Chief Jubril Dotun Sanusi, the Okanlomo Odua and Gbonka Olubadan of Ibadanland, has rejected suggestions that unidentified individuals were behind his recent criticism of the administration of Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde, declaring emphatically that “there is no masquerade” behind his statement.
Sanusi said he personally authored and signed the controversial intervention and remains prepared to defend every word before the public.
His response followed an article by Ibadan-based lawyer Morohunkola Thomas, who had challenged Sanusi to identify the specific grievances behind his criticism of Governor Makinde and questioned who was actually responsible for the original statement.
But Sanusi has now shifted the argument from personalities to performance, insisting that the central issue should not be who wrote the statement but what the evidence says about Oyo State after more than seven years of the Makinde administration.
«“There is no masquerade. The statement was mine. The convictions are mine. The concerns are mine. And I am prepared to defend every word in the full daylight of public scrutiny.”»
Sanusi: Acknowledging Projects Is Not the Same as Declaring Success
Importantly, Sanusi did not deny that the Makinde administration has recorded achievements.
He acknowledged road and bridge construction, interventions in education, healthcare and agriculture, recruitment exercises and rural development initiatives. Among the administration's documented education-related achievements are the assumption of sole ownership of LAUTECH and the upgrading of Emmanuel Alayande College of Education into a university.
The Oyo-Iseyin Road, agricultural interventions and primary healthcare upgrades have also featured prominently in the administration's development programme. Recent reporting on Sanusi's response cited the 34.85-kilometre Oyo-Iseyin Road, agricultural support programmes and the upgrading of 66 primary healthcare centres.
His argument, however, is that the existence of projects should not automatically settle the question of whether governance has been sufficiently people-oriented.
“Acknowledging projects is not the same thing as declaring seven years of universally ‘people-friendly’ governance. That distinction is fundamental,” he argued.
For Sanusi, the real test of governance should be measurable improvements in citizens' lives: poverty reduction, household purchasing power, employment, education outcomes, healthcare delivery, agricultural productivity and the overall quality of public services.
“What Did Government Build—and What Did It Obligate?”
Sanusi has also called for closer scrutiny of Oyo State's finances, arguing that infrastructure development must be assessed alongside the financial obligations incurred in delivering it.
He wants the public debate to examine revenue, internally generated revenue, FAAC allocations, borrowing, debt servicing, capital expenditure and actual budget implementation.
Oyo State's own 2025 third-quarter budget performance report, for example, projected total revenue of about ₦984 billion after supplementary budgeting and reported ₦265.15 billion in FAAC-related revenue performance by the end of the third quarter.
Sanusi's position is that such figures should not merely exist in government documents; they should become part of an accessible public conversation about value for money.
“A responsible government must be judged by both sides of its balance sheet: What did it build—and what did it obligate future taxpayers to pay?” he asked.
Respect for Makinde Does Not Mean Silence
Sanusi also rejected the suggestion that his intervention represents a personal war against Governor Makinde.
“There is no war between me and Governor Makinde,” he stated, while stressing that respect for the office of governor should not translate into silence.
He explained that his warning about the dangers of “praise singers” was not necessarily directed at a particular individual but at the broader danger of political echo chambers in which leaders hear applause more readily than criticism.
His argument is straightforward: government supporters have every right to defend an administration, but criticism should also be allowed without automatically being interpreted as hostility or political betrayal.
The Debate Has Now Moved to Evidence
Sanusi has challenged the Oyo State Government to provide a comprehensive 2019–2026 governance scorecard covering revenue, expenditure, debt, infrastructure, education, healthcare, agriculture, employment, poverty reduction, procurement and project implementation.
He wants such information subjected to scrutiny by economists, engineers, accountants, academics, civil society organisations, journalists and ordinary citizens.
“That is the debate I want. Not insults. Not insinuations. Not ‘masquerade.’ Not ‘friends who became enemies.’ Facts. Figures. Documents. Outcomes,” Sanusi declared.
The Public Reaction: GSM's Legacy or Cost-Benefit Questions?
The controversy has already generated sharply divided reactions.
Supporters of Governor Makinde point to his administration's record, including road construction, teacher recruitment, institutional expansion, LAUTECH's return to sole ownership by Oyo State and the transformation of Emmanuel Alayande College of Education into a university.
Some commenters argue that no administration can accomplish everything and that Makinde's performance should be judged comparatively against previous governments.
Others, however, agree with Sanusi that achievements should be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. One recurring argument in the public discussion is that completing projects is only one part of governance; the more difficult question is whether those projects have produced proportional economic and social benefits for ordinary citizens.
Another strand of commentary has focused on Sanusi's business interests and the condition of infrastructure and public services around his Ilaji-related investments, with some arguing that a businessman directly affected by infrastructure deficiencies has a legitimate reason to demand better public services.
These opposing views ultimately reinforce Sanusi's central challenge: if government achievements are measurable, they should be defended with measurable evidence—and if criticism is being made, it should equally withstand factual scrutiny.
For Sanusi, the argument is therefore no longer about the identity of a supposed “masquerade.”
The man behind the statement has stepped forward.
“Oyo State belongs to all of us—not to PDP, APC or any individual politician. Government comes and goes. Governors come and go. Political parties come and go. But Oyo State remains.”
And with the 2027 political conversation already beginning to shape public discourse, the battle over Governor Makinde's legacy may increasingly be fought not merely through political slogans, but over competing interpretations of the numbers, projects and lived experiences of the people of Oyo State.
0 Comments