I have been around politicians for over fifty years. I witnessed the Second Republic as a teenager.
I was born and raised to love Ibadan as the city closest to my heart. I had the unique opportunity to interact with the movers and shakers of Nigeria’s political landscape. This is not something that started today or yesterday—it is the environment I was born into as a child.
What is happening in our dear state today is history repeating itself, although in a different form.
More than four decades ago, during Nigeria’s Second Republic, a political disagreement between the Federal Government under President Shehu Shagari of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) and the government of old Oyo State under Chief Bola Ige of the main opposition Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) became entangled with the implementation of a Federal Government housing programme.
Today, Oyo State once again finds itself at the centre of a disagreement between the state government and the Federal Government—this time over security, the regulation of security organisations, and the question of how much authority a state should have over security matters within its territory.
The personalities and political circumstances are different. President Shehu Shagari was an NPN politician, while Bola Ige belonged to the UPN. Today, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu leads the Federal Government under the APC, while Governor Seyi Makinde is a PDP governor.
But there is one striking similarity: the relationship between Abuja and Oyo State can have direct consequences for the people of Oyo State.
Let me break it down for our younger generation who did not witness this episode.
During the Second Republic, President Shehu Shagari’s administration introduced an ambitious national low-cost housing programme. The Federal Government planned thousands of housing units across the country, including approximately 2,000 units in each state.
That was one of the best programmes ever implemented in our country. Wherever you go, you will find Shagari Housing estates located across many parts of Nigeria.
However, the implementation of the programme in old Oyo State became caught up in the political rivalry between the NPN-controlled Federal Government and the UPN-controlled state government.
Historical accounts indicate that the Bola Ige administration did not give the Federal Government the level of cooperation it expected over the housing programme. The disagreement over land acquisition and the location of the proposed housing estates became particularly contentious.
One night, at the residence of Chief Meredith Adisa Akinloye, the National Chairman of ruling party ( NPN) met in Oje, Ibadan, where they resolved to launch and construct its low-cost housing project in the state by force, whether Governor Bola Ige liked it or not.
That was when I truly saw the power of the Federal Government.
Before seven o’clock the following morning, the Inspector-General of Police, Chief Sunday Adewusi, who happened to be an indigene of Oyo State, deployed over one thousand Mobile Policemen—popularly known as “Kill and Go”—to take over strategic locations in Ibadan and Ogbomoso, where the Federal Government housing schemes were to be launched.
The important lesson from that period is not necessarily which political party was right or wrong.
The important lesson is that when two levels of government disagree, the people must never become the victims.
Oyo State is once again facing a serious security challenge, and the Federal Government Governor has taken measures to strengthen the state’s security architecture by introducing forest guard.
In May 2026, Makinde signed Executive Order No. 001 of 2026 regulating the registration, coordination, and operation of associations, groups, and organisations offering security and allied services in Oyo State. The order was presented by the state government as a response to growing security challenges and the need to prevent unregulated security groups from operating without proper coordination.
The question, however, is where the boundary lies between the constitutional responsibilities of the Federal Government and the legitimate responsibilities of a state government to protect its citizens.
That question has become increasingly important because Governor Makinde has also been vocal about the need for greater decentralisation of policing before .
He has argued that Nigeria should not continue waiting indefinitely for state police and has described regional security arrangements such as Amotekun as a practical response to insecurity.
This is where the present situation becomes politically sensitive.
There is nothing wrong with the Federal Government insisting that security operations must be conducted within the law.
There is also nothing wrong with a state government insisting that it has a responsibility to protect its citizens and coordinate legitimate security efforts within its territory.
The danger begins when political disagreements between Abuja and Ibadan start determining who is allowed to provide security, who controls security structures, and which security initiatives receive support.
Security is different from politics.
A failed housing project can be rebuilt.
A delayed road can eventually be completed.
But when a security system fails, human lives can be lost forever.
That is why both the Federal Government and the Oyo State Government must approach security matters with maturity, restraint, and cooperation.
The establishment of Amotekun itself demonstrates the growing demand for community-based security in the South-West. The Oyo State Government has consistently maintained that Amotekun is not intended to replace the Federal Government’s security agencies.
That distinction is important.
Nigeria’s security agencies must work together rather than compete for territorial influence.
The Police, Military, Civil Defence, Intelligence agencies, Amotekun, Iru Ekun, and other lawful security organisations must be properly regulated. Community security organisations should complement one another where the law permits.
What Nigeria does not need is a situation in which political affiliation determines whether a security initiative is supported or opposed.
The PDP and APC are temporary political platforms in the long history of Nigeria.
But the people of Oyo State will remain.
Their farms will remain.
Their businesses will remain.
Their children will remain.
And, most importantly, their lives and properties must remain protected.
It would therefore be unfortunate if the current disagreement between the Federal Government and the Oyo State Government over security were allowed to become another chapter in the long history of political confrontation between Abuja and Ibadan.
The Federal Government should recognise the legitimate security concerns of Oyo State.
The Oyo State Government, on the other hand, must ensure that every security organisation operating within the state complies with Nigerian law and never becomes a political instrument.
The real enemy is not APC.
The real enemy is not PDP.
The real enemy is insecurity.
Kidnappers do not ask whether their victims voted for APC or PDP.
Bandits do not check party membership cards before attacking communities.
Criminals do not distinguish between supporters of Tinubu and supporters of Makinde.
Security, therefore, must be treated as a common responsibility—not a political weapon.
More than forty years after the Shagari–Ige era, Oyo State has another opportunity to demonstrate that political differences need not become obstacles to the welfare of its people.
History has already given us the warning.
This time, let us choose cooperation over confrontation, security over politics, and the welfare of the people over partisan interests.
Mogaji Wole Arisekola writes from Ibadan.
