By Abiodun Kolobo
The recent article by Abiodun Komolafe titled “Adeleke, Ede and the Limits of Edenisation” attempts to paint the administration of Ademola Adeleke as one driven by parochial interests and hometown favoritism. While criticism is an essential component of democratic discourse, such criticism must be anchored in fairness, balance, and verifiable facts. Unfortunately, the argument presented in that piece leans more toward political rhetoric than objective analysis.
At the heart of the article is the claim that Governor Adeleke is excessively concentrating development in his hometown of Ede. Yet, a careful look at developments across Osun State under the current administration tells a far more balanced story. Roads, schools, health facilities, and social programmes are being implemented across multiple senatorial districts, from Ilesa to Iwo and from Osogbo to Ife. These projects demonstrate a commitment to statewide development rather than a narrow hometown agenda.
The controversy surrounding the proposed relocation of the cargo airport from Ido-Osun has also been framed in a misleading way. Infrastructure decisions of such magnitude are often driven by technical, logistical, and economic considerations. To reduce the debate to a simplistic narrative of hometown favoritism ignores the complex realities of infrastructure planning and economic development. Airports, particularly cargo airports, must be positioned based on long-term economic viability, connectivity, and expansion potential.
Furthermore, the suggestion that the governor has filled government positions exclusively with individuals from Ede is both exaggerated and unfair. Like every administration, appointments reflect a combination of competence, trust, political collaboration, and regional representation. It is not unusual in Nigerian politics for leaders to appoint trusted allies, but such appointments do not automatically translate into systemic exclusion of others. Indeed, many key positions within the Osun government are held by individuals from different parts of the state.
The attempt to contrast Governor Adeleke with historic leaders such as Obafemi Awolowo is also somewhat misplaced. Awolowo remains an iconic figure in Nigerian political history, but governance contexts differ significantly across generations. The challenges facing today’s state governments—economic pressures, federal fiscal constraints, urban expansion, and infrastructure deficits—require pragmatic solutions rather than symbolic comparisons with the past.
Moreover, it is important to recognize that development in a leader’s hometown is not inherently illegitimate. Across the world, communities often benefit from leaders who emerge from them, not because of favoritism but because such communities historically lacked adequate infrastructure before their rise to prominence. What matters is whether such development occurs at the expense of other communities. In the case of Osun State, evidence does not support the claim of systematic neglect elsewhere.
The larger question should therefore not be where a road is constructed or where a project is sited, but whether the people of Osun are experiencing improved governance, economic opportunity, and social welfare. On that score, the Adeleke administration has initiated programmes in education, health, and infrastructure that reach far beyond Ede.
Political commentary must rise above local rivalries and partisan framing. Osun State’s development requires unity of purpose, constructive criticism, and honest engagement with facts. Reducing governance to accusations of “Edenisation” risks distracting from the real work of building a prosperous and inclusive state.
Ultimately, the true measure of leadership will not lie in rhetorical battles in newspaper columns but in the tangible improvements felt by the people across Osun’s towns and villages. On that front, the administration of Governor Ademola Adeleke deserves to be assessed with fairness, not conjecture.
Abiodun Kolobo
Ile Apena
Ede