By Dr. Arabambi Abayomi
I was honestly disappointed when I came across the piece titled “Ogun East: Beyond the Motor Park Politics.” My disappointment does not stem from any perceived opposition to personal political aspirations, but from the sheer emptiness of its argument. The thesis collapses the moment it is subjected to critical thought. Simply put, it does not hold water.
The entire argument rests on a single, fragile claim: that Governor Dapo Abiodun lacks the “collaborative temperament” required for the Senate. The writer points to alleged strained relationships with predecessors, friction with party elders, and a supposed pattern of exclusion as evidence that a man who governs by “command” cannot function in a legislative environment that rewards persuasion.
This assertion is fundamentally flawed.
A governor in Nigeria does not govern by command. Anyone familiar with governance understands that navigating a state budget through the House of Assembly, managing a cabinet, engaging local government leadership, coordinating with traditional rulers, labour unions, federal institutions, and the private sector requires constant negotiation. Executive governance in this country is, in fact, an ongoing exercise in persuasion, compromise, and coalition-building.
To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality.
Governor Abiodun has spent the past seven years negotiating, persuading, and building consensus—sometimes successfully, sometimes imperfectly—to deliver governance and maintain stability in Ogun State.
Beyond theory, the writer also fails to engage meaningfully with the Governor’s record.
Over the last seven years, Ogun State has witnessed significant infrastructural and economic development. These include the completion of inherited projects such as the airport, Gateway Airlines, hospitals and health centres across the 236 wards, the PMB Estate, and widespread investments in education through classroom construction.
There have also been strides in agriculture, the exploration of crude oil in Eba (Ijebu) and Tongeji Island (Ipokia), progress on the deep seaport project, and the recent approval of a police training institution. Notably, the state’s GDP has reportedly grown from about ₦4 trillion to ₦17 trillion, alongside a substantial increase in internally generated revenue.
Equally important is the relative stability in the state’s political climate and improved security of lives and property.
The claim that Governor Abiodun lacks the ability to build relationships is further weakened by his engagements with notable political leaders and stakeholders across divides. Political disagreements, where they exist, are neither unusual nor sufficient evidence of incapacity. Leadership is not measured by universal approval.
This brings us to the second major flaw in the article: the mistaken belief that visible political friction equates to ineffective leadership.
Since when has governance required a leader to maintain permanent harmony with predecessors or political elites? Effective leadership often involves making difficult decisions that may displease entrenched interests. History is replete with examples of leaders who achieved results not by appeasement, but by prioritising delivery over comfort.
The Senate, contrary to the writer’s romanticised view, is not a sanctuary for perpetual consensus-building. It is a complex and often tough political arena where influence is built not just on likability, but on competence, experience, and the ability to deliver tangible outcomes.
Executive experience matters.
A governor operates at the frontline of governance—making critical decisions on infrastructure, security, health, and economic management.
Such experience is not a liability; it is an asset. To diminish it in favour of abstract notions of “temperament” is to invert logic.
Furthermore, the argument presented lacks empirical grounding. It fails to identify any concrete legislative outcomes that require the alleged temperament Governor Abiodun supposedly lacks. It cites no examples of lost opportunities attributable to his leadership style. Instead, it relies heavily on perception and conjecture.
That is not analysis; it is speculation.
The invocation of “emotional intelligence” and “restraint” also rings hollow when viewed in the context of Nigeria’s legislative reality. The Senate is not a seminar room—it is a political institution where negotiation is driven by leverage, influence, and strategic thinking.
Indeed, there is a stronger argument that a leader accustomed to making firm decisions and maintaining direction under pressure may be better suited to such an environment than one overly inclined toward compromise.
Finally, the article overlooks the most critical factor in a democratic system: the will of the people.
If the electorate of Ogun East, through legitimate democratic processes, chooses Governor Abiodun as their representative, then the question of “suitability” becomes secondary to the mandate freely given. Voters are capable of assessing both strengths and shortcomings. They see the challenges, but they also see the results.
They will make their choice accordingly.
In conclusion, the article in question is a collection of unsubstantiated claims presented as analysis. It confuses disagreement with dysfunction, elevates style over substance, and substitutes speculation for evidence.
Governor Abiodun, like all leaders, is not without flaws. However, to argue that he is unsuitable for the Senate on the basis of perceived insufficient deference to political elites is to mistake courtesy for competence.
That is a mistake the electorate cannot afford to make.
As captured in Psalm 1:3 and Jeremiah 17:8, a tree planted by the rivers of water is deeply rooted, resilient, and fruitful. Such, many would argue, is the trajectory of governance in Ogun State under Governor Abiodun—steady, nourished, and productive.
Dr. Arabambi Abayomi (FBAU)
Ajagungbade I of Nigeria
State Convener
Sustainability of Ogun & Dapo Abiodun Legacy Beyond 2027
Date: April 22, 2026
