect of Adamawa State, instead of Alhaji Abubakar Rimi or Prof. Ango Abdullahi. He wanted a loyalist, and a political capital from the residue of Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM), Yar’Adua political machinery. The romance did not last.

Eight years later, when Obasanjo sponsored Umaru Yar’Adua as candidate, he also chose as his running mate a least expected person, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, then governor of Bayelsa State. Jonathan eventually became President after Yar’Adua’s demise, with a member of the PDP Governors’ Forum, gentleman Namadi Sambo of Kaduna State, as running mate. They won the first term, but lost second term.

Up came Muhammadu Buhari of the defunct Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), and his running mate, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, a nominal politician chosen by Asiwaju Bola Tinubu of defunct ACN, under the banner of APC.

For the ruling party, 2023 is a year of greater stakes and expectations. Its presidential ticket has to fulfill diverse aspirations.

Already, Tinubu’s candidacy has satisfied the yearning for zoning and power shift. There’s a lot more after rotation. The centres of interest and influence include President Buhari and the old CPC bloc, the Northern Caucus of the party, Northern APC Governors’ Forum, sentiment of the Northwest comprising seven states, complexity of ethnic balancing and religious sensitivity, competence and general wish of Nigerians.

To avoid any pitfall and wrong decision, the watchword is extensive consultation. The aggregation of the decisions garnered in the course of wide consultation would point at the best direction to take in the choice of a running mate.

The Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket is no stranger to Nigeria. It has been used before and it fetched the nation its historically acknowledged freest, fairest, most peaceful election. It was not predetermined when it happened. Circumstance thrust it upon us as a nation. And the nation still savours its sweet memory.

It seems history is on the verge of repeating itself.

In 1993, when Bashorun Moshood Kashimaawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola, a Muslim from Ogun State, ran for Presidency with Ambassador Babagana Kingibe, another Muslim from Borno State, Nigerians voted massively for them. It was not about religion, but merit, competence and capacity.

The feat could be replicated in next year’s general election.

But some people now differ for partisan reasons. They are no more talking about geo-political balance. They are calling for religious balancing as if the God of Christians is different from the Allah of Muslims.

When Nigerian political elite are not exploiting poverty, they shift to religion. Preaching now focuses on the pursuit of transient earthly power, whereas Christian clerics ought to focus on winning souls for the Kingdom of God.

Some armchair commentators even threaten fire and brimstone over a matter they should not lose a minute’s sleep over. Obviously, their self-serving agitation is not premised on truth and logic, but on apparent religious misjudgment.

Those opposing the Muslim-Muslim ticket appear unconcerned about the capability of the candidates to make things work for the generality of the people. They appear to have created an elitist warfare designed to cajole, create a wrong impression and generate controversy. The wrong advocacy is meant to manipulate public opinion and incite the electorate. So far, only the gullible are swayed by the fleeting emotion and trickery.

Pro-Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) critics, spin doctors and propagandists are trying to preempt the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, who is still consulting on the choice of a competent and suitable running mate. They are making an unsolicited suggestion that could herald an electoral doom. Their tool is a section of the social media, which is misguided and disposed to unethical practices. Mischief makers are praying for a mistake that should never happen. Their threat is that Asiwaju Tinubu should either pick a Christian running mate or heaven will fall.

To keen observers, the hired social media agitators are mischievously whipping up inexplicable sentiments. They are evading reality and indulging in prevarication. They are jesters wallowing in daydreaming. Their expectation is that APC should make a big blunder, which their principal or sponsors will instantly exploit to maximum advantage. Observers are asking: if the PDP had picked a Yoruba Muslim as its presidential flag bearer, would it contemplate picking a Northern Christian as his running mate?

Those who witnessed the 1993 presidential poll are taken aback. Did Atiku Abubakar, a Muslim, not fight to be the running mate to another Muslim candidate in the past? What should occupy the minds of sponsored critics is whether the PDP ought to have picked its candidate from the North in the first instance since a northerner, President Muhammadu Buhari, will be completing his two terms of eight years next year. Advocates of power shift are asking: should the North occupy the presidency for 16 years? How logical is the analysis of those who have jettisoned geo-political equity, only to turn round and make a case for conjectural religious balance to suit the prejudiced agenda of few manipulators who crave attention? How many clerics in the Southwest will have the audacity to mount the pulpit and ask the congregation to reject a presidential candidate from the zone for picking a Muslim running mate? Would the congregation listen to him? How logical? Muslims and Christians attend family and township meetings together. Christians felicitate Muslims during their festivals. Muslims rejoice with Christians during Christmas. There is no basis for discrimination.

To the anti-Muslim/Muslim jesters, history means nothing. They allude to “changing times” as they tacitly fuel subtle religious tension.

Read Also; Much ado about Muslim-Muslim ticket

Having failed to stop Asiwaju Tinubu at the primary, they have resorted to a campaign of calumny ahead of next year’s election. Yet, certain facts cannot be wished away. It is on record that defunct Social Democratic Party (SDP) presidential candidate MKO Abiola and Kingibe defeated the National Republican Convention (NRC) candidate Bashir Othman Tofa and his running mate, Sylvester Ugoh, on June 12, 1993. Abiola and Kingibe are Muslims. Tofa was a Muslim though Ugoh was a Christian. It would appear that the NRC ticket reflected religious balance, which the SDP ticket appeared to have lacked. At the close of poll, it was evident that Nigerians had ignored the religious bias and voted for the best ticket.

In 1993, there was a clash of strategies and structures, intelligence and capabilities, tact and willpower. Many factors shaped the historic exercise. The present political class is not oblivious of the details. The current circumstances present a similar scenario. The two factors – ethnicity and religion – have not fizzled out. But regional reactions to these two issues have always differed.

According to analysts, ethnicity is strong in the South in the choice of a standard bearer, especially when zoning is on the front burner, while religion is strong in the North when attention has shifted to the choice of a running mate from the region to pair with any presidential flag bearer from the South.

In the aborted Third Republic, the Southwest intensified its struggle for power shift. The region was lucky to have its son, Abiola, a business mogul and largely inexperienced politician, as the SDP candidate. This followed the banning, unbanning and banning of the so-called old and new breeds by the wily military junta. To the Northern SDP Caucus, Abiola was the candidate of the South, although a section of the Southeast and the Southsouth rejected him. It could be said that the Southwest was emotionally attached to his candidacy; perhaps, for ethnic reason. He was a Muslim, but his religion never mattered to the South, particularly the Southwest. Muslims and Christians alike flocked around him because of his pedigree. He was a household name: a bridge builder, a philanthropist and man of the people.

The SDP primary in Jos, the Plateau State capital, was tough. It was because the party had become a platform to beat. But, the choice of a running mate was more hectic. Two stalwarts -Atiku, who was sponsored by his godfather, the late Major-General Shehu Yar’Adua, and Kingibe, who was endorsed by SDP governors and state chairmen – vied for running mate. The probability was that in a Muslim-dominated North, a Muslim would likely emerge. The only Christian, Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) President Paschal Bafyau, who was supported by military President Ibrahim Babangida, could not fly.

It may have become a trend that whenever a Muslim presidential candidate comes from the South, Northern Muslims, who only view him as a Southern candidate, may show a strong disposition towards the choice of a Muslim from their region as his deputy. This pervading feeling cuts across the two major parties. It would also appear that the dimension of ethnicity is stronger than religion in the South while the North can hardly dissociate itself from ethno-religious calculations.

Conversely, and as history has shown, if a presidential candidate from the North is to pick his running mate from the Southeast or the Southsouth, the likelihood exists that he will pick a Christian. However, if a presidential candidate from the North is to pick his running mate from the Southwest, he can either pick a Muslim or a Christian. The people of the Southwest will accommodate his choice, if he is competent and suitable, his religion notwithstanding.

It is not clear why other regions have not been able to demonstrate enough religious tolerance and understanding like the Southwest. This region, over the years, perceives religion as a personal matter between an individual and his creator, and sees the two major religions as similar because God is the Ultimate.

It may be inferred that those against Muslim-Muslim ticket in the North are few, although their reaction may be blown out of proportion. In the South, particularly the Southwest, it is a non-issue. The founding fathers of the Southwest never saw a dichotomy between Islam and Christianity. What was important to them was unity of the zone, development and integration. The first Premier of Western Region, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, was the first head of government to set up the Pilgrims Welfare Board in the Christian-dominated region. No eyebrow was raised by Christians. Later, a similar board was set up for Christians. Awo only had one younger sister, Nimota. She was a Muslim married to Awofeso, a native of Sagamu and father of Bimbo Awofeso, journalist and former member of the House of Assembly in Ogun State.

It is significant to recall that the Lateef Kayode Jakande/Rafiu Jafojo Muslim/Muslim ticket was the best in the Second Republic. Lagosians never regretted it. The period between 1979 and 1983 has remained a reference point. Recently, Kaduna State Governor Nosiru El-Rufai spoke about how he picked a Muslim in 2019 and the APC won Kaduna State. However, this is not to say that the demand of Christians for the running mate is not legitimate.

The atmosphere of religious harmony permitted the wedding of Asiwaju Tinubu, a Muslim, and Yeye Asiwaju Oluremi, a Christian and now, an Assistant Pastor in the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG). Former Lagos State governor and Minister of Works and Housing, Babatunde Fashola (SAN), a Muslim, has a Christian wife, Emmanuela, a staunch Catholic.   The story is told of Ede Muslim faithful who decided to appoint a Christian as Treasurer of the Central Mosque.

At a time when Efon-Alaaye, a town in Ekiti State was prided as a religious town comprising CAC devotees, Anglicans and Catholics, the paramount ruler, the late Oba Lawani Aladegbemi, was a devout Muslim. He will never miss church harvest services and the yearly one-week New Year prayers by the Aladura Church. In fact, he usually hosted the grand finale in his ancient palace. Oba Aladegbemi usually assisted churches to plant more branches by providing land for church buildings. Christians also reciprocated his kind gestures as father of all. Many Christians usually celebrated with him after Ramadan. Also, every year, his chiefs, who were Christians, and many townspeople usually accompanied him to the Muslim Praying Ground during Sallah.

In 2023, what is important is the ticket that can reposition the country by revitalising the economy, providing jobs, tackling insecurity, fighting infrastructure deficit, strengthening education and health sectors, fixing the power sector, ensuring national unity, and restoring the glory of the country in the comity of nations.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has just experienced what portends a foreboding of its fate in the Southwest.

Last week, the Ekiti chapter of the party suffered a devastating electoral defeat at the governorship poll. It failed woefully to make an appreciable impact, as a former ruling party in the Fountain of Knowledge state. The PDP came a distant third with 67,457 votes, compared to the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate and winner, Abiodun Oyenbaji, with 187,057 votes.

PDP’s candidate, Bisi Kolawole, was abandoned by his political family. It was unusual. He, therefore, lost his deposit, despite his concerted, lone effort. It was not only a personal loss but also a collective defeat for the Southwest chapter and the national leadership of the party, led by Dr. Iyorchia Ayu.

The Ekiti poll was perceived as a signpost to next year’s general election. Thus, it was felt that both the PDP and the APC wanted to make some points. While APC wanted to retain Ekiti and break the jinx of governance alternation in the state, Ekiti PDP wanted to exert its muscle to bounce back to reckoning.

The implication is that the ruling party has been energised. It is now in a vantage position to better prepare for 2023 elections, unlike the PDP, which is still locked in a blame game.

The PDP went into the election as a divided fold. Reconciliation had proved elusive, following the stiff competition for the ticket by the gladiators. The two key actors were former Governors Ayodele Fayose and Segun Oni. Fayose won the primary for his camp, represented by Kolawole, a former state lawmaker, Environment Commissioner and one-time party chairman. It translated into a loss for Oni, who had wanted to return to the Government House, where he was sacked by the court in 2010.

Although the Fayose camp won the ticket, it nevertheless failed to win the mandate. An aggrieved Oni, who borrowed the Social Democratic Party (SDP) to contest the election, also lost his bid.

It was possible that Oni had split Kolawole’s votes during the exercise. If the PDP and SDP forces had teamed up, it would have mustered the strength to give Oyebanji a good fight.

The APC also had its dose of crisis. But, the victory of its National Leader, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, as the party’s presidential candidate, doused tension. What appeared like factions were compelled to close ranks. The risk was minimised. APC, therefore, benefitted from immediate crisis resolution, unlike the opposition party.

The ruling party was not starved of resources and logistics. Despite his busy schedule, Asiwaju Tinubu found time to storm Ado-Ekiti for the APC rally along with 14 governors and other notable party leaders. He became the rallying point. A link was established between his presidential ambition and the importance of retaining Ekiti, which was a stepping stone to Osun 2022 and the baseline for preparing for 2023.

Having become a worthy successor to Governor Kayode Fayemi, the onus is now on Oyebanji to lead the party to victory in the presidential and parliamentary elections.

Read Also: Tinubu: The man who would be president

While APC was putting its house in order, PDP leaders were locked in a deep conflict. Its leaders were bogged down by the aftermath of the presidential primary, which has deepened the gulf between the Northern and Southern caucuses, and exacerbated deep-seated hostility among party leaders. The presidential convention was not only divisive; it was destabilising for the main opposition.

Fayose had exercised his constitutional right to reject former Vice President Atiku Abubakar (Waziri Adamawa) at the primary. He supported Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike, who, along with his colleagues – Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi of Enugu and Okezie Ikpeazu of Abia – agitated for power shift or zoning, which the opposition party violated.

After the historic APC presidential primary, the standard bearer, Asiwaju Tinubu, waved the olive branch. He embarked on reconciliation, visiting other contenders, young and old. The visits became extensive media events that generated much publicity for the party and boosted its ratings.

But PDP’s approach was to adopt vendetta, as shown by its aloofness to the Ekiti chapter.

The Ekiti Governorship Election Campaign Council was either inactive or non-existent. The chapter became an orphan of sorts. Ayu and members of the National Working Committee (NWC) shunned Ado-Ekiti. There was no grand rally to mobilise, galvanise, encourage, motivate and lift up the spirit of the chapter.

Also, PDP governors stayed away. They avoided the Fountain of Knowledge like a pariah. The anticipated financial support, goodwill and solidarity were not forthcoming. Ekiti PDP members felt alienated, betrayed, rejected and unwanted.

Also, the Southwest zonal leadership of the party was too weak to fill the void. PDP only has one governor in the Southwest, who is, more or less, the zonal leader. But what can Engr Seyi Makinde do when the national leadership had sighted off?

Instead of focusing attention on Ekiti, PDP was carried away by the politics of nominating a running mate for Atiku.

During the week, the blame game assumed a different dimension and the crisis widened. A party elder from Edo State, Chief Tom Ikimi, laid the blame for losing Ekiti at the doorsteps of Fayose.

Also, it seemed Ikimi is annoyed that Oni was not picked as PDP candidate. The assumption is that he would have really given APC a big fight. It is debatable. The fact is that Oni con tested the primary. How can someone who failed at the primary be seen as a better candidate to deliver victory to the party? How logical?

Ikimi is a supporter of Atiku. He, therefore, has an axe to grind with Fayose for either vying for president or asking Ekiti delegates to vote for Wike. The Edo politician said he knew PDP was going nowhere in Ekiti and that he had discussed it with Ayu. It is not on record that the party’s chairman made any move to avert the disaster.

Ikimi also accused Fayose of ruining the party or running it aground in his state. He alleged that the former governor fielded a candidate who could not fly in 2018, Prof. Olusola Eleka, and ended rolling on the floor on election day, shedding crocodile tears. Mocking him, he said the drama never achieved anything.

Ikimi’s remark suggested that the aloofness of the PDP national leadership was a punitive measure. It was deliberate. Ekiti was sacrificed because, in his view, Fayose chose to exercise his right and could not differ to those who had laid claim to party ownership. Now, Ikimi is calling for sanction for what he described as indiscipline on the part of Fayose.

But the former governor has fired back. Fayose is not a man to run away from any battle. He said if the vituperations of Ikimi amounted to a fallout of his support for Wike, then, he should match his age with numbers and recall that he once won victory for the PDP in Ekiti in 2014 by defeating Fayemi. He also reminded Ikimi that he defeated Niyi Adebayo in 2003. Both, he said, were incumbent governors.

Fayose also berated Ikimi for lack of decorum and maturity, which age naturally bestows. He said Ikimi has not won any state election before, adding that the Edo politician only led the defunct National Republican Convention (NRC) to electoral defeat in 1993.

The former governor said instead of concentrating on the past, PDP should focus on 2023 elections.

This is the crux of the matter. If Atiku has refused to campaign for Ekiti PDP, would the chapter be obliged to campaign for him as presidential candidate? Who will be more useful to Atiku in Ekiti: Fayose or Ikimi, the Edo man?

Having refused to campaign for Kolawole in Ekiti, would the PDP national leadership campaign for Ademola Adeleke, the party’s Osun State governorship candidate? Has the party pondered how its defeat in Ekiti has demoralised the Osun chapter?

More perilous times may await PDP in the Southwest. The grouse of the zone is the party’s position on rotation, which it rejected without justification. The argument that no Southern candidate can win the presidential election for PDP is infuriating to the three Southern zones. Giving the slot of running mate to Delta State Governor Ifeanyi Okowa may not compensate for the deprivation, inequity and injustice.

In the Southwest, the resentment may be stronger. It still appears the PDP was smuggled into the region in the first instance. In 1999, it was an alien party in the region, which has been the stronghold of the progressives since the pre-independence era. Although the party fielded General Olusegun Obasanjo as its presidential candidate, it was rejected by the six states in the Southwest, Obasanjo’s home.

How the PDP managed to install a senator in Ekiti South was also baffling. The late Gbenga Aluko, son of a progressive politician, who was the lone PDP senator, even retraced his steps before he passed on.

But, the 2003 political earthquake that swept across poll-confident Southwest changed the pattern. After an inexplicable romance with the cunning General, the then ruling Alliance for Democracy (AD) governors boxed themselves into an avoidable corner. On the eve of the poll that drew the curtains on their tenures, an excited Obasanjo, who was confident of his party’s victory in the zone, mocked the governors. He asked them to pack and go.

Only Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, governor of Lagos, survived the onslaught. The late Adebayo Adefarati (Ondo), Bisi Akande (Osun), Niyi Adebayo (Ekiti), Segun Osoba (Ogun) and the late Lam Adesina (Oyo) were not lucky.

The battle to reclaim the region started in 2007. By 2011, the progressives were back in the saddle. When the achievement of the liberation war was not properly managed, Ekiti and later, Oyo, became PDP states.

But the greatest threat to the survival of PDP in the Southwest now is that the region is bidding for president. It is not likely to trade the opportunity for anything outside of presidential power.

For the region, the PDP appears like a visitor whose hour to go away is just a matter of time.

Today is important in the life of Ekiti State. Voters are expected to troop out from 16 pre-existing local government areas to elect a successor to Dr. John Kayode Folorunso Fayemi (JKF), who is completing his second term in October. Who will be the winner?

Sixteen political parties are fielding candidates for the election. However, three of them – All Progressives Congress (APC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Social Democratic Party (SDP) – stand out. All eyes are on their candidates – Abiodun Oyebanji, Bisi Kolawole and Segun Oni – today.

The remaining 13 smaller parties also parade candidates with big credentials. But their structures are not formidable. In fact, it could be said that SDP and other 13 parties evolved, more or less, from the APC and PDP. Their members regrouped as a reaction to the outcome of nomination politics in the ruling and major opposition parties.

That factor may have accounted for the bitter rivalry, strife and rancour, as well as violence that have characterised the campaigns. They are unnecessary.

How has Ekiti fared in modern Nigeria? Its journey to the present time has been long, tortuous and challenging.

In Yoruba land, Ekiti is a sub-tribe reputed largely for its homogeneity. It is also the most united bloc within the race, although that unity and harmony are now being disrupted by politics and the periodic contest for the Government House in Ado-Ekiti.

Mud houses in majority of the 120 towns and villages appear to be giving way to new structures now. But in those ancient buildings, professors and other seasoned professionals -lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, architects, teachers, among others, were weaned for humanity.

Like other neighbouring kith and kin – Ijesa, Akoko, Igbomina, Ife and Oyo – agriculture was the people’s main occupation. It produced a population of subsistent farmers.

Their progenitors laid claim to Ife ascendancy. But Ekiti appears different in many respects as well.

In Ekiti land, there is no single paramount ruler, like the Alake of Egba land, Awujale of Ijebu land, Owa Obokun Adimula of Ijesa land and Alaafin of Oyo. Nearly all the towns and villages are independent of each other.

That republican disposition motivated Ekiti to reject an attempt by the colonial masters to impose the Oore of Otun on Ekiti as the paramount ruler. Ekiti also resisted an attempt to lump his territory, Moba land, with the North by the British. Akure, Ilaramokin, Isarun, Iju, and Ita-Igbolu were Ekiti towns at that time.

Instead, Ekiti monarchs and chiefs resolved to evolve a collegiate leadership. Ekiti became a confederation. Up came ‘Pelupelu,’ the apex traditional leadership cadre, which largely performed ceremonial and advisory roles. In their meetings, matters of welfare were addressed. Quarrels, especially boundary disputes, were resolved. There was brotherhood. An atmosphere of peace and tranquility largely pervaded. It attracted the respect of neighbours.

But before 1877, the confederation faced a threat. Many Ekiti towns that shared boundaries with Ijesa naturally deferred to Owa Obokun Adimula. Indeed, the Owas of yore perceived Ekiti as an inferior sub-race.

In Ekiti, reference is made to an old Almanac depicting Owa as a big cat and other monarchs from Ijesa and Ekiti as mice. That characterisation was infuriating to many Ekiti monarchs who had to severe relations with the Ijesa paramount ruler.

Indeed, other sub-tribes close to the lagoon -Isale Eko, Ijebu, Egba, Awori and even Egun -perceived Ekiti as the hinterland (ara ilu oke). To them, ‘Ekiti Kete’ was a bush cut off from civilisation. Ekiti traders, men and women, who thronged Ejirin market in those hey days had to pay tribute (isakole) to Ijebu rulers before being allowed to pass through their territory.

Those Ekiti people who also came to Lagos to buy salt, a scarce and precious commodity then, had similar experience.

Later, a greater threat came. From the ashes of the fading Oyo Empire rose the Ibadan State. It was a free settlement for strongmen from Oyo, Iwo, Iseyin, Ejigbo and neighbouring towns. Their power grew to the zenith. Ekiti became their prey. For years, the servants of Baale of Ibadan (Ajele) ruled and oppressed some Ekiti towns and villages.

As native colonial administrators, they collected tributes for Ibadan chiefs. They were reckless in their dealings. They forcefully took over the wives of the indigenes, seized their agricultural produce, impounded their property and subjected them to harsh punishment for daring to raise eyebrows.

The last straw that broke the back of the camel were the excesses of the Ajele of Okemesi-Ekiti. He had turned himself into a thin god. Since he was lord to himself, he had no respect for any other indigene.

That Ajele later transgressed. He violated the wife of Fabunmi, a prince and a warrior. When he was confronted by the husband, who was also a soldier who had sojourned in Ibadan, he asked him to do his worst. Fabunmi, a brave prince, beheaded the Ajele. A war broke out between Ekiti and Ibadan.

Since the goal was freedom, Ekiti never ran away from battle. They confronted the odds. Tired of oppression by the Ajeles, they fought for 16 years to free themselves from the yoke of Ibadan. After each town fought on its own, the drum of unity sounded in 1877.

Fabunmi sent messages to all monarchs, leaders and warriors in Ekiti. There was uproar. In almost all the towns, young men either killed or drove the Ajeles away. The young men later organised themselves into a troop to join Fabunmi and an army of 50,000 men was created.

From all over Ekiti, farmers sent yams, beans and other food items to the new army. Women cooked and took food to the warriors. An organisation was formed and given the name of Ekiti Parapo. Ekiti kings collected special levies and sent the money to the army for the purchase of gun powder from European traders in Lagos and Benin Port.

To maximise their strengths, the leaders of Ekiti Parapo sent to the rulers of Ijesa, Igbomina, Akoko and invited them to support them during the Kiriji War. They agreed and sent troops and leading Generals. Till 1893, Ekiti Parapo did not surrender until the peace terms brokered by the British Government were strictly adhered to.

Notable among the warriors were: Ogedengbe Agbogungboro from Ijesa, Fabunmi, the initiator, Faboro of Ido, Fajembola, Aduloju, who supplied arms, Josunosimi, Agada and Okirikiribata.

The Ajero Asotemoru of Ijero and Arinjale of Ise encamped at Imesi-Ile to boost the morale of Ekiti soldiers.

In post-war period, Ekiti prepared for the journey for modernity. The agents of change were the prisoners of war who were sold into slavery in distant Yoruba towns. There, some of them learnt how to read and write. When slavery was abolished, they returned home.

They went into slavery without anything; they came back with Christianity. They pioneered the early Anglican, Methodist, Baptist and Catholic missions in Ekiti. The religious horizon expanded with the crusade of 1930 by the Christ Apostolic Church (CAC) Evangelist Ayodele Babalola.

The missionaries laid the foundation of civilisation in Ekiti. The rural enclave knew that knowledge was power. When, in later years, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo became the Premier of Western Region, the people of Ekiti, who remained a bloc in the old Ondo Province, embraced fully his free education programme.

In 21st Century Ekiti, there is no household with out, at least, five graduates. An average Ekiti is intelligent, strong-willed, daring and principled. But what Ekiti values most is character, which, in local dialect, is called omoluabi. In recent times, the attribute has been eroded by politics.

In 1960, the whole of Ekiti was one mega district council. The chairman was Samuel Aluko, later Professor of Economics.

Ekiti contributed to the success of the Awolowo administration. “Freedom For All, Life More Abundant”, the slogan of the defunct Action Group (AG), was captivating to the generality of the people. Prominent Ekiti who worked closely with Awo were the late Chief E. A. Babalola (First Public Works Minister), Chief Ehinafe Babatola (his parliamentary secretary), the late Longe (a permanent secretary), Chief Oduola Osuntokun (Finance Minister), Chief Ayo Fasanmi (President of AG Youth Association), Chief Olawumi Falodun, Senator Banji Akintoye (professor of History), Chief Richard Babalola, and Chief Akin Omoboriowo. Not all of them stood by him to the end.

When the military sacked the legitimate government in 1966, the lot to steer the affairs of Western State fell on Col. Adekunle Fajuyi, an Ekiti from Ado. A detribalised Nigerian, the gallant officer made a big sacrifice for Nigeria. In a bid to save the life of the visiting Head of State, Major General Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi, the host (Fajuyi) was murdered along with his guest. The mantle fell on another Ekiti officer, Col. Adeyinka Adebayo.

When Ondo State was created in 1976, Ekiti became the most populous and closely knit sub-ethnic group in the state. In 1979, the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), led by Awo, was their favourite party. Ekiti voted for Chief Adekunle Ajasin, who became governor.

But from 1980, Ekiti leaders – Omoboriowo, Babatola, Fasanmi, Prof. Opeyemi Ola, Lawrence Agunbiade, Adebayo Jeje and Samuel Babalola – started complaining about the marginalisation of Ekiti in the old Ondo State. That was the baseline for the agitation for the creation of Ekiti State. Ajasin supported the struggle.

During the rivalry between Ajasin and his estranged deputy, Omoboriowo, Ekiti supported their son against the man from Owo. But when Omoboriowo deserted Awolowo by defecting to the notorious National Party of Nigeria (NPN), Ekiti withdrew its backing. Once Ekiti placed their hands on the progressive plough, there was no looking back.

After the Second Republic, Ekiti started to mobilise for state creation. A committee, headed by Chief Deji Fasua, was set up; Oyebanji was its secretary. The dream was realised in 1996. But the take-off grant is still hanging.

In 1999, Ekiti voted for the Alliance for Democracy (AD) candidate, Otunba Niyi Adebayo.  It was in line with the time-tested tradition of installing progressive governments in power.

But the beat did not go on. The 2003 political earthquake swept through Ekiti. Poll-confident Ekiti was rattled by the outcome of the election. But Adebayo never challenged it in court. Since then, progressive and conservative forces have been alternating governance in Ekti.

PDP Governor Ayodele Fayose, who took over from Adebayo, did not end his tenure on a peaceful note. Fayose was shoved aside illegally in a hurriedly arranged impeachment. It was the first time in Nigeria that a governor and his deputy were jointly sacked.

A state of emergency was declared by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. Up came Administrator Idowu Olusi, who was foisted on Ekiti.

In 2007, Ekiti sunk into chaos. The election of that year became a war between the Action Congress (AC) and the PDP. The electoral agency declared Segun Oni of PDP winner. Fayemi of AC cried foul. He drew the battle line. The battle shifted from the ballot box to the court. The mandate was restored to Fayemi at the Appeal Court.

Four years later, Fayose bounced back. But he could not hand over to another PDP governor. Fayemi came back for a second term.

The die is cast again today. Unlike the previous polls, it is a three-horse race. Ekiti elders, who have called for decorum, believe that the poll should be a festival of choice.

Zoning is not an issue. Ekiti is one indivisible zone. Oyebanji is from Ikogosi in Ekiti Central District. Also, Kokawole, who hails from Efon-Alaaye, is from Ekiti Central. Oni, a native of Ifaki, is from Ekiti North District.

The three candidates are educated. They are men of experience and impeccable character. They are known to one another. Their manifestos are not significantly different. The common themes are the defence of education, health, infrastructural development, workers’ welfare, agricultural development, creation of a conducive atmosphere for investment and industrialisation, payment of pensions, and security, which they cannot adequately provide unless there is devolution of powers or decentralisation of security apparatus. The similarity in manifestos or plans, notwithstanding, implementation approaches tend to differ a little.

The three frontline candidates know that if they assume the reins, they will face financial constraints amid greater expectations about performance. They are also conscious of the fact that governance cannot be a tea party in Ekiti.

Oyebanji is a former university teacher. He is a former Chief of Staff, Commissioner and Secretary to State Government (SSG). He has a deep knowledge of Ekiti. He is armed with the vision of the founding fathers. He has an advantage of a ruling party wielding an incumbency power, a formidable structure with tap roots across the state. It seems Ekiti APC has closed ranks, following the election of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu as the party’s presidential candidate.

Oyebanji is the youngest of the three. He is a candidate of digital age.  His party wants to use the success of Ekiti and Osun polls as a stepping stone to 2023.

Kolawole is a grassroots man, held in esteem in the PDP. He is popular, bold and brave. He has served as a supervisory councillor, commissioner, and party chairman. The exercise is important to the PDP in its calculation to firmly enlarge its coast in the Southwest ahead of next year’s election.

Oni is a former governor. He has experience and fanatical followership, particularly defectors from PDP and APC. Many people love him as a gentleman who cannot hurt a fly. He wants to erase the past indignity of being judicially booted out of power. He believes he has an unfinished business in the Government House. To the people, he did his best when he was in the saddle.

Outside the three, other contenders on the platform of mushroom parties are merely warming the register of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). They will be chief spectators on Election Day.

It is gratifying that the political leaders have promised to ensure peace before, during and after the poll. Thuggery should be old-fashioned. Violence should be outdated. An inconclusive election does not befit Ekiti.

The people look forward to a time that election results will be declared by INEC and there will be no post-election litigation.

Election is a collective responsibility. The success of today’s exercise depends on all stakeholders – the candidates, their supporters, party leaders, the electoral agency, security agency and the electorate.