In response to an article by Senator Professor Sola Adeyeye, the current representative of Osun Central challenges Adeyeye’s support for Vice President Yemi Osinbajo as President Muhammadu Buhari’s preferred candidate over Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Adeyeye argues that Osinbajo’s loyalty to Buhari, coupled with his acceptance by the so-called “establishment,” makes him the better candidate, and he criticizes Tinubu, accusing him of being a threat to the political elite.

Adeyeye’s thesis is based on several claims, including that the presidency can only be won with the support of the political “establishment,” and that religious factors are often overblown in national politics. However, the response firmly counters these points, particularly questioning the notion that the establishment is the only key to winning the presidency. The senator points to Buhari’s 2015 election as evidence that political coalitions, not just elite backing, can lead to victory. Buhari’s win over an incumbent president demonstrated the strength of a united APC coalition, driven by key figures such as Tinubu, Chief Bisi Akande, and others—not by a nebulous “establishment.”

Additionally, the response criticizes Adeyeye’s dismissal of the role religion plays in Nigerian politics, particularly at the national level. The senator highlights how, in 2015, Osinbajo’s selection as vice president was heavily influenced by concerns over a Muslim-Muslim ticket, given Buhari’s image as a devout Muslim and the desire to appeal to southern Christians by choosing a Christian candidate from the South-West. The suggestion that religion does not matter in Nigerian politics, according to the response, is an oversimplification of the reality in a deeply religious country like Nigeria.

One of the strongest rebuttals in the response is against Adeyeye’s characterization of Tinubu as a “greedy blackmailer” who uses his wealth to manipulate political outcomes. The respondent sees these remarks as defamatory and baseless, noting that despite Tinubu’s wealth and influence, he has not held political office since 2007 and has never been indicted for corruption. Instead, the response paints Tinubu as a key player in the success of the APC and a loyal supporter of Buhari’s administration from the beginning.

Adeyeye’s claim that Tinubu must be kept away from the presidency because he would create a new political patronage system is dismissed as fearmongering. The response questions why Adeyeye would assume that a Tinubu presidency would harm Nigeria’s political landscape, especially given Tinubu’s past contributions to Nigerian democracy.

The response also challenges Adeyeye’s portrayal of Osinbajo’s rise to the vice presidency, which Adeyeye attributes to the Northern establishment’s recognition of his legal genius. The senator counters this claim by pointing out that Osinbajo’s emergence was part of a larger political agreement within the APC, not simply a Northern decision. To say that Osinbajo’s appointment was solely due to Northern recognition downplays the political negotiation and collaboration that took place within the APC, particularly between the North and South-West leaders.

Furthermore, the senator critiques Adeyeye’s insinuation that Buhari’s decision to retain Osinbajo as his running mate in 2019 is a clear signal that the president favors him as his successor in 2023. This argument is described as far-fetched, as there are many factors at play when choosing a vice president, and loyalty alone may not be enough to secure the presidency.

Finally, the response highlights the incongruity in Adeyeye’s article, where he simultaneously claims to know that Buhari supports Osinbajo, while also urging the president to make the case for Osinbajo to the Northern establishment. This inconsistency, the senator argues, reflects a lack of conviction in Adeyeye’s own position.

In conclusion, the senator criticizes Adeyeye for attempting to pit the so-called “establishment” against Tinubu while promoting Osinbajo’s candidacy. He views Adeyeye’s article as an effort to discredit Tinubu without substantial evidence, dismissing Tinubu’s contributions to the APC and his loyalty to Buhari. The response calls for a more respectful political discourse that focuses on facts and avoids defamatory remarks.