Opinion
THE APC ON THE PRECIPICE: Political Disloyalty, Institutional Erosion, and the Crisis of Favouritism in Ondo State
Oluwaseun Ebiwonjumi
The unfolding political drama in Ondo State APC is beginning to look less like an ordinary contest of ambitions and more like a disturbing struggle over the very soul of the party’s structure.
MATO contested the APC ticket for Ondo South Senatorial District in 2023 but lost to Senator Ibrahim Jimoh. In 2026, he returned to contest the party’s ticket for the Ile-Oluji/Oke-Igbo/Odigbo Federal Constituency, only for the outcome to become embroiled in controversy after the National Working Committee recognised another candidate. MATO challenged the decision through legal means, but the political consequences of the episode appear to have travelled far beyond the original contest.
Following the release of the party’s candidate list, MATO met with political leaders, members and supporters in Okitipupa and declared that his name would be on the ballot for Ondo South, while the platform under which he intends to contest would be unveiled at the appropriate time.
That declaration should ordinarily be the concern of an aspirant pursuing his political future. What makes the matter more consequential, however, are the questions surrounding the reported involvement of people within the APC’s own state structure.
If members of the State Working Committee participated in or facilitated political activities around MATO while he was moving towards a platform outside the APC’s recognised arrangement, then Ondo APC has a question of loyalty and discipline on its hands.
The reported involvement of the State Woman Leader, Mrs. Oluwayemisi Iji Aiyeola, therefore, deserves clarification. Was she acting in her personal political capacity, or was she acting as an officer of the APC? Was the State Working Committee aware? Was the State Chairman, Hon. Kolawole Babatunde Gabriel, aware?
These questions are not accusations. They are questions that arise naturally from the circumstances and deserve straightforward answers.
A party officer is entitled to personal political preferences, but the office itself is not personal property. The authority attached to a State Working Committee position belongs to the party. It therefore becomes difficult to reconcile the demand for party loyalty with any situation in which the party’s own officers are perceived to be advancing a political direction different from that of the organisation. This is where Governor Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa also enters the conversation.
As the political leader of the APC in Ondo State, the governor carries a responsibility that goes beyond winning elections. He has a responsibility to preserve the coherence of the structure through which the party intends to win them.
If persons serving in his administration are alleged to be involved in political activities that conflict with the interests of APC candidates, the governor can not be expected to accept automatic responsibility for every action of every associate. But neither can leadership retreat into silence whenever uncomfortable questions arise.
If such activities occurred without his knowledge, he should say so. If they occurred against his instructions, the party should be allowed to deal with those responsible. If, however, they occurred with the knowledge or approval of influential actors within his political structure, then the matter assumes a far more serious character.
The central question is therefore stark: Is the APC in Ondo State operating as one political organisation, or are different political camps gradually appropriating the party’s machinery for competing interests? That question becomes even more important as the 2027 election approaches.
The danger to Ondo APC may not necessarily be the opposition. It may be the accumulation of unresolved grievances within its own ranks. A party can survive the defeat of an aspirant. What is far more difficult to survive is the erosion of trust among the people who operate its grassroots structure.
The MATO episode should, therefore, not be reduced to the political fortunes of one individual. It should compel the APC to examine the health of its own internal processes.
There is nothing extraordinary about political ambition. There is nothing wrong with supporting a preferred candidate during a contest. But there is a clear line between political competition before a party decision and political activity that allegedly works against the party’s recognised direction after that decision. That line must not become blurred.
The National Working Committee may be criticised. Its decisions may be challenged. An aggrieved aspirant has every right to pursue legitimate political and judicial remedies. But the answer to an internal disagreement can not be the emergence of parallel political structures operating beneath the same party umbrella.
If the State Working Committee disagrees with the NWC, it has constitutional avenues. If an aspirant disagrees with the party, there are legal and political avenues. What can not strengthen APC is a situation in which party officials themselves appear to be sending contradictory signals about the organisation’s political direction. That is the real danger.
And it is why the State Chairman can not remain indifferent to the questions now surrounding the conduct of members of his committee. His responsibility is not merely administrative. It is to ensure that the party’s structure remains disciplined, coherent, and faithful to the decisions of its recognised organs.
The same principle applies to political appointees. Government appointments should not become instruments for advancing private political interests against the candidates of the party that produced the government.
The APC in Ondo State can not afford this ambiguity as it prepares for 2027. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s supporters will need a party structure capable of translating political support into disciplined grassroots mobilisation. That requires trust, not suspicion; cohesion, not factional manoeuvring; and fairness, not the perception of selective treatment. The remedy is not witch-hunting. It is transparency.
Let the State Working Committee clarify its position. Let the State Chairman explain what he knows. Let the governor make his position unmistakably clear concerning the activities of his political appointees and associates.
If the allegations are false, let those concerned publicly establish that. If there was a misunderstanding, let it be resolved. If anyone acted outside the authority of the party, let the appropriate machinery address it. But silence should not become the official language of Ondo APC.
The MATO saga has now become larger than one aspirant, one ticket, or one political contest. It has become a test of whether the APC in Ondo State can subordinate individual ambitions to institutional discipline.
A political party can not demand loyalty from its members while ambiguity persists within its own leadership.
It can not ask its supporters to defend its candidates while elements of its own machinery are allegedly pulling in another direction.
And it cannot march into 2027 carrying unresolved contradictions beneath the banner of unity.
Ondo APC must decide whether its structure belongs to the party or to the competing interests seeking to control it. The answer may determine not only who appears on whether the party itself remains sufficiently united to win when the ballots are counted.
Oluwaseun Ebiwonjumi is a member of APC in Irele local government