Truth Does Not Hurt; Half-Truth Does— A Response To Sola Abegunde || ● By Dr Peter Akande

13th of September,2026

By Dr Peter Akande

Sola Abegunde’s latest intervention on Rufai Oseni, Governor Seyi Makinde and Hon. Bimbo Adekanmbi raises important political questions, but it also relies heavily on assumptions that deserve to be challenged. Political debate is healthy, but it must be guided by consistency and the same standard for everybody.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is nothing wrong with asking whether Bimbo Adekanmbi represents continuity with Governor Seyi Makinde. There is equally nothing wrong with asking what he intends to do differently. But describing him as “Makinde’s third-term agenda” does not answer the fundamental question of his capacity, experience and personal political vision.

 

If Adekanmbi is being described as Makinde’s third-term agenda because of his association with the governor, then we must ask another question: if Bimbo Adekanmbi is Makinde’s third-term agenda, what then should we call Senator Sharafadeen Abiodun Alli’s relationship with the palace? Is he also a third-term agenda, this time in the palace?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is where political consistency becomes important.

 

We cannot condemn one candidate because influential people support him while celebrating another candidate because influential people support him. We cannot describe political networking in one camp as manipulation and the same networking in another camp as legitimate politics.

 

Oyo people are not fools.

They understand how politics works.

 

Every serious candidate has people behind him. Every candidate has political friends, supporters, advisers and influential individuals who believe in his ambition. The fact that somebody has the support of Governor Makinde does not automatically make him incapable of independent thought. In the same way, the support of people within or around the traditional institution does not automatically make another candidate the best choice for Oyo State.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The real question should be: What can each candidate offer Oyo State?

 

That is why I have consistently advocated for a comparison of individual candidates rather than simply comparing political parties or administrations.

 

Bimbo Adekanmbi should be judged as Bimbo Adekanmbi.

 

Sharafadeen Alli should be judged as Sharafadeen Alli.

 

Oriyomi Hamzat should be judged as Oriyomi Hamzat.

 

Oloye Adegoke should be judged as Oloye Adegoke.

 

Their individual records, experience, competence, character and programmes should be placed side by side.

 

Adekanmbi has a record that can be examined. He served as Commissioner for Finance under the late Governor Abiola Ajimobi. That experience should neither be exaggerated nor dismissed. We should ask what he achieved, what he learned and what that experience means for his preparedness to govern Oyo State.

 

Likewise, Senator Sharafadeen Alli has a political history that should be examined. As a former local government chairman and a serving senator, Oyo people have every right to ask what he has achieved in those positions.

 

What has he done for his constituents?

 

What legislation has he sponsored or championed?

 

What measurable interventions can his constituents point to?

 

What is his economic vision for Oyo State?

What is his plan for Ibadan and the other zones?

 

These are more useful questions than simply calling one candidate somebody’s “third-term project.”

 

The same applies to the arguments about local government autonomy, BCOS, education, farm settlements, the Circular Road and the Alakia Airport project. These are legitimate matters for public debate, but they should not be selectively directed at Adekanmbi.

If these issues matter, let every aspirant answer them.

 

What will Alli do differently?

 

What will Hamzat do differently?

 

What will Adegoke do differently?

 

What will Adekanmbi do differently?

 

Let the people hear them and make their judgment.

 

There is also nothing inherently wrong with continuity. A new administration does not have to destroy every policy of its predecessor simply to prove that it is independent.

 

If a government has done something well, the responsible successor should improve upon it. If something is wrong, it should be corrected. If something is outdated, it should be replaced.

 

That is governance.

Governor Seyi Makinde cannot constitutionally contest for a third term as governor. But Oyo people are entitled to decide whether they want some of his policies and programmes continued after he leaves office. A candidate supporting continuity does not automatically mean that the incumbent is seeking an unconstitutional third term.

 

Otherwise, every successor who continues a predecessor’s policy could be accused of being that predecessor’s “third-term agenda.”

That argument simply does not stand.

 

The question should therefore be whether Adekanmbi has enough capacity and independence to chart his own course. And that question should be answered by examining his record and listening to his plans—not by determining his verdict before he has spoken.

The same principle applies to Senator Sharafadeen Alli.

 

If Alli’s supporters believe that he is the best person to govern Oyo State, let them convince the electorate through his record and programme. Let them explain his achievements in the Senate. Let them tell Oyo people what he will do differently.

 

But if Adekanmbi is accused of having a political godfather, then let us be honest enough to examine the political influences behind every other candidate.

 

If Adekanmbi is Makinde’s third-term agenda, then is Sharafadeen Alli the third-term agenda in the palace?

 

That is a legitimate question.

 

And it deserves an answer.

 

We should not allow the 2027 election to become a contest of who can attach the most frightening label to an opponent. It should be a contest of ideas, records and competence.

 

Let the candidates speak.

 

Let them defend their records.

 

Let journalists ask difficult questions.

 

Let political commentators challenge them.

 

But let the same standard apply to everybody.

 

Truth does not hurt. What hurts is when half-truths are presented as the whole truth.

 

Oyo State deserves a serious debate about its future. The electorate deserves to know who has the competence, experience, courage and vision to move the state forward.

 

In the end, neither Makinde, Alli, Adekanmbi, the palace, political parties nor newspaper commentators will cast the people’s votes.

 

The people of Oyo State will.

 

And they deserve the facts before they make that decision.