Adeleke–Wole Oke Rift Deepens As Aide Issues Strong Rejoinder Over Gov’s Claims

A fresh political confrontation has erupted in Osun State as allies of Ademola Adeleke and Wole Oke traded sharp words over governance performance, constituency interventions, and infrastructure delivery, deepening tensions ahead of the next electoral cycle.

The dispute was triggered by remarks attributed to the governor and followed by a strongly worded rejoinder issued on behalf of the federal lawmaker representing Oriade/Obokun Federal Constituency.

The response, signed by Omolebi-Sunday Segun Tunde, described the governor’s comments as “a demonstration of astonishing illiteracy in governance” and alleged a “troubling inability to comprehend the workings of government.”

According to the statement, the governor’s remarks reflect “an almost unvarnished misunderstanding of public administration, particularly the doctrine of separation of powers and the constitutional roles assigned to each tier of government.”

It further argued that governance “is not conducted on social media platforms or through emotionally charged press releases,” but must rest on “constitutional clarity, fiscal responsibility, and institutional collaboration.”

The rebuttal framed the disagreement not merely as political rhetoric but as a contest over responsibility and performance. It claimed that while “executive absenteeism has defined governance in Ijesa North Federal Constituency,” the federal lawmaker had repeatedly intervened to fill what it described as gaps in state action.

Among the interventions listed were payment of fees for students across nine technical colleges in the state, funding of Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board forms for indigent candidates, facilitation of projects through the Tertiary Education Trust Fund, and construction of classrooms in communities said to have been neglected.

The statement maintained that these efforts were not “political theatre” but “responses to governance gaps left unattended by the state executive.”

At the centre of the current controversy is the Ere-Ilahun bridge in the Oriade/Obokun axis, whose collapse nearly two years ago, according to the rejoinder, caused prolonged hardship for residents.

The statement noted that the bridge and adjoining road were captured in the state’s 2025 budget cycle, yet communities endured what it described as “economic setbacks and dangerous commuting conditions,” while “the silence from the state executive was deafening.”

It further alleged that when the federal lawmaker “dispatched a technical team and sought state collaboration for palliative measures,” the state government announced contractor mobilisation through a member of the state assembly.

“Nearly two years later, nothing meaningful happened,” the statement claimed, arguing that renewed infrastructure attention now reflects “election fever” rather than sustained planning.

The rejoinder also questioned what it described as uneven development priorities, asking why certain areas allegedly received accelerated attention while others faced delays. It cited emergency road work near Bola Ige House in Abeere as evidence of what it called “political panic and fear of electoral rejection.”

Beyond infrastructure, the statement raised broader governance concerns, alleging administrative lapses and suggesting that leadership requires “awareness, decisiveness, and ownership of outcomes.” It warned that where these are lacking, “governance becomes vulnerable to manipulation, inefficiency, and public distrust.”

Posturing the dispute in electoral terms, the lawmaker’s camp insisted that constituents are capable of judging performance for themselves.

“The people of Ijesa North are discerning,” the statement said. “They know abandonment when they see it, and they know opportunistic interventions when elections approach.”

It added that “leadership is validated not by press statements but by impact,” maintaining that the lawmaker’s record reflects “maturity in public service, depth in legislative competence, and sincerity in constituency engagement.”

The exchange underscores a widening political divide within the state, with infrastructure delivery, representation, and executive responsibility now central to the public debate.

As political temperature rises, the contest between competing narratives of performance and accountability appears set to shape both governance discourse and voter perception in the months ahead.