Here’s a shocking revelation that’s bound to stir the pot in Nigerian politics: Former Ogun State Governor and current Senator Gbenga Daniel has openly accused Governor Dapo Abiodun of fostering a culture of political intolerance and exclusionary governance. But here’s where it gets controversial—Daniel claims the state has devolved into a 'three-man closed government,' where dissenting voices are systematically silenced, victimized, or targeted for persecution. Is this a fair assessment, or is there more to the story? Let’s dive in.
During a Midterm Assessment Tour in Ijebu-Igbo, Daniel didn’t hold back. He insisted that his recent suspension by the APC Ward 4 in Sagamu—later nullified by the party’s National Working Committee—wasn’t due to anti-party activities but rather a direct result of Abiodun’s alleged intolerance of dissent. And this is the part most people miss: Daniel argues that traditional rulers and thought leaders should intervene to stop what he calls the governor’s repeated halt orders on federally funded projects meant for Ogun East. These projects, he warns, are crucial for the state’s infrastructural development, and their obstruction is shortchanging the people.
Daniel’s rift with Abiodun is deeply personal. He claims his only ‘crime’ was offering constructive advice to the governor, which led to public ostracization. ‘Silence is no longer an option,’ he declared, when the work meant for the people is being sabotaged. He also commended President Bola Tinubu and the APC National Working Committee for reaffirming his membership in the ruling party, calling it a restoration of sanity in Ogun State.
But here’s the kicker: Daniel accused the state government of halting federal projects like the rehabilitation of Itanrin Road and General Hospital Road in Ijebu-Igbo, allegedly because they were facilitated by his office. He warned that if the ‘stop-work order’ isn’t lifted by December 2025, the funding will be lost. Is this a case of political vendetta, or are there legitimate procedural concerns?
In response, Governor Abiodun’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Kayode Akinmade, dismissed Daniel’s claims as an attempt to evade accountability for alleged anti-party activities. Akinmade questioned why Daniel didn’t appear before the disciplinary panel if he was truly innocent. ‘He’s playing to the gallery,’ Akinmade said, urging the public to ignore the former governor.
Akinmade also countered that the state government welcomes constituency projects but insists on proper procedures and approvals—a stance Daniel allegedly ignored. But is this a fair critique, or a thinly veiled attempt to undermine Daniel’s efforts?
Meanwhile, APC Ward 4 in Sagamu stands by Daniel’s suspension, arguing that the National Working Committee lacks the authority to overturn disciplinary actions initiated at the ward level. Ward secretary Aduroja Oluwole stated that Daniel’s refusal to appear before the investigative panel sealed his suspension.
So, what’s the takeaway? Daniel paints a picture of a governor unwilling to govern inclusively, while Abiodun’s camp accuses him of political theatrics and procedural disregard. Who’s telling the truth? And more importantly, what does this mean for the people of Ogun State? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s keep the conversation going!
