The N50 billion brouhaha involving former Ekiti State Governor Ayodele Fayose and Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde shook Nigeria’s political landscape. Fayose claimed Makinde received N50 billion from President Bola Tinubu as support for the January 2024 Bodija, Ibadan explosion, but only N4.5 billion was released to victims.
Makinde’s Chief Press Secretary, Sulaimon Olarenwaju, dismissed the allegations as baseless, challenging Fayose to provide concrete evidence. “If he has proof that the Federal Government gave N50bn, he should provide it,” Olarenwaju said.
Fayose presented documents he claims prove the N50 billion allocation, but critics argue these documents merely show a request for funds rather than proof of receipt.
However, Makinde’s CPS issued a statement clarifying that the actual amount received was N30 billion, not N50 billion as claimed by Fayose. The statement by Olanrewaju emphasised that Governor Makinde’s administration has been transparent in its handling of the relief funds, with detailed accounts of expenditures published regularly. The CPS urged the public to disregard Fayose’s allegations, labelling them as baseless and politically motivated.
ALSO READ: Re: Makinde: Truth Is Not A Casualty Of Political Desperation By Sulaimon Olanrewaju- An Own Goal
The development sparked intense debate, with many calling for an independent audit of the relief funds to provide clarity. As the controversy unfolds, Governor Makinde’s administration faces increased pressure to provide concrete evidence of how the N30 billion was utilised. The people of Oyo State deserve clarity on the matter, and it is hoped that the truth will come to light soon.
Fayose’s revelation of Federal intervention in Ibadan’s emergency situation has allowed people of Oyo State and beyond to have the necessary conversation about transparency in governance. Without taking sides, Fayose’s tendering of Makinde’s request for support has shed light on the extent of Federal assistance, affording the public a glimpse into the management of public funds. This is a welcome development, encouraging anyone with information to come forward and speak out against the opaque management of people’s resources. One expects Governor Makinde, as a beneficiary of the intervention, to appreciate the Federal gesture and come out to clarify how the support has impacted the affected people and infrastructure of Ibadan. After all, transparency is a two-way street. Makinde now has the responsibility to address these issues.
The controversy further raises questions about transparency and accountability in governance, especially regarding emergency funds. To make emergency funding more transparent and accountable, Nigeria could set up stricter checks and reports, which might involve detailed audits by trusted firms to ensure that the money is spent correctly; require public disclosure of how much emergency funding is given and spent; and create groups/committees to oversee and review how emergency funds are used. Therefore, these practices should become the standard for Nigerian public finance.
The Nigerian Anti-Corruption Agencies (EFCC and ICPC) might launch an investigation if Fayose presents solid proof for his claims, inquire if any illegal actions took place, and ask for documents and records about the N50 billion or N30 billion funding and how it was used.
All in all, this controversy could potentially strain the relationship between Governor Makinde and President Tinubu, particularly if the allegations are true. Makinde’s denial and challenge to Fayose to provide evidence suggest confidence in his innocence, but the controversy may still affect their relationship. If Makinde is found to have misused funds, it could be considered a betrayal of trust, potentially damaging their political alliance.
Tunji Oladejo, JP, mnipr, writes from the University of Ibadan and is the Chairman of The Progressive Forum, Ibadan (TPFI), via oladejo65@gmail.com. 08077284442
