Critics question Adeola’s ancestry; supporters demand proof. Kunle Somorin argues claims require evidence, urging transparency, due process and facts over political theatre.
There are moments in politics when a controversy becomes so inflated that the only sensible response is to puncture it with the cold air of facts. The latest attempt to reopen the question of Senator Olamilekan Adeola’s Yewa identity is one of those moments.
Ambassador Folake Marcus-Bello, former Nigerian Ambassador to Malawi and a prominent figure in the Peoples Democratic Party, has again declared that Adeola is not from Yewa. She speaks with the confidence of someone who claims to possess documentary evidence to settle the matter. If that is so, nobody should be more eager than those of us who care about Ogun to see the evidence.
This is not an appeal to shield Adeola from scrutiny. Quite the contrary. A man seeking to govern a state of nearly six million people should expect his past, credentials, antecedents and even ancestry to be examined. Public office is not a monastery, and candidates do not enjoy immunity from questions.
But those who make serious allegations carry a corresponding obligation: assertion must graduate into evidence. In a democracy, one does not win an argument merely by announcing that one has documents. One produces them and allows them to be tested.
Marcus-Bello insists Adeola is not Yewa. Very well. From where, then? If the contention is that he is from Ekiti State, which part? Which town? Which local government? Which family? Which compound? Who are the ancestors? What traditional authority recognises that lineage? What record establishes it?
When was the alleged migration from Ekiti to Ogun made? Who witnessed it? Where is the family history that supports the alternative account? These are not hostile questions. They are the natural questions that follow from such an allegation.
Yet the alternative genealogy remains strangely imprecise. A genealogy cannot be established by negation. If a man is said not to belong to Family A, the serious question is which Family B he belongs to. Otherwise, what we have is insinuation, not history.
Marcus-Bello reportedly referred to her late father’s burial programme, claiming it contains Adeola’s oríkì and progeny. If so, let the record speak. Publish the relevant page or pages. Allow those versed in Yewa genealogy to interpret it. If there is a book containing allegations, identify the specific passage and sources. There is no virtue in keeping evidence under wraps while demanding that the accused disprove what has not been shown. That is not how serious historical inquiry works. Nor is it how consequential political allegations should be handled.
It is also important to separate unrelated claims. A defective party primary, assuming one occurred, does not establish a false genealogy. A disputed genealogy does not establish that a primary was invalid. Each allegation must carry its own evidence.
The temptation to fuse the two is understandable in partisan politics. Once a candidate is presented as simultaneously an illegitimate nominee and an illegitimate indigene, the public is encouraged to regard the entire candidacy as suspect. But the law, history and common sense require a more disciplined approach.
In Yoruba society, ancestry is not abstraction. It is carried in family memory, oríkì, compounds, lineage, community recognition and the testimony of custodians of history. Traditional rulers are guardians of that inheritance. But cultural recognition and legal qualification are not identical.
A chieftaincy title is not a court judgment; an oríkì is not an affidavit; a burial programme is not, by itself, a judicial declaration of eligibility.
That distinction cuts both ways. If Adeola has been publicly recognised within Yewaland and received traditional honours, those who say such recognition is fraudulent must explain why. Which institutions were deceived? What information was presented? Did custodians of Yewa history object? Have any withdrawn recognition? If not, why should an unproduced document mentioned on television outweigh years of communal recognition?
This controversy is bigger than Adeola or Marcus-Bello. It is about the quality of political discourse in Ogun State.
For more than a quarter of a century of the Fourth Republic, and its entire 50 years of creation, Ogun has had governors from Central and East, while West has produced none. Adeola’s emergence as APC candidate has therefore acquired significance beyond his personal ambition. For many in Ogun West, his candidacy is an opportunity to translate the longstanding argument of rotation into reality.
That makes his ancestry a politically potent issue. It also makes it essential that the argument be settled with facts, not folklore.
Opponents have every democratic right to challenge Adeola – his record, his policies, his alliances. But if their principal objection is that he is not Yewa, then let them make that case with evidence. If the documentary record shows a false declaration, submit it to the appropriate authority. If there is a genuine question of qualification, litigate it. We have laws on libel, perjury, misrepresentation, slander, impersonation, etc. If there is a conflict between genealogies, let custodians of history and, where necessary, the courts examine it. He who alleges must prove.
There is a Yoruba wisdom: Òtíto kì í sewon; bí a bá fi sínú àpótí, ojo kan á jáde—truth cannot be imprisoned forever; even when locked away, the day comes when it emerges. If Adeola is not of Yewa ancestry, let the evidence survive daylight. If he is, that too will survive daylight. Identify the alleged Ekiti origin. Name the community. Produce the genealogical record. Show the burial programme. Explain the oríkì. If there is a legally relevant false declaration, present it. Then let the public judge.
Adeola, for his part, should not respond merely with indignation. He should answer comprehensively. Place his genealogical records alongside those offered against him. Let elders and custodians of Yewa history speak. Truth becomes stronger under scrutiny.
The most sensible position now is neither to canonise Adeola nor demonise his accusers. It is simply to insist on evidence. Ogun has more important decisions to make in 2027 than who can produce the more dramatic allegation. The state must choose among competing visions of governance, development, education, security and employment. It must decide which candidate has the competence and imagination to lead a complex, industrial and agrarian state.
The electorate cannot do so intelligently if the campaign degenerates into quarrels over documents nobody has seen. A governorship election involving millions should not be held hostage by an allegation whose most basic factual component remains unidentified. If Adeola is from Ekiti, say where in Ekiti. If he is not, establish where he is from. If the documents exist, publish them. If they prove nothing, say so. If there is a legal case, file it. If there is no case, then the political argument should move on.
Let the facts speak. Facts have no need for megaphones. They do not require television theatrics, whispered conspiracies or carefully suspended revelations. A genuine document does not become more authentic because its owner promises to produce it later. A genealogy does not become truer because it is announced by a famous person. And an allegation does not become established history because it is repeated during a political campaign.
The people of Ogun deserve better. They deserve to know whether there is, in fact, a serious genealogical case against Adeola or whether a small controversy has simply been made to carry the weight of a much larger political anxiety. They deserve to know why, if the evidence is decisive, it has not been placed before the appropriate institutions. They deserve to know why the alleged Ekiti origin remains unnamed. Above all, they deserve a campaign in which candidates are judged by what they have done, what they propose to do and what they can credibly deliver.
The coming election will produce enough heat without politicians manufacturing extra smoke. So let the burial programme come. Let the oríkì come. Let the genealogy come. Let the alleged Ekiti connection be named. Let the records be examined. Let Adeola answer. Let the traditional custodians speak. Let the law, where necessary, have its say.
And after all the noise, let Ogun do what an electorate should do in a democracy: separate fact from fiction, evidence from insinuation, and substance from theatre.
Let the facts speak.
-Somorin writes from Abeokuta.