EDITORIAL: No One Is Afraid Of Muraina Ajibola: OYOINSIGHT Demands Answers, Not Apala Lyrics

It is no longer news that Hon. Ajibola Saubana Muraina has responded to the editorial published by OYOINSIGHT on his decision to seek another term in the House of Representatives. We have read the lengthy rejoinder credited to one Dr. Ademola Akintomiwa and rather than be distracted by the excessive rhetoric, emotional outbursts and politically convenient revisionism contained in it, we believe the facts deserve to be placed before the public. Our editorial was neither a personal vendetta nor an attempt to prevent anyone from exercising a constitutional right. It was an opinion on political leadership, performance, succession and the responsibility of public figures to know when their time has come to give others an opportunity.

The first irony in the rejoinder is that its author spends considerable energy accusing a media organisation of being political while producing what reads unmistakably like a political defence brief. OYOINSIGHT did not say Muraina was constitutionally prohibited from contesting. We said something much more uncomfortable: being legally qualified to contest is not the same thing as being politically entitled to perpetual relevance. The Constitution may open the door to another contest, but it does not compel voters to open the ballot box for anyone. That distinction appears to have escaped those who rushed to defend the indefensible.

We are therefore amused by the attempt to turn a simple editorial opinion into an alleged constitutional assault. Nobody at OYOINSIGHT has claimed to be a constitutional gatekeeper. The writer has constructed a straw man and then triumphantly knocked it down. Yes, Muraina can contest. Yes, he can change political parties. Yes, he can seek a fourth term if nominated. But OYOINSIGHT, like every other citizen and media platform in a democracy, retains the right to ask whether another term is justified by his record. Constitutional eligibility does not confer immunity from public scrutiny.

And since history has suddenly become the weapon of choice in Muraina’s defence, let us discuss history properly. Nigeria’s democratic history is littered with politicians who became so attached to office that they eventually confused personal ambition with public service. The history of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Republics repeatedly demonstrates that political office is transient. Tafawa Balewa, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello and other giants of Nigeria’s early political history did not need perpetual occupancy of one legislative seat to establish their relevance. Their legacies survived because history remembered what they built, not simply how many times they appeared on a ballot.

The same lesson exists much closer home. Oyo politics has produced men whose influence remained substantial even after they left particular offices. Chief Bola Ige did not become irrelevant because he left one office. Chief Lam Adesina did not cease to matter because he was no longer governor. The lesson is simple: great politicians create institutions, ideas, people and legacies that survive their tenure. They do not constantly demand that the stage be reserved for them because they once performed there.

It is therefore intellectually dishonest for Dr. Akintomiwa to suggest that questioning Muraina’s fourth-term ambition amounts to opposing Ibarapa’s development. Ibarapa is bigger than Ajibola Muraina. Ibarapa existed before Muraina entered politics, it has produced leaders before him and it will continue to produce leaders after him. No individual politician should be allowed to appropriate the collective identity of an entire geopolitical constituency. Criticising a politician is not criticising Ibarapa, demanding accountability is not an assault on Ibarapa and questioning a political ambition is not an attempt to stop Ibarapa’s rise.

The rejoinder also attempts to manufacture a conspiracy around OYOINSIGHT’s reference to Hon. Akeem Adeyemi. That comparison was not accidental. If the argument is that ranking and experience automatically justify another term, then the same standard must apply everywhere. Hon. Akeem Adeyemi has represented the AFIJIO/Oyo East/Oyo West/Atiba Federal Constituency since 2015 and won re-election in 2019 and 2023, remaining on the APC platform throughout those electoral cycles.

That brings us to a question Dr. Akintomiwa conveniently avoided: what exactly is the basis for placing Muraina’s political trajectory beyond scrutiny while presenting every question about his record as an attack on Ibarapa? Akeem Adeyemi’s fourth-term ambition may equally be scrutinised. Nobody is saying otherwise. The difference is that our criticism of Muraina is rooted in a political history that includes repeated movement between platforms and a record that should be interrogated rather than romanticised.

Let the record also show that Muraina himself publicly announced his defection from the PDP to the APC on April 30, 2022. At the time, he explained that his movement was motivated by the desire to promote even and equitable development across Oyo State and urged supporters to work toward APC victories. ⁠That was his political choice and nobody disputes his constitutional right to make it. But politics has memory. A politician cannot celebrate a party today, condemn it tomorrow, return to another platform later and then become offended when citizens ask what changed.

That is the essence of political accountability. A constitutional right is not a moral exemption. It is also constitutional to go naked in the market square, but you have no right to ask people to keep shut for asking questions why you are naked. The right to defect does not prevent citizens from asking why the defection occurred. The right to contest does not prevent citizens from asking what was achieved in previous terms. The right to seek another mandate does not transform a politician’s historical record into sacred scripture. Democracy is not a religion of personalities, politicians are not saints and public office is not hereditary property.

History, however, refuses to cooperate with the mythology being constructed around Muraina. His political journey has not been an uninterrupted triumph, as his defenders would have Nigerians believe. After serving two consecutive terms in the House of Representatives from 2007 to 2011, Muraina contested the 2015 election and lost to Hon. Olugbenga Ojoawo of the APC. After being rejected at the polls in 2015, Muraina returned to the National Assembly in 2019 following a fiercely contested election against Hon. Ademola Ojo of the APC, which was initially declared inconclusive before he eventually emerged victorious through a rerun-election. That return hardly supports the picture of an electorally unstoppable politician being painted by his defenders. Indeed, the supposed political invincibility suffered another blow in 2023 when Muraina lost his re-election bid to Hon. Adebayo Adepoju of the PDP. In other words, the people of Ibarapa Central and Ibarapa North have already demonstrated on more than one occasion that they are capable of saying “No” to Ajibola Muraina at the ballot box. Therefore, nobody should manufacture the impression that his political relevance is an eternal mandate bestowed upon him by the people. He has won elections, he has also lost elections. That is democracy. Indeed, if two electoral defeats have taught political observers anything, it is that Muraina’s political fortunes have never been as invincible as his current defenders portray them. The same electorate that once elected him has also rejected him. That historical fact cannot be erased by describing him as “the best representative ever,” quoting Apala lyrics, or accusing every critic of being afraid of his return. The ballot box has spoken before and it remains the only legitimate authority capable of speaking again. Whatever political interpretation anyone chooses to place on the aforementioned historical records, one thing is undeniable: the electorate has never signed a permanent ownership certificate handing the constituency or region to Ajibola Muraina.

We are equally unimpressed by the attempt to transform every criticism into evidence that APC is “afraid” of Muraina. If APC is supposedly terrified of his political strength, then the question is why the same Muraina was defeated in 2015 and 2023 general elections, and only won the 2019 election by luck. If his popularity is as overwhelming as his defenders claim, then voters, not newspaper editorials, will ultimately provide the answer. Political strength is not measured by the volume of press releases issued by supporters. It is measured at the polling unit.

Now let us address the issue of performance, because this is where the rejoinder becomes vulnerable. The writer repeatedly describes Muraina as one of the greatest representatives Ibarapa has ever produced and lists broad categories such as infrastructure, employment, empowerment and training. Fine. Let the evidence come. Which roads? Where are they? Which federal projects? Which communities? Which MDAs? How many beneficiaries? What dates? What allocations? What constituency project records? What measurable outcomes? Public office is not assessed by adjectives.

Indeed, Muraina’s defenders should provide a concise scorecard of his twelve years in the National Assembly. Five major, verifiable constituency projects that remain functional today would be a good beginning. Not promises. Not political meetings. Not photographs of politicians handing envelopes to supporters. Projects. Locations. Dates. Funding. Status. Impact. That is the language of accountability.

This question becomes important when we consider Muraina’s leadership of the House Committee on Petroleum Resources (Upstream) during the Seventh Assembly. For 4 years, Muraina chaired the upstream petroleum committee and participated in oversight of the petroleum sector. This was not an insignificant position. It was a powerful national legislative assignment at a time when Nigeria’s crude oil prices were extraordinarily high. OPEC data cited by BusinessDay put the 2011 annual average crude price at about $107 per barrel, while IMF data recorded Nigeria’s oil price around $109.2 per barrel for the period.

So the question is legitimate and cannot be shouted down with Yoruba proverbs or Apala lyrics: what did Ibarapa gain from that strategic position? What major petroleum-related intervention did the constituency receive? How many Ibarapa youths were connected to employment opportunities in the petroleum sector? What training institutions, industrial initiatives or federal programmes were attracted to Ibarapa through that committee position? If the answer is that the committee was purely an oversight assignment, then let that be said. But if the defence is that Muraina’s national position translated into unprecedented constituency development, then the evidence should be presented.

And let nobody misunderstand us: chairmanship of a powerful committee is not itself an achievement. It is an opportunity. The achievement is what a legislator does with that opportunity. Nigeria’s National Assembly has produced first-term lawmakers who used committee assignments, motions, bills, oversight and executive engagement to secure tangible benefits for their constituents. Therefore, “he was a committee chairman” is not a response to the question “what did his chairmanship produce?”

The same scrutiny applies to the claim that Muraina’s third term was another outstanding chapter in his legislative career. What became of the promise of becoming a principal officer of the National Assembly? What legislative achievements from that term should Ibarapa remember? Which bills did he sponsor that materially changed the lives of constituents? Which federal institutions were attracted? Which permanent infrastructure projects can residents point to and say, without political prompting, “this is Muraina’s legacy”? These are not malicious questions. They are precisely the questions citizens should ask after twelve years of legislative representation.

We are also compelled to correct another convenient historical narrative: the suggestion that Muraina’s emergence on the PDP platform automatically means that “the people” have chosen him. The people have not yet voted. He only secured the ticket of a factional party when everyone had left. The 2027 election is not a coronation ceremony. A party ticket is not a certificate of popularity. A political endorsement is not an electoral result. And a newspaper article defending a candidate is certainly not a substitute for votes. The electorate of Ibarapa Central and Ibarapa North remains the final authority.

As for the allegation that OYOINSIGHT is acting on behalf of certain politicians, it is an old and tired strategy. Whenever a politician is confronted with uncomfortable questions, the easiest escape route is to accuse the questioner of being sponsored. But sponsorship allegations do not answer factual questions. If our editorial is wrong, disprove it with records. If our assessment of his performance is unfair, produce the scorecard. If our comparison with other legislators is invalid, explain the measurable differences. Calling journalists “attack dogs” does not make weak arguments stronger.

The rejoinder’s attempt to drag personalities such as Zacch Adedeji, Senator Sarafadeen Alli and Hon. Akeem Adeyemi into the matter is equally revealing. OYOINSIGHT will not allow itself to be dragged into a personality war. Every public official mentioned can answer for himself. Our concern is the political culture in which one politician is presented as indispensable and any criticism of him is portrayed as an attack on an entire region. That culture is precisely what responsible journalism should challenge.

And finally, to those invoking “karma”, threats of political doom and the language of wickedness, we recommend a return to facts. Journalism does not become wicked because it asks uncomfortable questions. Democracy does not become wicked because voters consider alternatives. Ibarapa does not become anti-Muraina because some people believe another generation of leadership deserves an opportunity. The real danger to any society is when political loyalty becomes so absolute that supporters can no longer distinguish between defending a person and defending a record.

Dr. Akintomiwa may continue singing “Yegede” and invoking the memory of Baba L’Egba. We have no quarrel with Apala music or Yoruba cultural expression. But political history has its own rhythm and history is notoriously unforgiving to politicians who mistake yesterday’s applause for tomorrow’s entitlement. Muraina is free to dance. He is free to contest. He is free to seek another mandate. But the stage belongs to the people, not to the dancer. When the electorate decides that the music should continue, they will say so at the ballot box. When they decide that another dancer deserves the stage, no newspaper, political camp or self-appointed defender of a politician will be able to stop them. That is democracy. And that is precisely why OYOINSIGHT will continue to ask the questions that political power would rather avoid.