By Kayode Olasekun
The recent article titled “Fayemi’s Karma Arrived Sooner Than Anyone Envisaged” reads less like political analysis and more like a carefully curated exercise in bitterness, selective memory, and historical revisionism. While criticism is legitimate in a democracy, deliberate attempts to reduce the political journey of Dr. Kayode Fayemi to a caricature of ingratitude and betrayal deserve a measured but firm response.
First, it is important to state clearly that Dr. Fayemi has never denied the historic role played by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in Nigeria’s pro-democracy struggle or in the evolution of progressive politics in the Fourth Republic. Those contributions are matters of public record and should remain respected. However, acknowledging another man’s influence does not require the permanent surrender of one’s individuality, intellect, ambition or political agency.
The dangerous logic underpinning the article is that anyone who once benefited from political support forfeits the right to independent thought forever. That is not democracy; that is feudalism.
Dr. Fayemi’s rise cannot honestly be explained merely as a gift handed to him by another politician. Before elective office, Fayemi had already established himself internationally as a respected scholar, democracy advocate, policy intellectual, and human rights activist. His role in the struggle against military dictatorship, particularly during the dark years after June 12, was neither decorative nor accidental. He earned his place in Nigeria’s democratic evolution through sacrifice, intellect, and consistency.
To suggest that Fayemi became governor solely because of one man’s benevolence is unfair both to him and to the people of Ekiti State who voted for him.
The article also attempts to criminalise political ambition. In every healthy democracy, leaders aspire to higher office. Fayemi contesting the APC presidential primary in 2022 was not an act of betrayal; it was an exercise of democratic rights within a constitutional process. The same party that accommodated multiple presidential aspirants eventually produced Bola Tinubu as candidate and Fayemi publicly supported him thereafter. That is how politics works in mature democracies.
More troubling is the repeated reliance on rumours, “credible sources,” unnamed insiders, and speculative conspiracy theories masquerading as evidence. At several points, even the writer admits there is “no credible evidence” for some of the allegations raised. Yet those allegations are still woven together to manufacture a narrative of disloyalty. Responsible commentary should distinguish between verifiable facts and politically motivated gossip.
The portrayal of Fayemi as anti-democratic is equally misleading. No administration is perfect, and political grievances are inevitable in every system. But Fayemi’s record in Ekiti includes major investments in education, social welfare, infrastructure, gender inclusion, public sector reforms, and institutional governance. Even many of his critics acknowledge his intellectual depth and policy-driven leadership style. Reducing an entire public career to isolated grievances from disappointed political aspirants is neither balanced nor serious.
Interestingly, the same qualities now mocked in Fayemi, intellectual independence, willingness to question party structures, and openness to internal reform — are qualities Nigerians once demanded from political leaders. Democracy cannot thrive if party members are expected to remain permanently silent in the face of internal concerns simply because of past political alliances.
Loyalty is valuable in politics, but loyalty should not become servitude.
Furthermore, history should not be rewritten to suggest that every accomplished individual around President Tinubu lacks merit of their own. Men like Fayemi and Professor Yemi Osinbajo attained prominence not merely because they were favoured, but because they possessed competence, credibility, and national appeal.
Mentorship matters, yes, but so does merit.
Ultimately, this entire attack says more about the anxieties within Nigeria’s political culture than it does about Kayode Fayemi. We have become so accustomed to patron-client politics that we now interpret independence as betrayal and disagreement as treason.
Dr. Fayemi is not perfect. No politician is. But he remains one of the more intellectually grounded, policy-oriented, and globally respected figures produced by contemporary Nigerian politics. His contributions to democratic governance, constitutionalism, and public policy cannot be erased by emotionally charged revisionism.
Political relationships evolve. Alliances shift. Democracies mature through debate, disagreement, and differing visions. That is normal.
What is abnormal is the expectation that a man must permanently kneel because he once received support.
History will judge leaders not by how loudly they worshipped political benefactors, but by the substance of their ideas, the dignity of their conduct, and the legacy they leave behind.
*Kayode Olasekun is a Clinical Psychologist in Dallas, Texas, United States [email protected]
