As Oyo State celebrated 50 years of existence with pomp, pageantry, and reflection earlier this year, an unexpected controversy erupted that reignited long-standing debates about political legacy, moral leadership, and how history should remember its actors. Central to this controversy is Chief Lamidi Ariyibi Akanji Adedibu, a figure whose name has been synonymous with both political influence and political violence in Oyo State for decades — and the intense public reaction to his omission from the official honourees list of the Oyo @50 golden jubilee celebration.
The family of the late Adedibu has publicly demanded his inclusion among the honourees, calling his absence “a glaring omission” in the state’s historical celebration and a disservice to the memory of a man they believe contributed significantly to the political development of Oyo State. But this demand raises a critical question often discussed in Ibadan political circles: What has been the genuine contribution of Adedibu to the development of Oyo State aside from thuggery, rigging, and chaos?
This article examines the life and legacy of Lamidi Adedibu, the context of this controversy, and why his omission — or inclusion — remains a deeply divisive subject.
At the heart of this argument lies a fundamental question that refuses to go away:
What exactly was Lamidi Adedibu’s contribution to the development of Oyo State—beyond thuggery, electoral manipulation, and political chaos?
Adedibu and the Politics of Raw Power
Lamidi Adedibu remains one of the most powerful political figures Oyo State has ever produced—not because he held executive office, but because he controlled political outcomes. For decades, he functioned as the archetype of Nigerian political godfatherism: a man whose endorsement could make or break governors, legislators, and party structures.
This influence is not disputed. Adedibu was widely acknowledged as a kingmaker, particularly during the early years of the Fourth Republic. He mobilised grassroots supporters, dominated party machinery, and exerted near-absolute control over the political destiny of Ibadan and large parts of Oyo State.
But political influence is not the same as developmental impact. Roads, schools, hospitals, civil service reforms, economic expansion, institutional stability—these are the benchmarks by which states measure progress. On these metrics, even supporters struggle to point to tangible legacies traceable to Adedibu’s political dominance.
Instead, historical accounts consistently associate his era of influence with political violence, voter intimidation, factional warfare, and instability. Elections were frequently marred by chaos, and governance became secondary to survival within a brutal power structure.
The Rashidi Ladoja Factor: When Power Reversed Progress
No discussion of Adedibu’s legacy can be honest without addressing Governor Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja.
Ladoja’s impeachment in 2006—widely regarded by legal scholars and political observers as unconstitutional—remains one of the darkest chapters in Oyo State’s democratic history. The impeachment was later nullified by the courts, but by then, the damage had been done.
That singular political act set Oyo State back by years.
Rather than consolidating governance, the state plunged into prolonged instability. Policy continuity collapsed. Developmental momentum stalled. Governance became a theatre of vendettas rather than service delivery. Many analysts argue that Oyo State effectively lost at least eight years of progress, as leadership became hostage to godfather politics instead of voter mandate.
It is within this context that your assertion resonates deeply:
the selfish political abortion of Governor Ladoja’s mandate took Oyo State backwards.
Irony, Karma, and the Oyo @50 Symbolism
History has a way of turning full circle.
Today, the same Rashidi Ladoja who was forcefully removed from office during Adedibu’s reign of influence stands at the centre of Oyo State’s golden jubilee celebrations—not as a victim, but as a respected elder statesman.
As the Olubadan of Ibadanland and Chairman of the Council of Obas at Oyo @50, Ladoja was not only honoured but positioned symbolically at the heart of the state’s reflection on leadership, heritage, and progress.
For many observers, this moment feels less like coincidence and more like poetic justice.
The man once denied the opportunity to govern now represents continuity, dignity, and reconciliation. Meanwhile, the political godfather who engineered his removal is being debated—not celebrated.
Oyo @50: What Was the Anniversary Really About?
The Oyo State @50 celebration was not designed to be a popularity contest. Official messaging from the state government made it clear that the anniversary aimed to:
Reflect on institutional growth
Honour service, sacrifice, and stability
Celebrate individuals whose legacies strengthened governance and unity
Set a vision for the next 50 years
Honouring someone is not merely about historical relevance. It is about what that relevance represents.
This is why many citizens argue that excluding Adedibu was not an oversight but a deliberate moral choice—a signal that Oyo State seeks to distance its future from politics rooted in coercion rather than construction.
The Family’s Demand and the Public Backlash
The Adedibu family’s demand for inclusion is understandable from a personal standpoint. Families often seek historical recognition for their patriarchs, especially those who once commanded immense power.
However, public honour is not hereditary—it is earned.
The backlash that followed the letter reflects a broader societal shift. Increasingly, Nigerians are questioning whether political dominance without developmental outcomes deserves celebration.
The silence of the organisers following the letter is telling. It suggests that Oyo State’s leadership understands the symbolic danger of rewriting history without accountability.
Influence vs Impact: The Real Measure of Legacy
Lamidi Adedibu undeniably influenced Oyo State politics. But influence alone is not legacy.
A legacy is what remains when power is gone:
Did institutions improve?
Did governance become more transparent?
Did citizens’ lives materially improve?
Did democracy deepen or weaken?
By these measures, Adedibu’s era raises more red flags than monuments.
Even academic literature on Nigerian politics often cites his model of godfatherism as a case study in how informal power undermines democratic institutions.
Why This Debate Still Matters Today
This controversy is not about the past alone. It is about the future.
By refusing to romanticise political strongmen, Oyo State sends a message to the next generation:
power must be accountable, leadership must be constructive, and influence must translate into progress.
The elevation of Rashidi Ladoja at Oyo @50 reinforces this narrative. It affirms that legitimacy, patience, and institutional respect ultimately outlast brute political force.
Final Reflection: History Is Watching
So, are you wrong to ask these questions?
No. In fact, these are exactly the questions a society must ask at milestones like 50 years.
History is not neutral. It chooses what to honour—and what to caution against.
As Oyo State charts its next half-century, the debate around Lamidi Adedibu serves as a powerful reminder: not all powerful men are builders, and not all builders were powerful in their time.
Sometimes, progress begins when a society decides who not to glorify.
0 Comments