When Loyalty Fades, Division Fails: The Fayemi, Oyebanji Lesson in Power Politics

By Ahmed Salami

The recent Easter visit of Dr. Kayode Fayemi to Ekiti State, where he convened a stakeholders’ meeting, has once again exposed a familiar pattern in Nigerian politics how quickly narratives can be twisted and how easily yesterday’s allies become today’s loudest critics.

At that meeting, Fayemi made comments centered on internal party discipline, the dangers of imposed candidacies, and the need to preserve democratic values within the political structure. Yet, almost immediately, fragments of his message were pulled out of context and weaponized by those eager to score cheap political points. What should have been a constructive intervention became, in the hands of detractors, a tool for mischief.

More telling, however, was the attempt to stretch those distortions into something bigger, a deliberate move to create a clash between Fayemi and his successor, Biodun Oyebanji. In a political environment where division is often manufactured for relevance, efforts were made to pitch both men against each other despite their well-known cordial relationship.

But that attempt failed.

Despite the pressure and subtle provocations, the Omoluabi in Governor Oyebanji refused to allow himself to be turned against his former boss. Rather than play into the hands of those seeking conflict, he chose restraint, maturity, and respect demonstrating that leadership is not about ego battles or proving independence through disloyalty.

But beyond the noise and distortion lies a more uncomfortable truth one that speaks to the nature of loyalty, power, and self-interest in our political system.

A closer look at many of those criticizing Fayemi today reveals a striking irony: a number of them are individuals who once benefited, directly or indirectly, from his leadership and time in office. This raises a fundamental question are these criticisms truly about principle, or are they reflections of shifting personal interests?

This is not to suggest that public figures should be immune from criticism. Far from it. Criticism is an essential component of democracy. However, what deserves scrutiny is the motivation behind such criticism and the context from which it emerges.

There is a simple but often ignored reality in politics: if your livelihood, influence, or access is tied to a politician, a government, or an officeholder, maintaining objectivity becomes extremely difficult. This does not automatically make your views invalid, but it does mean they are shaped consciously or unconsciously by your interests. Recognizing this bias is the first step toward intellectual honesty.

The same applies in reverse. Those who once benefited from a system but no longer do often find it equally difficult to acknowledge anything positive about it. Their perspectives, too, are colored by personal experience not necessarily by a balanced assessment of reality.

What we are witnessing, therefore, is not always a battle of ideas or principles, but a contest between current beneficiaries and former beneficiaries of a system. Each side speaks from the vantage point of what they stand to gain or have lost.

This is where the illusion of “loyalty” in politics becomes most evident.

Many so-called loyalists are, in truth, loyal not to individuals or ideals, but to access access to power, to influence, to opportunity. Their allegiance is often tied to the office rather than the occupant. The moment that office is lost, or the benefits diminish, the loyalty fades, sometimes turning into outright opposition.

It is a cycle that has repeated itself across different administrations and political eras. Those who cheer the loudest while you are in power may not stand with you when you are out of it. And those who criticize you today may simply be reacting to their own exclusion from the system rather than any deep ideological disagreement.

This reality should serve as a cautionary note not just for Fayemi, but for every public office holder and aspiring leader. Power is transient, and the relationships built around it are often conditional.

The more profound lesson here is about perception and expectation. Do we expect someone benefiting from a system to advocate for its reform? Rarely. Do we expect someone who has been shut out of that same system to speak objectively about it? Also unlikely. Both positions are shaped by interest, not necessarily by truth.

This is why political discourse in our environment often feels less like a search for solutions and more like a struggle for relevance and access.

Fayemi’s recent experience is simply a case study one that highlights how quickly narratives can shift and how fragile political alliances can be. Yet, in all of this, one fact remains undeniable: despite deliberate efforts to create division, both Fayemi and Oyebanji have refused to validate that narrative.

In the end, the real challenge is not in silencing critics or appeasing loyalists. It is in staying grounded, recognizing the limits of political loyalty, and continuing to engage with issues based on principle rather than convenience.

Because in politics, as recent events have once again shown, yesterday’s beneficiaries can become today’s opponents and today’s defenders may simply be waiting for their turn at the table.

Salami, a journalist and public affairs analyst, writes from Abuja