FROM OPPOSITION TO OBSESSION? WHEN CRITICISM OF MAKINDE LOSES ITS BALANCE

There is nothing wrong with opposing Governor Seyi Makinde. In a democracy, the government must be questioned, scrutinised and held accountable. Indeed, Oyo State needs a strong opposition and a vibrant media that will interrogate government policies, expose weaknesses and demand answers.

But opposition becomes less effective when every government action is presumed wrong, every explanation is dismissed, and criticism gradually becomes personal.

This is where the recent writings of journalist and public commentator Sola Abegunde deserve a closer examination.

Abegunde has established himself as one of the consistent critics of the Makinde administration. That role is legitimate. The question, however, is whether the tone and frequency of his criticism are now beginning to overshadow the substance of the issues he raises.

When every road leads to Makinde

A look at some of Abegunde’s recent publications suggests a pattern.

In his February 2026 article, “Oyo 2027 And Governor Seyi Makinde’s Cockroach Horse,” Abegunde went beyond questioning the governor’s political calculations and described Makinde in deeply personal terms, accusing him of being a prisoner of his ego and suggesting that he was suffering from “delusional patterns.”

In another article published in July 2026, “OmiTuntun3.0: A Disaster That Must Not Happen in Oyo,” he questioned the government's spending on Light Up Oyo, surveillance aircraft and an airstrip project. Those are legitimate issues for public debate. But the article's framing was overwhelmingly negative, with the administration's entire leadership model described as something Oyo State could not survive for another two years.

Then came “Oyo 2027: Inside Governor Seyi Makinde’s Crumbling Empire,” in which the administration was repeatedly portrayed as an empire destined to crumble. The article also made assertions concerning political relationships and the nomination of a gubernatorial candidate, some of which were presented as political interpretation rather than established fact.

More recently, in “Re: FG Excludes Makinde From Oyo Event—A Needless Distraction,” Abegunde described the Oyo State Government's reaction to the alleged exclusion of Makinde from the flag-off of the Ibadan-Ijebu-Ode road as “crying and wailing,” while comparing the government's reaction to that of a child whose snack had been taken away.

Again, disagreement is perfectly legitimate. But does such language strengthen the argument—or simply make the disagreement more personal?

Criticism should interrogate, not ridicule

There is a fundamental difference between saying:

“The government should explain how this project was funded and demonstrate value for money.”

And saying:

“The government is crying and wailing like a baby.”

The first demands accountability. The second may generate attention, but it risks reducing a serious public conversation to personality politics.

The same applies to his August 2026 article, “Surveillance Aircraft: The Debtor Paid Up His Debt.” Abegunde questioned the quality and value of the aircraft acquired by the state and correctly acknowledged that he was not an aviation expert and would await expert opinions.

That is actually the kind of approach that strengthens opposition journalism: raise the question, demand documentation and allow evidence to determine the conclusion.

The opposition must also acknowledge what works

An effective critic does not necessarily have to praise the government. But credibility is enhanced when criticism is balanced by acknowledgement of measurable achievements.

If salaries are being paid promptly, say so. If a road is completed successfully, acknowledge it. If a policy is delivering results, give credit—and then ask whether it could have been done better.

Otherwise, when virtually every project, statement, appointment and political decision is presented as evidence of failure, readers may begin to wonder whether the objective is accountability or simply opposition for opposition's sake.

That concern is not new. In July 2025, Tribune published a response titled “Sola Abegunde’s Obsession with Governor Makinde,” which similarly accused him of making Makinde-bashing a recurring feature of his commentary.

The fact that such criticism of his approach has itself become a recurring theme should perhaps prompt some reflection.

A barking dog or a watchdog?

A democracy needs watchdogs, not barking dogs.

A watchdog watches carefully, alerts the public when something is wrong and distinguishes a real threat from an ordinary movement.

A dog that barks at everything eventually loses the attention of those it is supposed to protect.

That should be the warning for every opposition commentator—not just Abegunde.

Governor Makinde is not above criticism. Neither is the opposition above criticism. Government supporters should not be expected to clap at everything the governor does, just as opposition figures should not be expected to condemn everything he does.

The real question should always be:

What are the facts? What is the evidence? What is the cost? Who benefits? What are the alternatives? And what does the policy mean for the people of Oyo State?

That is the standard that should guide political journalism.

Abegunde has every right to oppose Makinde and challenge his government. But if the criticism is to influence voters rather than merely entertain political camps, it must increasingly move from personal denunciation to evidence-based interrogation.

The 2027 political season will undoubtedly produce more disagreements, accusations and counter-accusations. Oyo people deserve better than a contest of insults.

They deserve facts over fury, scrutiny over sentiment, policy over personality, and accountability over propaganda.

Opposition is necessary. Criticism is healthy. But when criticism becomes predictable, personal and absolute, it risks losing the very credibility that makes it powerful.