Why I want to represent Ondo South in Senate, by Oyewumi

How do you view the role of the Senate, and what impact do you hope to make if given the party ticket and elected?

Well, the Senate is a platform. In fact, any position is a platform to serve the people. That should be the focus at every level; it is about service to the people, not self-service.

From my experience, particularly when we set up the Ondo State Development Agency, I saw how impactful such platforms can be. Today, it is one of the most versatile and active agencies in the country. I would say it is comparable to the Kaduna State Investment Promotion Agency (KADIPA), which we studied at the time, as well as similar agencies in Lagos. Now, in the Senate, there are three core responsibilities: lawmaking, oversight, and development. All three are interconnected. From the Senate, you can influence the allocation of resources to critical sectors. You also have oversight functions over ministries and parastatals to ensure the country moves forward. These responsibilities go beyond constituency service; they are duties to the nation. However, your constituency must also benefit. Resources need to be attracted to your area, but before that, data must clearly show where the needs lie. That is what you lobby for. The Senate is not a kindergarten; it is not a place for learning the ropes for the first time. If you go there just to “cut your political teeth,” you will waste the opportunity. It requires someone who is articulate, knowledgeable, and intellectually prepared, someone with both social and high-level analytical skills. You are often given only a few minutes to speak, so you must be precise and well-informed. It is not a place for guesswork. You must also build strong networks before getting there, relationships that will help you engage with colleagues, resolve issues, and negotiate positions before presenting them on the floor. Otherwise, you risk becoming what people call a “sit-down-and-look senator,” which ultimately wastes the mandate of your constituents. An effective senator should be able to attract investment, speak on development issues, and address the needs of the people. During budget processes, a competent senator with strong relationships can ensure that key projects are included for their senatorial district. Each local government has different needs; some may have strengths in agriculture, others in industry or infrastructure.

Read Also: Budget passage suffers setback as Senate shifts resumption date

For instance, coming from the South, I understand the specific challenges we face. I know which ministries and agencies to engage with. I will be able to stand on the floor and articulate issues clearly, for example, addressing power shortages affecting over a million people, which in turn impacts education, industry, and quality of life. Without electricity, there are no functional schools, no industries, and limited opportunities for growth.

It takes a well-researched and committed senator to address such challenges and drive development in education, investment, and infrastructure. The Senate is not about appearances or wearing an agbada for the cameras. It is about results. When people elect you, they expect impact, not just handouts like bags of rice. A senator is often more accessible to the people than the governor, who is based in the state capital. Representing six local governments, the people should feel your presence and impact. You cannot be an effective senator if you do not understand the needs of your people or how to drive their development. The skill set required is unique; you must be passionate, informed, and proactive. Even the outgoing senator, as you would agree, is very articulate. That ability was not developed overnight on the Senate floor; it comes from prior experience, research, and a deep understanding of governance. So, that is how I see the Senate. It is not a platform for visibility alone; there is serious work to be done. There are also committee responsibilities, which require diligence and intellectual capacity. A senator must be scholarly and ready to engage deeply with policy documents and national issues.

Given the limited time between now and May 29 next year, what meaningful impact can you make?

It's an interesting question. It's like assessing the Federal Government, which has been in office for just over two years, at most about a thousand days. Within that period, they have achieved a significant number of milestones, at least 138, the last time I checked. So, performance is not necessarily determined by the length of time in the office. In many cases, you spend more time planning and thinking through what to do than actually executing it.

Even within a short period, you can lay a solid foundation. Now, consider that about 1.2 to 1.3 million people in Ondo State would be affected. Is it fair for them to remain unrepresented at the federal level during that time? Who will be their voice over the next 14 months? An empty seat means a voiceless constituency. When it comes to budgetary allocations, there are pressing needs, teaching hospitals, classrooms, solar power, computers, secondary schools, polytechnics, and technical colleges. There is a clear shortage of skilled labour across the state, and indeed across Nigeria. For instance, tilers are often brought in from countries like Togo and Ghana. So, who will articulate these needs? If there is no representation, the constituency could miss up to two budget cycles, which is a significant loss. Therefore, it is not about how long you serve, but how effectively you use the time. There are people who have spent multiple terms in the Senate with very little to show for it. However, if you are well prepared, you can hit the ground running. By the time you return for another term, by God's grace, you would already be a ranking senator, even without having completed a full four-year term initially. With that comes better committee placements and greater influence. Ultimately, it is about service to the people. You are representing just six local governments, it should not be too difficult to make meaningful impact if you truly understand what needs to be done.

Supporters of Jimoh Ibrahim in Ikale still want to retain the seat, while you are from Oke-Igbo in Ile-Oluji/Okeigbo Local Government Area. What assurance do you have that you will secure the ticket?

You see, every constituency has a House of Representatives member. There are six local governments, and these are grouped into three constituencies; two local governments make up one constituency. So, there are three House of Representatives members. That means every area is already represented at that level. However, a senator represents all six local governments, not just one. That is number one. A senatorial seat cannot be treated as personal or exclusive. For instance, if a governor decides to leave office to pursue another position, such as Vice President, it is the governor's personal decision. You cannot then say that because you vacated that position willingly, you still want your people to retain it. That would mean holding onto two positions at once. I hope you understand that point. Secondly, Ese-Odo Local Government in Ondo State has never produced a senator. Oke-Igbo, which is part of a local government, has also never produced a senator. Meanwhile, the Ikale people have produced senators at least four times on record. If another Ikale person replaces the current one, that would make it five times. Where is the equity in that? If, for instance, a senator unfortunately dies in active service, you could argue for fairness by allowing their people to complete the tenure. But in this case, the situation is different. If I apply for a higher position in a company, I cannot appoint my son to take over my previous role while I move on to another position. It does not work that way. The senatorial position is not reserved for any particular group. It can come from any part of the district if we want to be fair. Since the current occupant is not being forced out but is voluntarily pursuing another opportunity, it is not right to insist that the same group must retain the seat. Even the ambassadorship is not zoned to a particular group; it is an individual appointment. So, one individual cannot say, “I want to move on, but I still want to hold onto this position through my people.” What then happens to others? Should they simply keep clapping? That argument is also quite limited. At this stage of national development, we should focus on the quality of individuals, not where they come from. The idea that a particular group must continue in the role shifts the conversation away from merit and leans too heavily on sentiment, which has no place in the Senate. To avoid repeating myself, once someone has applied for a higher position, it means they have made a decision to move forward. By God's grace, if that wish is granted, they should not still look back and attempt to control the previous position. The Senate represents everyone. Even at the presidential level, if something happens, the system does not revert to the individual's hometown to find a replacement. It simply does not work that way.

Your party is a party of consensus now and a direct primary. Do you think that these options will favour you?

Well, it's not so much about individuals. Even when they say the party is going to work by consensus, the party is an intelligent one. It wants to put its best foot forward. The party will ensure that whoever it presents does not trigger anti-party activities and is loyal. My loyalty dates back to 1992 in the political space. I have served and carried the political handbag. So, it is not as if my first ambition is to be a senator; I have been in the system.

The party also wants someone who is electable. It is based on all these factors that a consensus candidate is chosen. And if, by chance, someone disagrees, because the consensus candidate is electable, of good quality, has integrity, and is not tarnished or easily tarnishable, the party can confidently say, “Let us go to the field.” However, if a party presents someone who is controversial or not credible, it becomes a problem. These days, integrity matters a lot. Increasingly, political parties are pushing technocrats forward, while career politicians provide support. In the past, it was the other way around, with politicians seeking positions for themselves.

What this means is that credibility matters, status matters, education and qualifications matter, and, importantly, passion for the people matters. There is hardly any state now governed solely by career politicians; those days are gone. Quality is becoming more prominent. So, the party will only adopt a consensus candidate it can defend. And if someone insists on going to the polls, the party must be confident of winning based on its research, asking questions like: Is this person marketable? Consensus cannot be built around an unmarketable candidate with the expectation of success. That would embarrass the party. This is an intelligent party; it understands the implications. Before arriving at a consensus, the decision is not made whimsically. The party would have tested and evaluated the candidate thoroughly, considering possible petitions, vulnerabilities, and other risks. Ultimately, the party will only put forward candidates who are likely to win. This ensures that even if consensus fails, the party can still support the candidate confidently at the polls, since there is no opportunity to reshuffle candidates at that stage. Having assessed all these factors, I have conducted a critical self-analysis and compared myself with others in the race. I am confident that I will measure up well and can perform effectively.

The governor is from your district. How does he perceive your ambition to represent him in the Senate?

I would say it is favourable, because I served with him in the cabinet for many years, and I still sit on the boards of many of the state's companies, either those it invests in or those it fully owns. So, I have not been detached or removed from those roles, and that is the reason. So, he is favourably disposed. However, he is a father to all, and we need to understand that constraint.

What assurance is there that the by-election will  be conducted before the 2027 party nominations, the party convention, and the implementation of the schedules outlined by INEC?

 The way I see it, by the 20-something of April, I can't remember the exact date, there must be a primary, and this should be completed by the end of May. Now, we're not sure when Senator Jimoh Ibrahim will leave, because that's not up to him; it depends on when all the paperwork on the other end is completed. Let's assume he does not leave at that time; the primaries will still proceed. I suspect that whoever wins that primary will then be the person put forward for the by-election. I don't see INEC conducting two by-elections or two primaries, it doesn't make sense. With a minimum of six weeks to the end of May, the by-election will start. So, whoever wins that primary is most likely the one to contest the by-election, because it would involve the same group of candidates. Yes, there are technically two different elections, but the principle remains the same. The by-election is tied to the Senate seat for 2027. If the party does not have time to wait because Jimoh is still in office, they will not stop the primary for the substantive Senate seat. Once they have a candidate for the Senate seat, the party can either use that candidate for the by-election or designate them for the next year's election. This is an unprecedented situation, so the exact procedure is unclear. What is important is that this represents an opportunity to serve over a million people politically. Regardless of how the process unfolds, the quality of the candidates contesting remains the key factor.

What is the assurance that you would be able to beat other contestants?

I have been in this space for many, many years. I have been organic, I have served the state. So my attempt to serve as a senator is not from the top, because no house is built from the top; you build a house from the bottom. Secondly, there are certain skill sets required to be a senator. I'm sorry, it's not a back-end job; it's a front-facing job. Your level of articulacy is extremely important. You see senators like Adams Oshiomhole, you see senators like Jimoh Ibrahim, you know these are articulate individuals. Even in the last Senate, I think it was the 8th or 9th Assembly, there were senators who clearly had what it takes to deliver. For me, that is what matters. It's not about what else we can become; I am submitting myself for service. I have done a critical stress analysis, and I've conducted a SWOT analysis because I do not approach things whimsically. A lot of resources are involved, so I look carefully at the situation and at the other contestants. I believe strongly, and my team agrees, that I am among the best-qualified candidates. I have served organically. When I was in government, I was in charge of government and investment, overseeing all the industries along the Ore corridor. By the time I left the government, 3,500 jobs had been created. I am running on the platform of what I have done. This is not a statement of effort; it is a statement of results. That is a big difference. Many contestants come to the Senate for the first time. Four years is essentially six months in eight different places; it's not a long time. So, when four years are broken down like that, this is not a place for amateurs. Would you allow an apprentice doctor to treat you? No. I have worked at the local government level, establishing factories and industries, engaging in development, and doing charity work, not political charity, but work done out of genuine passion. For example, I've helped employ thousands of people with the support of the government, not using my own money. People know who has delivered. I oversaw the Deep Sea Port Project, the Putumen Project, and the oil palm plantations. If you do your research, I am running on results. That differentiates me from other candidates, aside from my natural skill set. It's similar to how the president ran on his achievements in Lagos. Running on results is a key differentiation factor. You cannot argue with that. It's not about saying “I am going to do this” or “I am going to do that.” The proof is in what has already been done. People can be assured that if I am given the opportunity, I will build on it. Many aspirants have never served the state. They come only during election periods and leave. Four years might sound like a long time, but when broken down, it is very short. If you cannot break down development into achievable models, you will fail. In Ondo State, education is an issue. We are among the least educated and least resourced in terms of energy, infrastructure, health, and education. Those realities must drive your actions. Passion, not certificates, fuels effective leadership. Passionate candidates are the ones most likely to contribute meaningfully because they are motivated by the desire to solve problems, not by ego or self-promotion. Some foreigners come here and do things we often do not, not because we are incapable, but because we lack that same passion. Those who work quietly in villages and rural areas often do so because they have a genuine desire to uplift people. Power-seekers, on the other hand, are rarely organic. They come together for personal gain. Passionate individuals are driven from day one. They spend more time thinking about what they are doing than simply performing tasks randomly. Without a clear thought process, a senator will end up managing by guesswork; they will be caught on camera, but they will not be saying anything meaningful on the Senate floor.

We see this often. Out of 106 senators, how many are truly articulate? How many raise motions or bills? From Ondo State, especially in the southwest, we should always put forward our best candidates, people who can deliver and represent effectively.

Why are the APC chieftains in Ondo so arrogant, and they now carry on as if this bye election is about them and not about other parties?

I wouldn't agree that they are arrogant; perhaps we can say they are boisterous. Fortunately, we don't have any opposition in Ondo State, and that is the position we find ourselves in. Anyone who picks a ticket in Ondo State, unless the person is not marketable, should expect to be given thanks at the end of the day.

Finally, there will be a primary either by consensus or a direct primary. How can we avoid a post-primary crisis?

Well, if we apply qualitative methods of choosing a candidate, rather than favouritism, there is no basis for a crisis. Crisis does not appear in a vacuum; it arises when certain processes are circumvented, when the wrong person is forced down people's throats, or when someone who should have been compensated for past contributions is overlooked.

A crisis also emerges when the choice of candidate goes against the majority's preference. If we do things the right way, no one argues with quality. It's not as if there are no qualified candidates; there are many, but the question is, who is the best person? Once you select from that pool of qualified individuals, a crisis is unlikely.

However, if someone has not served, lacks loyalty, or lacks integrity, problems will arise. People are more attentive now to these qualities than they were before. The country is changing, whether we realize it or not. Things we could get away with in the past are no longer acceptable. Even if someone is appointed to a high position today, petitions will emerge, and their history will catch up with them. Unlike before, when history was not easily documented, the internet now ensures nothing is forgotten. That is why it is crucial to conduct thorough research and ensure that a candidate will not bring the party into disrepute, because there is no opportunity to substitute candidates later. The party must make the right choice. It is not about any specific individual. If you do not select the first-choice candidate, then take the second-choice, but do not bypass the process to bring someone else in. For example, in the Ikale situation, the Ikale have already produced senators four times. Bringing another Ikale for a fifth term and expecting others to applaud? That will create tension, because we all share one constituency. Similarly, candidates who joined from other parties just last year and applied for the Senate position could also spark a crisis if selected. That is a classic example of a crisis waiting to happen.