Ondo state has once again become a focal point in Nigeria’s recurring debate on governance, leadership legitimacy, and the burden of expectations that follow political succession. While national discourse often gravitates towards Abuja, state governors carry an equally significant responsibility for security, development, and public welfare. In many cases, it is at the state level that citizens most directly experience the success or failure of government.
It is within this context that developments in Ondo state under Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa have continued to attract attention, scrutiny, and increasingly, controversy. In public conversations across the state, a growing number of residents have expressed dissatisfaction with what they describe as underperformance. Some have gone further to label the governor an “accidental governor”, a phrase that, while politically loaded, reflects a perception problem that has refused to fade.
As a stakeholder in Ondo state from Okitipupa Local Government Area and a journalist who has closely followed the state’s political transitions, I am constrained to add my voice to this discourse. I recall that during the political crisis in the twilight of the late Rotimi Akeredolu administration, I wrote extensively warning against attempts to remove Aiyedatiwa as deputy governor at a time when his principal was seriously ill. My interventions were rooted in a belief in constitutional order and political stability.
In April 2024 few days to the governorship primary of the APC, I published an article titled “Ondo 2024: Why APC Faithful Should Honour Akeredolu’s Wish”. In that piece, I referenced remarks made by the late Akeredolu at the International Culture and Event Centre (The Dome) on February 24, 2021, during his second-term inauguration which he prophesied that Aiyedatiwa will continue from where he stopped. Addressing Aiyedatiwa, Akeredolu said: “The name we give our children or the name we bear at times matters a lot. I want to congratulate this man. When they gave you ‘Lucky,’ they knew you would be lucky; now you are lucky… You have been loyal; you have been consistent. You’re worthy of this position, and I want to thank you for being considered to complete this journey with us. I have a maximum of four years; maybe you can proceed from there. It is for me now to come down and for you to grow. I must come down for you to grow; I have done my little bit. So, I congratulate you and your wife. I love you,” he stated.
Akeredolu further expressed confidence in his deputy’s trajectory, a remark widely interpreted as an endorsement of his capacity to eventually assume higher responsibility within the state’s political structure.
However, more troubling for many observers is the growing narrative that the current administration is not only grappling with governance delivery but also redefining its relationship with the late Akeredolu by deliberately embarking on policies aimed at erasing his legacies. His tenure remains a significant reference point in Ondo’s recent political history. Imperfect as it was, it is widely credited with firmness in security governance and decisive responses to communal and regional threats. For many residents, that period established a benchmark that successive administrations are expected to consolidate rather than disrupt.
The transition from Akeredolu to Aiyedatiwa, however, was anything but ordinary. It was shaped by illness, acting arrangements, internal party tensions, and ultimately succession under highly unusual circumstances. In such contexts, governance continuity often becomes entangled with political interpretation, and that tension continues to define public debate in the state.
Concerns have repeatedly been raised that elements of the previous administration’s policies and physical projects are being reversed or altered. One of the most frequently cited perspectives comes from Dr. Doyin Odebowale, a former Senior Special Assistant on Special Duties and Strategy to the late Akeredolu. He alleged in an interview that during Aiyedatiwa’s period as acting governor, and even after assuming office, certain actions reflected a departure from the previous administration’s direction.
In his words, “While Aketi was sick, and Lucky (Aiyedatiwa) was acting governor, the first thing he did was to remove two of the concrete. After Aketi died, the following week, he removed everything.”
While these claims remain disputed in political circles, they continue to circulate in public discourse and reinforce a narrative of discontinuity. In politics, perception often carries as much weight as policy, and in Ondo state today, perception is increasingly shaping how governance is assessed.
The political dimension of this tension is also evident within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in the state. Allegations have emerged that loyalists of the late Akeredolu were edged out or denied return tickets in the recent party primaries for both federal and state legislative positions. It is further alleged in some quarters that political loyalty is now being tested against shifting internal alignments within the party. While such claims remain politically sensitive and largely unverified, they have contributed to perceptions of a widening fault line within the state’s ruling structure.
Beyond party politics, the central issue remains governance delivery and public satisfaction. Critics argue that Ondo state has not witnessed the level of developmental momentum expected, particularly given its status as an oil-producing state.
In a widely circulated commentary, journalist and columnist Festus Adedayo described the situation in stark terms, writing that “since Aiyedatiwa came into the saddle two years ago… it has been a sorrowful tale of retarded and arrested development for Ondo State.” He further suggested that several projects showcased by the administration were largely inherited, raising questions about the originality of its development agenda.
He also described aspects of the government’s public presentation of projects as governance “tokenism”, citing roads such as Igoba, SIB Extension, Afunbiowo Housing Estate, and Ayegunle Iwaro-Oka as examples he believed fell short of transformative impact.
Although government officials, including the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice of Ondo state, Kayode Ajulo (SAN), have pushed back against such narratives, the persistence of these criticisms points to a deeper structural challenge: the gap between governance action and public perception. Where communication is weak or fragmented, public interpretation is often left to political actors and commentators.
The debate has also extended into civil society and activist circles. Omoyele Sowore, presidential candidate of the African Action Congress in the 2023 elections, has been particularly critical, describing Governor Aiyedatiwa in strongly negative terms and placing him among underperforming state leaders in the country. While his political posture is consistently confrontational, his interventions often amplify existing frustrations within sections of the public.
Taken together, these perspectives—from political actors, former aides, and commentators—form a composite picture of dissatisfaction that the state government cannot ignore. At the same time, governance assessment is rarely uniform. Governments often point to ongoing projects, fiscal constraints, and inherited obligations as necessary context for performance outcomes that may not immediately align with public expectations.
Still, perception remains central to political legitimacy. In Ondo state, the perception challenge appears compounded by a communication gap between government and citizens. Even where achievements exist, they are frequently overshadowed by dominant narratives of stagnation or policy reversal. In political environments, silence or limited engagement from government often risks being interpreted as absence of direction.
There is also a personal dimension to the current discourse. In earlier phases of political crisis in the state, the governor was widely regarded as accessible to media engagement and responsive to inquiries. More recently, however, attempts by observers and commentators to secure clarification on emerging allegations have reportedly gone unanswered. While this may be incidental, it reinforces a growing distance between the seat of power and public interrogation—one that can become politically costly if left unaddressed.
Ultimately, Ondo state finds itself at a familiar intersection in Nigerian politics: the tension between inherited legacy and present legitimacy. The late Akeredolu’s administration, regardless of its limitations, created a benchmark that continues to shape expectations. Any successor is therefore judged not only by independent performance, but also by how effectively they consolidate or improve upon what came before.
Governor Aiyedatiwa now carries that dual burden. Whether the criticisms levelled against his administration fully reflect reality or are amplified by political contestation, they nonetheless point to a growing expectation deficit that requires urgent attention. Governance, after all, is not only about policy execution, but also about sustaining public confidence in leadership direction.
