The obsession with Sanwo-Olu

By: Anjolaoluwa Oladiti-Akinola

THE integrity of governance depends not only on the conduct of those in office, but also on the standards by which they are assessed. This is a no-brainer.

Fairness, objectivity and respect for due process are not optional. They are essential, especially when it’s time to evaluate those entrusted with public trust.

To abandon these principles, therefore, is to risk creating a system in which anyone can be declared guilty, not because of what they have done, but because of who they are perceived to know.

Against this backdrop, it has become imperative to interrogate a troubling trend, one that speaks to a deeper malaise within our political culture.

There appears to be a growing disposition, driven perhaps by unease with earned reputation, to draw the Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, into a matter to which no direct link has been established.

The controversy surrounding the asset forfeiture order issued by a Federal High Court in Abuja, involving Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Limited and businesswoman Aisha Achimugu, has in recent days assumed a dimension far removed from its legal origins.

What began as a dispute over the source and legitimacy of certain funds has now been stretched, regrettably, into the realm of political insinuation, with deliberate attempts to rope in the governor by association.

At the centre of the matter is a ruling secured by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which resulted in the final forfeiture of approximately $13 million linked to Achimugu’s firm.

In its judgment, the court held that the explanations provided regarding the origin of the funds did not sufficiently establish their legitimacy.

ALSO READ: My decision to join APC yielding positive results — Oborevwori 

Good thing, Oceangate has rejected any interpretation of the ruling as proof of wrongdoing.

The company insists that the forfeiture order was predicated on suspicion rather than conclusive evidence and has already taken steps to challenge the decision at the appellate level.

It has expressed confidence that a more exhaustive judicial review would provide clarity and, ultimately, vindication.

Instructively, this response is neither unusual nor improper. The right of appeal is a cornerstone of any credible legal system. It exists to ensure that contested decisions are subjected to further scrutiny and that justice is not reduced to a single, unreviewable outcome.

In invoking this process, Oceangate is acting within its legal rights, reinforcing, not undermining, the integrity of judicial procedure.

What is unusual, however, is the speed and eagerness with which certain narratives have attempted to extend the implications of this case beyond its legal boundaries.

Almost immediately, insinuations began to surface, drawing tenuous links between the matter and Governor Sanwo-Olu.

These claims, lacking substantiation, appear to rely solely on perceived associations rather than demonstrable evidence. It is this leap, from legal dispute to political implication, that raises serious concerns.

For the sake of preserving respect for dedication to excellence in governance, every deliberate attempt to manufacture controversy around the governor must be firmly condemned.

Suggestions of any investigation involving Babajide Sanwo-Olu by the EFCC, and coming from supposedly respected media groups, remain entirely baseless. Such narratives are nothing more than pointers to a broader agenda aimed at discrediting his administration as it approaches its conclusion.

Worthy of note is that this effort to paint the governor guilty by association is not an isolated incident. It reflects a growing pattern in which public figures are subjected to reputational attacks built on conjecture rather than fact.

Well-meaning Nigerians must, by this, rise to resist the normalisation of such tactics. They pose a significant threat to democratic engagement, shifting attention away from substantive issues and redirecting it towards manufactured controversies.

Indeed, what we are witnessing is the rise of a political culture that equates association with culpability. In this emerging climate, the mere suggestion of a connection, no matter how remote, becomes sufficient to trigger suspicion.

Evidence is relegated to the background, while narratives, often untested and unverified, take the centre stage. Once entrenched, such narratives are difficult to dislodge, regardless of their accuracy.

This tendency is particularly dangerous because it erodes one of the most fundamental principles of justice: that responsibility is personal and must be established through due process.

To attribute guilt by association is to abandon this principle entirely, replacing it with a form of collective suspicion that is both unjust and unsustainable.

In the case of Governor Sanwo-Olu, the implications are clear. By attempting to link him to a matter already before the courts, and in which no evidence has been presented implicating him, his critics are effectively inviting the public to reach conclusions ahead of facts. It is, in essence, an attempt to replace proof with perception.

More troubling still is the subtle but dangerous suggestion that such outcomes are inevitable, that once a public official leaves office, scrutiny must automatically translate into indictment.

This is the logic behind the quiet “pre-booking” of post-tenure investigations, a practice that reduces accountability to a predetermined script rather than a process guided by evidence.

Such thinking is not only warped; it is profoundly damaging. It creates an environment in which public service is viewed not as an opportunity for impact, but as a prelude to suspicion.

It discourages capable individuals from stepping into public life and undermines the morale of those already committed to serving.

The tenure of Babajide Sanwo-Olu has been defined by a clear policy direction and a sustained effort to position Lagos as a modern, economically competitive city. Like any administration, it is not beyond critique.

However, such critique must be anchored on verifiable performance metrics, policy outcomes and governance decisions, not in speculative associations that lack evidentiary backing.

The distinction is critical. A society that cannot differentiate between legitimate scrutiny and opportunistic insinuation risks losing its capacity for objective assessment. It becomes vulnerable to manipulation, with public opinion shaped less by facts and more by the persistence of often malicious narratives.

The issues surrounding Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Limited will, in due course, be resolved through the appellate process. That is as it should be. The courts remain the appropriate place for determining the merits of the case, and their eventual pronouncement will carry the authority of law.

What must be resisted, however, is the temptation to convert that legal process into a political spectacle, one in which a sitting governor is judged not on the basis of evidence, but on the strength of association.

As Lagos approaches the end of the current administration, there is a need for sobriety in public discourse. This is a moment that should be defined by reflection, evaluation and forward planning, not by the projection of unverified claims or the amplification of mere speculation!

At the end of the day, governance must retain its dignity, and service must retain its honour. Dignity and honour are not mere ideals; they are the foundations upon which public trust is built. And without them, both governance and democracy stand diminished.

•Oladiti-Akinola wrote in from Ikoyi, Lagos