The recent attempt by the Oyo State opposition to discredit Hon. Bimbo Adekanmbi over his business interests is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Rather than expose any wrongdoing, the attack has only highlighted the opposition’s apparent inability to distinguish legitimate enterprise from political controversy.
In any progressive society, individuals aspiring to public office are expected to have a means of livelihood, a profession, or a business beyond politics. Having what is commonly described as a “second address” demonstrates independence, responsibility, and the ability to survive outside the corridors of power. It is certainly not a crime.
Hon. Adekanmbi’s ownership of a construction company, reportedly alongside his wife, should not be presented as a scandal. Rather, it reflects his involvement in the private sector and offers practical exposure to construction, property development, employment generation, and the realities of running a business. These are valuable experiences that can contribute meaningfully to public service when combined with integrity, accountability, and sound judgment.
The APC’s attempt to portray legitimate business ownership as suspicious raises a fundamental question: when did entrepreneurship become a liability for anyone aspiring to lead Oyo State? Building a business, creating jobs, meeting financial obligations, and navigating the challenges of a competitive industry are responsibilities that demand discipline and practical decision-making.
Enterprise should not automatically qualify anyone for public office, just as owning a business should not disqualify anyone from seeking it. What matters is the individual’s record, competence, character, public-service credentials, and commitment to the welfare of the people. If the opposition has credible evidence of wrongdoing, it should present the facts rather than rely on insinuations designed to generate political controversy.
Indeed, the private sector provides valuable lessons in resource management, strategic planning, accountability, and results-oriented leadership. Oyo State needs leaders who understand how businesses operate, how jobs are created, and how economic opportunities can be expanded. Such experience can be an asset to governance, provided it is deployed in the public interest.
Instead of attempting to demonise legitimate business interests, the APC should explain why it considers private-sector experience a source of suspicion. More importantly, it should present a convincing account of its own candidate’s professional background, business interests, achievements, and record in public office.
The question of what businesses or professional interests the APC candidate has pursued outside politics is a legitimate one, just as questions about Adekanmbi’s business dealings would be legitimate if supported by credible evidence. Public scrutiny must be consistent, factual, and fair; it should not become a selective instrument for political attacks.
The opposition must also be prepared to defend its candidate’s record as a former local government chairman and senator. Voters have every right to assess the achievements, shortcomings, and overall performance of anyone seeking to govern the state. However, such an assessment should be based on verifiable records and measurable outcomes, not personal attacks or unsubstantiated claims.
Before lecturing the people of Oyo State on business, land administration, and economic development, the APC should demonstrate what its candidate has accomplished and present a credible vision for the state’s future. Elections should be contests of ideas, experience, integrity, and capacity—not competitions in political mudslinging.
As the popular saying goes, “When you point one finger at someone, three fingers point back at you.” Political campaigns often encourage opponents to magnify one another’s perceived weaknesses, but discerning voters understand the importance of looking beyond sensational headlines to examine the facts.
Ultimately, the people of Oyo State deserve a serious conversation about economic growth, infrastructure, employment, investment, land administration, and effective governance. They deserve candidates whose records can withstand scrutiny and whose plans offer practical solutions to the challenges facing the state.
There is a clear difference between constructive scrutiny and politically motivated attacks, just as there is a difference between offering ideas and merely generating noise. The APC should understand that legitimate entrepreneurship is not evidence of misconduct, and business ownership alone is neither proof of competence nor a reason for disqualification.
Oyo State deserves substance over sensationalism, evidence over insinuation, and a campaign focused on the future rather than the manufacture of controversy.
