SOLUTIONS VS ELENIYAN: LET THE DOCUMENTS, NOT PROPAGANDA, DETERMINE THE CANDIDATE
The unfolding debate over the governorship ticket of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) in Oyo State deserves a more serious and responsible approach than the exchange of political accusations, photographs, endorsements and competing narratives.
At a time when the people of Oyo State are increasingly interested in who will represent their aspirations in the 2027 governorship election, the conversation should be anchored on facts, verifiable documents, due process and the applicable electoral framework.
This is not about who has the most influential photograph, who has the strongest political connection, or who can generate the loudest propaganda.
It is about one fundamental question:
Which governorship primary was properly authorised, duly conducted, appropriately documented and followed by the necessary party and electoral procedures?
That is the question that should determine the legitimacy of any claim to the ADC governorship ticket.
A Response to Chief Rotimi Johnson
By Comrade Omosalewa Ogundiran
POLITICAL PHOTOGRAPHS DO NOT CONSTITUTE CANDIDATURE
It is necessary to draw a clear distinction between political visibility and legal candidature.
A photograph with a national political leader, no matter how prominent that individual may be, is not a nomination form.
Attendance at a political gathering is not a primary election result.
A public endorsement is not, by itself, a substitute for the party's prescribed nomination process.
Political association, friendship, access or proximity to influential individuals cannot replace the formal procedures through which a political party produces and recognises its candidate.
Therefore, rather than relying on photographs and political name-dropping as evidence of candidature, those making claims should produce the documents that demonstrate how the candidate emerged.
Politics may create relationships, but documents establish processes.
THE ELENIYAN PRIMARY DESERVES THE SAME OBJECTIVE SCRUTINY
It is equally important to state clearly that the primary which produced Dr. Gbemileke Alagbe, popularly known as Eleniyan, should not be dismissed simply because another political camp disputes its legitimacy.
If there are questions concerning the process, let those questions be answered through documents.
If there are objections to the authority of the committee that conducted the exercise, let the relevant appointment and authorisation documents be produced.
If there are concerns about the conduct of the primary, let the official report, result sheets and other relevant records be examined.
That is the standard of accountability that should apply.
From the records and claims surrounding the exercise, it is important to establish that the primary election committee was headed by Mr. Harrison Akpojaro, who was said to have received an appointment letter through the office of the party's National Organising Secretary.
That assertion is not something that should be settled through social-media arguments.
The appropriate questions are:
Was the appointment letter authentic?
Who issued it?
What authority did the issuing office possess?
What mandate was given to the committee?
Was the committee properly constituted under the party's applicable rules and guidelines?
What steps did the committee take before, during and after the primary?
What report did the committee produce?
These are questions that documents can answer more effectively than political rhetoric.
IF INEC PARTICIPATED, LET THE RECORDS SPEAK
There have also been claims concerning the participation or presence of electoral officials in the process.
If officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) were present or otherwise involved in monitoring the exercise, that fact should be established from official records and not merely asserted by either political camp.
Similarly, the presence of electoral officials should not automatically be interpreted as an unconditional judicial or legal certification of every aspect of a party's internal process.
What matters is what was actually done, what was recorded, what was submitted and what the applicable law requires.
Therefore, any claim concerning INEC monitoring should be supported with the appropriate documentation.
This is precisely why the debate should move away from political propaganda and towards verifiable evidence.
THE SAME STANDARD MUST APPLY TO SOLUTIONS
If the camp supporting Adegoke/Solutions maintains that its candidate is the legitimate ADC governorship candidate, then there should be no difficulty in presenting the relevant documentation.
Let the public see, where legally appropriate:
The authority under which the primary was convened.
The applicable party guidelines for the exercise.
The notice and arrangements for the primary.
The appointment and composition of the electoral committee.
The accredited delegates or participants.
The voting procedure adopted.
The result of the election.
The declaration of the winner.
The official report of the electoral committee.
The relevant party documentation.
The nomination documents submitted through the appropriate channels.
And, ultimately, the applicable official electoral records.
These are the materials capable of establishing the legitimacy of a candidature.
If the documents support Solutions, let them speak.
If they do not, let the facts prevail.
There should be no need to substitute political photographs for documentary evidence.
AND IF ELENIYAN'S EMERGENCE IS INVALID, PROVE IT
The same principle applies to those challenging the emergence of Eleniyan.
If the position is that his primary was invalid, then the burden of argument should be supported by evidence showing the alleged defect.
Was the primary conducted without proper authorisation?
Was the committee improperly constituted?
Was the committee's appointment defective?
Were the applicable party guidelines violated?
Was the required notice not given?
Was the voting process inconsistent with the party's rules?
Was the result improperly declared?
Was the result not submitted through the prescribed channel?
Was there another validly authorised primary?
Was the candidate subsequently nominated through the appropriate statutory and party procedures?
These are serious questions.
They cannot be answered simply by saying that a particular candidate is "not recognised" or that another candidate has the backing of influential political actors.
If a process is defective, identify the defect and produce the evidence.
THE REAL TEST IS DOCUMENTARY
The controversy can be reduced to a number of straightforward questions.
Who authorised the primary?
Who constituted the electoral committee?
Who headed the committee?
What was the committee's mandate?
Who conducted the election?
Who participated or was accredited?
Who monitored the exercise, if applicable?
Who was declared winner?
What result was recorded?
What report was produced?
What candidate did the party formally recognise and nominate?
What documentation was submitted to the relevant electoral authorities?
And what do the official records ultimately show?
Until these questions are properly answered, both camps should exercise restraint in presenting political claims as established legal facts.
ENDORSEMENT IS NOT THE SAME AS NOMINATION
There is also a need to distinguish between political support and formal nomination.
A politician can endorse a candidate.
A political leader can express support for a candidate.
Party stakeholders can campaign for a particular aspirant.
Groups can mobilise behind a particular individual.
All of these are legitimate aspects of political activity.
But none should automatically be presented as conclusive proof that the person has emerged as the party's legally recognised governorship candidate.
The formal process remains critical.
This is why the public should be wary of arguments that rely primarily on photographs, meetings, endorsements and political relationships.
Those things may demonstrate political support.
They do not, by themselves, establish the validity of a primary election or formal nomination.
OYO PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER
The people of Oyo State deserve a political conversation that is substantially better than propaganda.
They deserve to know how candidates emerge.
They deserve transparency in the processes through which political parties select those who seek to govern them.
They deserve candidates whose emergence can withstand scrutiny.
They deserve political leaders who are willing to place facts above factional interests.
And they deserve a political environment in which disagreements are resolved through evidence, the party's rules and the law—not through intimidation, personal attacks or social-media theatrics.
The ADC governorship controversy should therefore become an opportunity to demonstrate a higher standard of political accountability.
Rather than asking Nigerians to believe one camp or another, let both sides produce the documents.
Let independent observers, party stakeholders, legal practitioners, journalists and the public examine the records.
Let the applicable law be considered.
Let the authorised party documents be examined.
Let the official electoral records be checked.
Then, and only then, should definitive conclusions be drawn.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT PERSONALITY; IT IS ABOUT PROCESS
The question before the public should never be reduced to whether one aspirant is more popular than another.
It should not be about who has the bigger political network.
It should not be about who has taken more photographs with political leaders.
It should not be about who can command more social-media attention.
It should not even be about who can mobilise more supporters at a political gathering.
The fundamental question remains:
Who emerged through the valid process prescribed by the party and applicable electoral law?
That is the standard that should apply to everyone.
If Solutions has the stronger documentary case, let the documents establish it.
If Eleniyan has the stronger documentary case, let the documents establish it.
There should be no fear of evidence.
There should be no fear of scrutiny.
There should be no fear of transparency.
LET THE DOCUMENTS SPEAK
Chief Rotimi Johnson and all other stakeholders in this debate should therefore be encouraged to move beyond accusations of desperation, propaganda and political manipulation.
The best response to a disputed political claim is not another accusation.
It is evidence.
If one side says there was a valid primary, produce the authorisation, committee documentation, result and relevant records.
If another side says the primary was invalid, produce the evidence of the alleged defect and demonstrate the alternative lawful process.
If one side claims to have a legitimate candidate, produce the relevant nomination and party records.
If another side disputes that claim, produce the documents supporting the challenge.
That is how serious political disputes should be handled.
Not through propaganda.
Not through photographs.
Not through political name-dropping.
Not through social-media intimidation.
Through facts.
Through documents.
Through due process.
Through the law.
The ADC governorship ticket in Oyo State should not become a product of whoever can shout the loudest or circulate the most photographs.
It should be the product of a process that is transparent, properly authorised, duly documented and capable of withstanding legal and institutional scrutiny.
And if there is genuine confidence in the validity of any candidate's emergence, there should be no hesitation in putting the relevant documents on the table.
CONCLUSION
This debate is bigger than Solutions.
It is bigger than Eleniyan.
It is bigger than Chief Rotimi Johnson.
It is bigger than any individual political camp.
It concerns the integrity of the democratic process in Oyo State.
The people deserve to know the truth about how candidates emerge.
Therefore, let us return this debate to where it belongs:
The documents.
The party rules.
The electoral process.
The applicable law.
The official records.
Let political photographs remain photographs.
Let endorsements remain endorsements.
Let political relationships remain political relationships.
But let candidature be established by the proper process and the documentary evidence supporting it.
If Eleniyan's emergence is valid, the documents should establish it.
If Solutions' claim is valid, the documents should establish it.
If either process is defective, the evidence should reveal the defect.
That is the only fair standard.
That is the only responsible position.
And that is the standard the people of Oyo State deserve.
LET THE DOCUMENTS SPEAK.
LET THE FACTS PREVAIL.
LET THE LAW BE RESPECTED.
LET DUE PROCESS DETERMINE THE CANDIDATE.
LET OYO PEOPLE DECIDE.
ELENIYAN 2027
A CANDIDACY MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY PROCESS, NOT PROPAGANDA.
— Comrade Omosalewa Ogundiran
Share this story
More to Read
We Won’t Follow Atiku’s Path – APC Campaign Council Reacts To ‘Bola’ Remark
All Set for 2026 Youth Leadership Summit as NYC Oyo Chapter Announces Planning Committee
INEC Final List: Akinwale Olusayo Michael Congratulates KTJ, Elege, Other ADP Candidates Ahead of 2027 Elections
Stop Blaming Us – APC Tackles PDP Over Adebutu’s Exclusion From INEC List
Ogun 2027: PDP’s Adebutu Missing As INEC Releases Final Candidates’ List
Comments (0)
Want to join the discussion?
or