Former Ekiti State Governor Peter Ayodele Fayose appears in recent days to have crossed from bold political commentary into a troubling pattern of erratic and increasingly questionable public interventions. His remarks on Oyo State politics, in particular, betray not only a disregard for political boundaries but also a concerning detachment from the realities of leadership and legacy.
Oyo State is not Ekiti State—politically, structurally, and historically. Fayose’s attempt to project influence or authority over a state he neither governed nor represents underscores a deeper issue: an inability to recalibrate from the absolute control he once wielded to the more restrained role expected of a former governor.
During his time in office, Fayose cultivated an atmosphere of fear and dominance where dissent was often stifled. Access to governance was tightly controlled, and political engagement frequently came at a cost. That era, however, has passed. What remains now is the expectation that former leaders should elevate public discourse—not degrade it.
It is true that the current Governor of Oyo State once visited Ekiti during the 2014 electioneering period to engage with Fayose. But, such political interactions belong to a different time and context. They do not confer perpetual relevance, nor do they justify present-day interference or overreach.
More troubling, however, is the reminder of Fayose’s controversial conduct during his first term in office. In a widely condemned episode, visiting governors were reportedly confined and subjected to what many described as a form of “house arrest” during a political event in Ekiti State. Among those affected was the former Governor of Lagos State, now President of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu. That incident was not merely political theatre it was seen as a dangerous abuse of power that eroded democratic norms and respect for intergovernmental relations.
Equally alarming was Fayose’s approach to legislative leadership. His infamous screening exercise for Ekiti State House of Assembly aspirants where candidates were asked to spell “impeachment” and those who succeeded were allegedly disqualified remains a symbol of governance reduced to mockery. It raised profound questions about the seriousness with which public office was treated under his watch.
The consequences were evident. Critics have long argued that the quality of legislative output during his tenure suffered, with allegations that a significant portion of assembly members lacked the basic intellectual capacity required for effective lawmaking.
Taken together, these episodes paint a portrait of a leader who often blurred the line between populism and irresponsibility between authority and excess. Today, those same tendencies appear to be resurfacing this time without the restraint of office or the accountability of governance.
Nigeria’s democracy is at a delicate stage, where voices of experience should serve as anchors of wisdom, not sources of division or distraction. Former governors, by virtue of their exposure and privilege, carry the burden of shaping national conversations with depth, clarity, and responsibility.
Fayose’s recent outbursts, however, suggest a departure from that responsibility. Instead of offering insight, they provoke concern. Instead of building discourse, they diminish it.
By: Faleye Oluwatosin Simon
