Former Ekiti State Governor Ayodele Fayose has ignited a significant political dispute, publicly asserting that the federal government disbursed a N50 billion intervention fund to Oyo State following the devastating Ibadan explosion in January 2024. In a recent statement issued on Sunday, Mr. Fayose presented what he described as evidence, directly challenging Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde, who had previously denied receiving such an amount and threatened legal action against his accuser. This unfolding saga places financial transparency and accountability at the forefront of public discourse in the region.
Mr. Fayose detailed his claims, stating that while the N50 billion was intended as comprehensive relief for the aftermath of the explosion, only N4.5 billion ultimately reached the victims. He controversially alleged that Governor Makinde diverted the substantial remainder of these funds, along with other unmentioned allocations, to fuel his presidential ambitions. Fayose further linked this purported diversion to the ongoing internal strife within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Governor Makinde’s recent criticisms of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration.
Governor Makinde had swiftly responded to Fayose’s initial televised assertions by demanding concrete proof of the N50 billion receipt. Fayose’s subsequent public release of what he termed “evidence” marks a significant escalation, transforming a verbal spat into a more serious accusation backed by alleged official documentation. This move, according to Fayose, was necessitated by Makinde’s challenge and the need to enlighten the people of Oyo State regarding the true financial inflows.
Justifying his decision to disclose what he acknowledged were typically private government documents, Mr. Fayose argued that Governor Makinde’s own public statements on national television regarding private meetings with the President had set a precedent. He maintained that it became incumbent upon “well-meaning Nigerians” to provide full disclosure when official information was selectively presented, underscoring his commitment to transparency over conventional protocol.
The former governor did not shy away from a direct confrontation, issuing a bold challenge to Governor Makinde to pursue legal action against him over the N50 billion claim. Fayose, known for his confrontational political style, expressed unwavering confidence in his position, asserting that he only makes claims he can substantiate. This dare intensifies the political tension, setting the stage for a potential high-profile court battle.
Furthermore, Mr. Fayose hinted at additional undisclosed financial irregularities, suggesting he possesses further proofs of other federal intervention funds received by the Oyo State Government from the Tinubu administration that Governor Makinde has yet to reveal to the public. He also claimed to hold documentary evidence concerning the actual Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) of Oyo State, which he implied contradicts Governor Makinde’s publicly stated figures.
These fresh allegations suggest that the N50 billion dispute might only be the tip of the iceberg, with Fayose promising to keep his “gunpowder dry for now,” indicating a readiness to unveil more information if the conflict escalates. This strategic withholding of information adds a layer of suspense to the ongoing political drama, ensuring continued public and media scrutiny of Oyo State’s finances.
The Ibadan explosion, which occurred in January 2024, caused widespread destruction and prompted an outpouring of sympathy and aid, including federal support. The magnitude of the disaster underscored the critical importance of transparent and effective management of relief funds. This dispute between two prominent political figures therefore transcends mere political rivalry, touching upon fundamental questions of governance and public trust in the administration of disaster relief.
As the political landscape heats up, Governor Makinde finds himself under increasing pressure to respond definitively to these specific allegations and potentially provide a detailed account of all federal interventions and their utilization. The public, particularly the affected residents of Oyo State, will undoubtedly demand clarity and accountability regarding the funds earmarked for their recovery and welfare.
