By Maroof Asudemade
Fresh questions are being raised over the asset declaration of Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, following discrepancies alleged between his publicly released 2019 declaration, the financial records of companies associated with his business empire and a United Kingdom corporate record showing a director bearing his full name remained on the books of a British company until March 1, 2026.
The emerging questions also extend to the management and financial condition of companies linked to the governor, raising concerns about what critics describe as possible omissions or inconsistencies in the disclosure of his corporate interests.
Makinde publicly declared assets worth more than ₦48 billion shortly after assuming office in 2019. His declaration showed that his companies had a stated current value of ₦48,150,736,889, represented by 33.73 million units of shares. He also declared nine properties in Nigeria, two in the United States and one in South Africa, as well as cash, Eurobonds and other securities.
The six companies listed in the declaration were Makon Engineering and Technical Services Limited, Energy Traders and Technical Services Limited, Makon Oil and Gas Limited, Makon Group Limited, Makon Construction Limited and Makon Power System Limited. Four of the companies also had loan notes totalling approximately ₦3.389 billion, according to the published declaration.
Makinde, at the time, described the public disclosure as the fulfilment of a campaign promise and encouraged members of his cabinet to follow his example. But questions have now emerged over whether the public declaration provided the complete picture of his corporate interests.
The controversy intensified in 2023 when Makinde announced that he had submitted another asset declaration to the Code of Conduct Bureau at the end of his first term and before commencing his second term. Unlike the 2019 exercise, however, the governor did not publicly release the detailed figures.
Instead, he told journalists that he had become 10 to 12 per cent poorer during his first four years in office. Makinde attributed the decline to his inability to devote sufficient attention to his businesses while concentrating on governing Oyo State. He also said the details of his new asset declaration would subsequently be made public.
That disclosure has become a major point of contention. If the governor was worth more than ₦48 billion in company interests when he assumed office and subsequently became 10 to 12 per cent poorer, critics argue that the public should have been shown the figures necessary to verify the claim.
The questions are straightforward: What was the value of the companies in 2023? What losses did they incur? What happened to the properties and securities? What happened to his shareholdings? And, crucially, did the second declaration contain all of the corporate interests subsequently identifiable from foreign corporate records?
The 2018 audited financial statements of IBIM Africa Holdings (IAH) Limited, a Bermuda-registered company, provide another important piece of the picture. The audited document lists Oluseyi Abiodun Makinde among the company’s directors. It also identifies Makon Group, Makon Engineering and Technical Services and Makon Oil and Gas among the group’s principal subsidiaries. The 2018 financial statements show substantial business activity but also substantial financial obligations.
The group recorded revenue of approximately US$50.48 million, while profit before interest and tax was about US$4.75 million. Finance costs, however, amounted to approximately US$4.54 million.
The accounts also recorded substantial liabilities, including term loans and other creditors, while cash and cash equivalents were comparatively modest. These figures do not establish that Makon or IBIM was insolvent, and the accounts were accompanied by an audit opinion that did not qualify the financial statements.
But they do raise a legitimate question about the basis upon which the value of Makinde’s company interests was placed at more than ₦48 billion in his 2019 declaration.
Was the valuation based on net assets? Future earnings? Goodwill? Share value? Contracts and receivables? Or another methodology? The public declaration does not, by itself, provide enough information to answer those questions.
Perhaps the most striking development comes from the United Kingdom. Official Companies House records show an Oluseyi Abiodun Makinde, born in December 1967, Nigerian and resident in Nigeria, as a director of Dexcres Technical Services Limited. The record states that the individual was appointed on September 3, 2010 and resigned on March 1, 2026.
A separate corporate-information record shows an Oluseyi Abiodun Makinde as having held between 25 and 50 per cent ownership and voting rights in Dexcres during an earlier period and having the right to appoint and remove directors.
The identifying details correspond to Governor Seyi Makinde. If the person recorded by Companies House is indeed the Oyo governor, the record raises an obvious question: why did a company directorship bearing his identity continue until March 2026, almost seven years after he became governor? More importantly, was the interest disclosed in his relevant asset declarations? That question should not be dismissed as political propaganda. It can be answered by documents.
If the directorship belonged to another person, Makinde can establish that. If it was his directorship and was properly declared, the relevant declaration can establish that. If it was not required to be declared, the legal basis can be explained.
The significance of the Dexcres record lies in its potential to broaden the picture beyond the six companies publicly identified in Makinde’s 2019 declaration. The governor’s publicly released declaration named six companies. Yet corporate records also connect an individual bearing his full name to IBIM Africa Holdings and Dexcres Technical Services.
That does not automatically mean that these interests were omitted from his declaration. Nor does a foreign corporate directorship automatically amount to an offence by a Nigerian public officer.
But it does mean that the public has grounds to ask whether the declaration fully captured the governor’s corporate interests.
For a governor who voluntarily made transparency a central part of his public image, the burden should be relatively simple: show the documents. Did Makinde’s businesses suffer under his watch?
There is another dimension to the governor’s own explanation. Makinde said his wealth declined because he had not been able to “look after” his businesses while looking after Oyo State. That statement itself raises questions about corporate governance.
If the businesses were being managed by professional structures while Makinde was serving as governor, why should his absence from day-to-day management necessarily produce such losses? What were the companies’ financial performances during the period? Were there changes in their ownership structures?Were contracts lost? Did liabilities increase? Were assets disposed of?
Were there changes in directors or shareholders?vWere related-party transactions undertaken?
These are ordinary questions in any serious examination of the financial affairs of a politically exposed person. And they become even more relevant when the person concerned has publicly attributed a decline in his wealth to the performance of businesses associated with him.
Critics of the governor are now alleging that the combination of the undisclosed 2023 details, the foreign corporate records and the continuing UK directorship points to possible irregularities in his asset declaration. Those allegations, however, remain allegations unless supported by the actual declaration forms and evidence establishing that an interest that was legally required to be declared was omitted.
There is therefore a clear distinction between what is established by the records and what remains to be proved.
It is established that Makinde publicly declared company interests worth ₦48.15 billion in 2019. It is established that he declared another set of assets in 2023 but did not publicly provide the detailed figures at the time, instead saying that he had become 10 to 12 per cent poorer.
It is established that the 2018 IBIM Africa Holdings financial statements identify an Oluseyi Abiodun Makinde as a director.
And it is established that UK Companies House records show an Oluseyi Abiodun Makinde as a director of Dexcres Technical Services Limited until March 1, 2026.
What remains to be established is whether all those interests belonged to the governor and, if so, whether every interest that Nigerian law required him to disclose was properly included in his declarations. That is the part of the story that demands answers.
A governor cannot ask Nigerians to take his word for it. The governor cannot reasonably expect Nigerians to accept a statement that he became 10 to 12 per cent poorer without allowing them to see the figures behind that assertion. Neither should questions about foreign corporate records be answered merely with political rhetoric. The issue is bigger than Makinde’s personal wealth.
It concerns whether the public record gives Nigerians a complete picture of the financial interests of a man who has controlled the affairs of Oyo State since 2019.
Makinde should publish the detailed 2023 asset declaration, explain the basis of the ₦48.15 billion valuation declared in 2019, clarify his relationship with IBIM Africa Holdings and Makon, and address the Companies House record concerning Dexcres Technical Services Limited.
If the interests were declared, the documents should settle the matter. If they were not required to be declared, the legal explanation should be provided. And if the Companies House records have been wrongly attributed to the governor, that too should be demonstrated conclusively.
Until those questions are answered, the controversy over the completeness of Governor Makinde’s asset declarations, and the management and financial history of the companies connected to him will remain a legitimate subject of public scrutiny.
