Osun Has Spoken: After 15 Months of Pressure, the People Refused to Be Bought
Maybe now they will finally release the money, now that all the deliberate frustrations appear to have failed.
For months, the political battle over Osun State has gone far beyond campaign rallies and party slogans. At the centre of the controversy has been the withholding of statutory allocations meant for the state’s 30 local government areas.
Available reports based on Federal Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC) figures indicate that about ₦201.962 billion in allocations due to Osun’s 30 local governments was withheld over a 15-month period covering March 2025 to May 2026. The amount reportedly included ₦131.5 billion withheld in 2025 and another ₦70.462 billion between January and May 2026.
The dispute was linked to the political and legal controversy surrounding Osun’s February 2025 local government elections and the competing claims over the legitimate councils. The Federal Government argued that the funds could not simply be released while the dispute remained unresolved. Osun, however, maintained that the withholding was unlawful.
The Supreme Court eventually struck out Osun’s suit on procedural grounds, holding that the state Attorney-General lacked the legal standing to sue on behalf of the local governments. Importantly, reports of the judgment also noted the court’s concerns regarding the constitutional obligation to ensure that local government funds reach the councils directly.
That is the context in which Governor Ademola Adeleke has had to operate amid an extraordinary political and financial battle.
And the pressure did not end there.
Just days before the governorship election, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) placed a Post-No-Debit restriction on an Osun State Government account. The EFCC said it had been investigating alleged financial irregularities involving about ₦11 billion in Ecology Funds, Intervention Funds and FAAC-related funds, and claimed that suspicious transfers prompted the preventive action.
Governor Adeleke and the state government challenged the legality of the restriction, arguing that the EFCC should not have frozen the account without a court order. The development immediately became another major political controversy in the already heated election atmosphere.
Then came the political mobilisation.
APC leaders and governors moved into Osun. Political heavyweights descended on the state. Resources were deployed. Powerful figures openly campaigned against Governor Adeleke, with the contest increasingly presented as a battle for political control of Osun.
But then came the people.
Despite the pressure, the political mobilisation, the promises and the distribution of food items reportedly offered during the campaign period, many Osun voters insisted that their votes belonged to them.
Rice could be collected.
Noodles could be collected.
Money could be offered.
But the PVC remained the property of the voter.
And that is perhaps the most significant message coming out of Osun.
The people refused to be intimidated. They stood their ground. They voted for the candidate they wanted and, according to reports from the election, voters and party agents remained at polling locations to protect the integrity of their ballots.
Whatever one's political affiliation, that democratic spirit deserves recognition.
Osun has demonstrated something Nigeria desperately needs to understand: political power may deploy money, machinery, influence and institutions, but the final decision still belongs to the people when citizens choose to defend their votes.
The lesson from Osun is therefore bigger than Governor Adeleke or the APC.
It is about the voter.
It is about the right of citizens to make their choice without intimidation.
It is about democracy surviving even when the political contest becomes fiercely unequal.
Osun people have spoken.
And for standing their ground, they deserve their flowers. 🌹🇳🇬
Note: Claims concerning political motives behind the withholding of funds or EFCC action remain contested by the parties involved; the documented facts above distinguish those allegations from the official explanations given by the Federal Government and EFCC.
0 Comments