At its recent meeting in Isanya Ogbo, the Afenifere was piqued by my article titled “Is Tinubu settling scores.”

Though the meeting’s communique showed the article was slightly misinterpreted, it was nonetheless heartwarming. At a time when taboos are falling into disuse, activists are becoming political mercenaries, and the common good has become nobody’s priority, Afenifere’s resilience is noteworthy. In standing against the Yoruba bias Tinubu has manifested, Afenifere has shown that its chronic allergy against Fulani hegemony was not a ruse.

In a country where elected officials and institutions trivialise accountability, the Afenifere deserves commendation. Perhaps, though divided and declining, the Afenifere hasn’t lost its soul. That’s a consolation to all of us who witnessed Afenifere in its prime. In a country where other cultural organizations are rabidly ethnocentric and susceptible to money politics, the Afenifere must be commended for abiding altruism.

That’s something, even though its influence has tragically waned. In a country where critical institutions have lost the stamina to aspire to glory and have degenerated into caricatures of their old selves , the Afenifere perhaps deserves our collective sympathy. Though its political decline might have been partly self inflicted, it still has principled leaders and hasn’t sold out. They have stuck to their principles, lost followership, relevance and authority, but refused to be cowed or bought. That’s something. The politics of the fourth republic has been too ruthlessly transactional for cultural organizations to play deciding roles, but the Afenifere has hung in there.

I have hesitated to treat Afenifere as splintered, ageing, disjointed and incapable of any consensus. Because of my abiding admiration for that institution, I still regard all the major leaders fondly, as authentic, particularly when they are standing social justice, peace and progress. I have therefore resisted the temptation to categorize the categorical rejection of Tinubu’s tribalism as political vendetta by the Pa Adebanjo group which didn’t support Tinubu’s presidential ambition and has never shown admiration for his politics.

Regardless of the rife insinuations of envy and the above mentioned caveats notwithstanding, in the words of Soyinka, the man must have died in any Afenifere leader or faction that stays silent in the face of the glaring repudiation of Afenifere core values of equity and inclusion by Tinubu or anyone else who claims Afenifere. So on this measure, the Pa Adebanjo faction must be regarded as the only ’living’ faction.

The other faction and the leaders must speak up or own up.

In ‘Is Tinubu Settling Scores’, I had wondered why Tinubu who rode to power in 1999 on the back of the Afenifere could become so disdainful of the cherished Afenifere that paved his way to power. Despite Pa Adebanjo’s disavowal, Tinubu still claims Afenifere. But why hasn’t he gunned for the greater good for the greater number by enthroning probity and transparency in government business? This isn’t just about the filth of the Lagos-Calabar road project. It isn’t just about the relentless allocation of the choicest and most powerful jobs to the Yoruba, concentrating power in the Yoruba without bothering about the feelings of the others groups.

It’s beyond that. It’s the utter disregard for decency and common sense. It’s about the myopic prioritization of self or tribe above the collective that points to an abject absence of purposefulness. Why does Tinubu appear more interested in building a Yoruba dynasty rather than an equitable and just political society in Nigeria? What is his motivation?

How did an Afenifere man become an Emilokan or Yorubalokan champion?

That was the meat of the article. But in the eyes of the Afenifere, earcitel was mischeivous because they percevied an artbiuoitnovfciaroiusailbytili to them for Tinubu’s ethical waywardness.
Again, I understand the urgency of the group, particularly the Pa Adebsnjo faction, to wring
their hands. In their words, Tinubu in 1999, was a wolf in sheep’s clothing and he has done everything to cannibalize the organization since 2003. I’m paraphrasing the Afenifere. So they felt compelled to restate the values of the organization, label Tinubu as feral and invite me to join their struggle.

In the days of Ajasin, Adesanya and Ige, Afenifere was a compelling organization. I admired them from a distance. Whatever they said was truth and justice. Their wide moral appeal cut through the breadth of the country and infected their Yoruba people with pride and other peoples with hope. They stood boldly for fairness and justice. Their command and control lines were clear and decent. Those memories now fill with harrowing nostalgia.

When politics returned in the fourth republic all the rivalries that had been hidden by the presence of a common enemy came to the fore. Afenifere tried to metamorphose. Their political vehicle was the AD. Though Afenifere had an early chance to produce a president, it wasted time and the military developed other ideas. That was how northern consensus solidified around Obasanjo. Afenifere clinched almost all the seats in the Southwest. Obasanjo, their kinsman, but who wasn’t part of them took the presidency. One of those whom the Afenifere made governor in 1999 was Tinubu. Once political office holders took the keys to the treasuries, the old dynamics became outdated.

I never intended to make Afenifere carry Tinubu’s cross. Not even as Simon the Cyrene. My article didn’t foist any responsibility on them for Tinubu’s startling parochialism. Their political predicament is regrettable. Had I intended mischief, I could have portrayed Afenifere as being negligent in recommending a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ to the people in 1999. But I didn’t do that. I voted Tinubu in 2023. So am I also liable? Rather than use a broad brush and paint the impression that Afenifere perhaps didn’t do due diligence before imposing Tinubu on Lagos, the article only politely urged Tinubu to remember his roots.

Tinubu’s reversion to ethnic chauvinism is perplexing. The blame is Tinubu’s. Had I intended to be a little naughty, I could have insinuated that Afenifere despite its moral claims, perhaps offered a questionable political upbringing to its protege which is now manifesting in this delinquency of brazen Yoruba bias. But I love Afenifere. Its penchant for justice and fight against oppression helped mould my political ideas. If I had intended devilry as they claimed, I could have argued that perhaps Afenifere taught Tinubu political opportunism rather than virtue.

After all, didn’t we all witness envy and rivalry and backstabbing at the De Rovans? But I didn’t because despite all those internecine squabbles, Afenifere had moral appeal. My article was benign. I didn’t push the point that though Tinubu passed through the Yar’adua school, which many regard as the ultimate school of political expediency rather than moral ideals, of political smash and grab instead of values, the school was noted for inclusion.

That would have made this tribalism, if it was learnt, more likely an Afenifere than Yaradua trait. Yet Afenifere’s moral rectitude cannot support relentless tribalism. My point was that anyone who passed through the Afenifere crucible, whom the Afenifere found worthy to be governor, shouldn’t retain the capacity to relapse into wanton clannishness . He should retain some scruples.

In that communique Afenifere denied Tinubu more than three times. They said Tinubu doesn’t swim like the Afenifere. Perhaps if he did, he wouldn’t be building a private political dynasty that privileges his business partners and cronies. He would be self sacrificing like a true social democrat. They said Tinubu doesn’t walk like Afenifere. Perhaps if he did, he would have been more people-centred. His EFCC would be impotent against his indicted ministers. He wouldn’t opt for a bloated cabinet peopled with crooked politicians while preaching austerity and taxation to the masses. He wouldn’t spend his holidays in Europe, while promoting Made-in-Nigeria and bemoaning the predicament of the fallen naira.

The Afenifere said Tinubu doesn’t quack like Afenifere. If he did, he wouldn’t taunt and diminish political opponents, while preaching national unity. He would visit Atiku and Obi and share his vision with them. He would reform the courts and INEC and save the country from the scourge of rotten elections. He wouldn’t sell Sovereign National Conference for so long and forget True Federalism to pursue local government autonomy when in power.

The communique described Tinubu in roguish terms. I don’t agree with all the submissions. I don’t agree that Tinubu was a sheep in wolf’s clothing as they claimed. But it appears Tinubu didn’t imbibe some of the most important values of Afenifere. And perhaps he only railed against Hausa Fulani domination at the time because it left him and his Yoruba tribe in the fringes of the power equation.

The Afenifere concluded that Tinubu’s main agenda is one party dictatorship. That’s interesting. But Tinubu’s baffling concentration of power in the hands of the Yoruba supports that ridiculous conclusion.