WETIE? Never Again!
By ‘Wale Akinremi
One of the most admirable hallmarks of Governor Seyi Makinde was his simplicity—an attribute expressed through his measured speech, calm disposition, and economy of words.
In temperament and style, he stood in marked contrast to figures such as Bola Ige, Lam Adesina, and Abiola Ajimobi.
The people of Oyo State—particularly the Ìbàdàn populace, renowned for their sharp interpretive instincts and tendency to interrogate public utterances—found little to contest in his statements. There was restraint. There was discipline. There was dignity.
Then came the controversy surrounding the Circular Road corridor.
From the moment Governor Makinde addressed the affected, largely vulnerable landlords with an unusual firmness—some would say severity—something shifted. A new confidence emerged: one that seemed to dispense with caution, one that abandoned the delicate art of measured speech. This transformation was neither anticipated nor, arguably, necessary.
He remained resolute—unyielding, even—in the face of criticisms regarding what many perceived as harsh acquisition policies and the demolition of properties belonging to ordinary citizens.
From that point, a pattern began to take shape: a growing boldness, at times veering into audacity.
The Olubadan chieftaincy matter followed.
The delicate equilibrium of the Oyomesi was unsettled.
He engaged the Alaafin, only to later direct political pressure toward the same institution.
(For the sake of restraint, I will not delve into the Soun stool controversy.)
Then came a particularly striking moment: the Governor publicly disclosed a private conversation with the President—an unusual departure from the conventions of political discretion. Yet, in that same breath, there was no mention of the reported ₦50 billion federal support provided to cushion the devastating effects of the Bodija explosion.
Ibadan, his political stronghold and administrative capital, soon became the epicentre of his political confrontation with Nyesom Wike.
Rumours also surfaced regarding an alleged attempt to depose the Olubadan—claims publicly amplified by Peter Ayodele Fayose, who also drew attention to the financial relief linked to the Bodija incident.
Gradually, the once quiet, composed, and widely respected public servant appeared to evolve into a more combative, outspoken, and, at times, intemperate figure.
On 25 April, 2026, he convened a gathering of notable political figures in Ibadan—an event styled as a National Opposition Summit.
In principle, this is commendable. A democracy devoid of a vibrant opposition risks degenerating into authoritarianism. The willingness of opposition leaders to organise, engage, and assert themselves is a welcome development—though they are yet to replicate the formidable opposition once mounted by the All Progressives Congress against the then ruling People’s Democratic Party.
Only the undemocratic—or the intellectually indifferent—would fear a strong opposition.
History offers precedent. The Action Group under Obafemi Awolowo, and later the Unity Party of Nigeria, never merely opposed the Federal Government; they outperformed it within their jurisdictions—articulating bold, forward-looking policies that inspired national progress.
Thus, yesterday’s gathering in Ibadan was, in many respects, a positive signal.
Nigeria cannot afford complacency in its democratic journey—especially in a context where individuals such as David Bonaventure Mark, often criticised for anti-democratic tendencies, remain prominent beneficiaries of that same democratic system.
Yet, despite its promise, the meeting was once again overshadowed by a troubling rhetorical misstep.
For a sitting governor—a Yoruba man, and indeed one associated with Ibadan—to invoke “WETIE” is not merely inappropriate; it is profoundly unsettling.
“WETIE” is not a metaphor to be deployed lightly. It evokes a dark chapter in our history—a period marked by violence, destruction, fractured communities, and irreparable loss. It tore apart families, consumed properties, and destabilised entire regions. That such a reference could be made by a Chief Security Officer of a state is, at best, deeply unfortunate; at worst, an inexcusable lapse in judgment.
For months now, I have sought—quietly—to caution against this emerging pattern of unrestrained rhetoric. Leadership demands not only strength but restraint; not only courage but prudence.
There exists a thin line in politics between popular support and public disillusionment. It is a line that must never be ignored.
Sir, why depart from the very style that earned you admiration and respect?
Why abandon the discipline that once defined your leadership?
It is my earnest hope that you succeed and attain greater heights. But the political terrain is inherently slippery—unforgiving to even the most seasoned actors.
Remember, Sir: in politics, when the chips are down, you are ultimately On Your Own.
