Oyo Politics: Why Ethical —not Devotional — Considerations Should Define Our Judgment || Isiaka Kehinde.
As the contest for party tickets ahead of the gubernatorial race intensifies, an issue that should be peripheral has taken centre stage: religion. Its growing prominence in political discourse is not only unnecessary but potentially dangerous.
Religion should not just promise hope. It should create it through the mobilization of human intelligence.
Religion, for many, offers moral guidance and personal comfort. But in governance, it must remain secondary. Religion in governance is like what Shakespeare described as ” a scar that never felt a wound.
“Politics is not a test of piety; it is a test of performance. Competence, integrity, vision, and measurable impact—not religious identity—should guide our choices.
Those who stir religious sentiments in politics often do so to mask a lack of substance. When debates shift from policy to identity, it is usually because concrete ideas are in short supply. Leadership should not be about what a candidate professes but about what they can deliver.
The realities facing Oyo State demand seriousness, not sentiment. Poverty does not ask for one’s religion before it strikes. As Ola Rotimi aptly captured, it is like a night rain that leaves no roof untouched.
The pressing challenges—economic strain, inadequate infrastructure, gaps in healthcare and education, youth unemployment—cut across all divides. They require practical, inclusive solutions.
It follows, therefore, that leadership must be entrusted to individuals of proven competence and ethical grounding.
Governance should be assessed through clear outcomes: better roads, stronger institutions, accessible healthcare, improved schools, agricultural growth, and meaningful opportunities for youth and women. These are the real indicators of progress.
History warns us of leaders who elevated sectarian loyalties above collective good. Such tendencies fracture societies and weaken development. While religion can shape personal values, it can also be weaponized—to excuse failure or shield mediocrity from scrutiny.
As Professor Godwin Sogolo of the University of Ibadan observed, the challenge lies not in belief itself but in its misuse as a tool for personal and political advantage.
When religion becomes a means of influence rather than a compass for integrity, it undermines both governance and faith.
Oyo State offers a practical reminder that leadership can rise above religious bias. The administration of Seyi Makinde is often cited as one that has maintained a measure of balance and inclusivity without overt religious favouritism.
From time, there’s is a mosque in his house where Muslims observe their prayers without much ado. Whilst he dispenses dividends of democracy to everyone irrespective of their religion, this reinforces a simple truth: good governance speaks through fairness, not affiliation.
Against this backdrop, calls that the next governor “must” belong to a particular religion are misguided.
Such assertions risk deepening divisions in a state known for its diversity and political awareness. They distract from the central question: who is best equipped—by character and capacity—to lead?
Encouragingly, groups like the Pacesetter Muslim Professionals for Good Governance have pushed back against the use of religion as a shield for incompetence.
“Oyo state is too educated, too mixed and too wise to be fooled again.” The group stated.
Their stance reflects a broader reality: Oyo’s electorate is informed, diverse, and increasingly resistant to sectarian manipulation.
In the end, the choice before the people is clear. Ethical judgment must outweigh devotional sentiment. Competence must prevail over creed.
The collective advancement of Oyo State must remain the ultimate standard in selecting its next leader.
I wish other faith-based groups could keep sharing these noble thoughts.
