How the party weakened its own candidates before the primary and is now paying the price
How did the All Progressives Congress (APC) get to this point, a situation in which some of its members are openly attacking the party’s platform and, in some cases, throwing their weight behind the opposition Allied Peoples Movement (APM)?
To understand the present crisis, it is important to go back to where the problem began.
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐁𝐄𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐀A𝐉𝐀
The faaja did not start today. The seeds of the present crisis were sown long before the governorship primary.
In the build-up to the primary, supporters of several APC aspirants became increasingly preoccupied with stopping candidates they considered stronger contenders. Instead of allowing the primary to determine who had the broadest support, different camps engaged in attacks that often damaged the image of fellow party members.
Among the prominent aspirants at the time were Oloye Adebayo Adelabu ( Penkelemesi) , Oloye Teslim Folarin, Senator Fatai Buhari, Barr. Akeem Agbaje, Engr. Remi Olaniyan, Engr. Remi Oseni and Dr. Muyiwa Gbadegesin.
The contest was expected to be competitive. What became troubling, however, was the extent to which supporters of the various aspirants began working against one another.
In their attempt to weaken perceived rivals, some supporters appeared to lose sight of the larger objective: building a strong party capable of winning the general election.
𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐊𝐄𝐋𝐄𝐒𝐈 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐅𝐀𝐓𝐀𝐈 𝐁𝐔𝐇𝐀𝐑𝐈
One of the earliest major battles was between supporters of Oloye Adebayo Adelabu Penkelemesi and Senator Fatai Buhari (Oyo North Senator)
When it became apparent that, several members of the House of Representatives from Oyo State were aligning with Adelabu, some Buhari supporters intensified their attacks against him.
Questions were raised about the Bayo Adelabu Foundation, popularly known as BAF, with some critics drawing attention to the similarity between the acronym and Buhari AbdulFatai’s initials.
Others accused Adelabu of attempting to benefit from Senator Buhari’s popularity and political goodwill.
His record as Minister of Power also came under scrutiny. Critics questioned what they considered his inability to secure sufficient employment opportunities for indigenes of Oyo State, while others dismissed some of his empowerment initiatives as the activities of a political “money bag”.
Even actions that might ordinarily have attracted commendation were sometimes interpreted through the prism of political rivalry.
The same political calculations appeared to influence opposition to Dr. Muyiwa Gbadegesin, whose emergence was considered by some as a potential threat to Buhari’s chances because of his Oke-Ogun base. Senator Teslim Folarin was also not spared occasional attacks.
There were, in addition, allegations that some pseudo-social media accounts were being used to amplify the campaign against perceived rivals.
The consequence was predictable: instead of building the strongest possible team for the primary, different camps were busy weakening one another.
𝐖𝐇𝐄𝐍 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐏𝐇𝐘 𝐋𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐈𝐁𝐀𝐃𝐀𝐍
The political temperature rose further after Adelabu’s preferred candidate, Abiodun Murphy, lost the Ibadan North bye-election.
Rather than allowing the defeat to remain part of the normal uncertainties of electoral politics, some supporters of rival aspirants reportedly seized the opportunity to ridicule Adelabu and question his political strength.
There were also reports that representations were made to party leaders in Abuja against his possible emergence as the party’s candidate.
Again, the broader party interest appeared secondary to the immediate objective of weakening a perceived contender.
That approach may have produced temporary political satisfaction for some camps, but it did little to strengthen the APC.
𝐅𝐎𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐍’𝐒 𝐂𝐀𝐌𝐏 𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐒 𝐁𝐀𝐂𝐊
Supporters of Senator Teslim Folarin were equally active in the political battle.
Some attacked lawmakers who supported Adelabu, accusing them of betraying Folarin. Others insisted that they would not support Adelabu if he eventually emerged, citing his decision to leave the APC in 2023 when Folarin secured the party’s governorship ticket.
When Adelabu was subsequently appointed a minister, the resentment in some quarters deepened, with some Folarin supporters arguing that the position ought to have gone to their principal.
Thus, the cycle continued.
Aspirants attacked aspirants. Supporters attacked supporters. Political camps worked to diminish the chances of those they perceived as threats.
Ironically, APC members were accomplishing what opposition parties would ordinarily spend considerable resources trying to achieve: weakening the ruling party from within.
𝐖𝐀𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄 𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐏𝐌 𝐌𝐀𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐍 𝐀𝐏𝐂?
Another dimension of the crisis deserves attention.
There were individuals who presented themselves as APC supporters but whose activities, according to observers, appeared to favour the opposition APM.
Names such as Adigun Ibadan and Ismail Bello have featured prominently in this debate.
Adigun Ibadan presented himself as a supporter of Senator Teslim Folarin while frequently criticising other APC aspirants and, at times, the party itself. Following the primary, he eventually moved openly towards the APM camp.
Ismail Bello, meanwhile, was particularly critical of Senator Fatai Buhari. His attacks extended beyond Buhari to other APC aspirants and some members of the National Assembly.
Whether these individuals were genuinely working for the APM from the outset is a question only they can answer.
But the political effect of such activities was clear: internal attacks weakened the APC and created an atmosphere in which the party’s opponents could benefit.
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐐𝐔𝐈𝐄𝐓 𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐆𝐘 𝐎𝐅 𝐒𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐅𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐈
Amid the intense rivalry was one relatively quiet player: Senator Sarafadeen Alli.
While several camps were publicly fighting, countering allegations and attacking one another, Alli kept his political ambition comparatively low-key.
As a result, he escaped much of the hostility directed at some of the more visible aspirants.
His eventual emergence therefore surprised many political pundits.
Some accused him of betrayal, arguing that he had not openly declared his ambition early enough.
But politics is also about strategy.
In retrospect, Alli’s relative silence may have worked to his advantage. While others were busy expending political capital fighting one another, he remained comparatively untouched.
When the political dust settled, he emerged as the candidate.
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐑𝐎𝐍𝐘 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐀𝐆𝐆𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐃
This is where the current situation becomes particularly interesting.
Some of those who spent months insisting that certain aspirants must not emerge are now complaining that various groups are not being carried along.
The questions being asked today include:
Why is Penkelemesi not being given a role?
Why is Fatai Buhari not being adequately recognised?
Why is Folarin’s political structure not being accommodated?
These are legitimate questions in a political organisation that requires broad-based support.
But there is another question worth asking.
If the candidate some of these individuals opposed so fiercely had emerged, would they have demanded the inclusion of rival camps?
Or would the party have witnessed another cycle of exclusion and political retaliation?
The reality is that some of today’s aggrieved members were themselves part of the political machinery that helped create the bitterness now threatening the party.
Not all grievances are insincere. Some party members genuinely feel excluded and have legitimate concerns.
But others appear to be driven primarily by personal interests, the ambitions of their principals or the bargaining power of their respective political camps.
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐘𝐏𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐈𝐒𝐘 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐀𝐆𝐆𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐃
Some aggrieved members have argued that they are dissatisfied because their groups were not carried along and have consequently chosen to support the APM against the APC.
But a simple question arises:
Does the APM automatically guarantee the inclusion they say they could not find in the APC?
Those who complain that the APC did not allow their groups to present candidates, even at the House of Assembly level, should equally explain whether the APM has provided them with that opportunity.
If it has not, then what exactly is the nature of the protest?
Is this truly about fairness and inclusion, or is it a political strategy aimed at punishing the APC because a particular individual or group did not get what it wanted?
Politics is undoubtedly about interests. But political disagreements should not compel politicians to destroy the platform through which they seek power.
YOU CANNOT DESTROY THE HOUSE AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ROOF
There is a lesson here for the APC.
The greatest threat to a political party does not always come from its opponents. Sometimes, it comes from within — through desperation to stop a perceived rival, propaganda against fellow aspirants, politics of bitterness and the inability to accept the outcome of a competitive process.
You cannot spend months destroying the reputation of fellow party members because you fear their emergence and then complain that the party is divided after the primary.
You cannot set fire to the house because your preferred room was not allocated to you and then complain that the house has become uncomfortable.
If the APC genuinely wants to remain competitive in Oyo State, the time has come to close ranks.
To the aggrieved, my message is simple:
You are a landlord in the Progressive family. Do not voluntarily become a tenant in the APM family.
Whatever your grievances may be, bring them to the table. Demand fairness. Negotiate. Seek reconciliation.
But do not destroy the house simply because you did not get the room you wanted.
The APC needs unity now more than ever. The party must learn from the wounds it inflicted on itself before the primary.
Otherwise, the same cycle of bitterness, division and political self-sabotage may return with even greater consequences.
Muhammed Abiola Abdfatai (Aryke-Afrika) is a political Affairs Analyst, Public Commentator and Social Critics. He writes from Pakanyin Compound, Saki, Oyo State.