Reacting to Petition Against Former Osun Governor Gboyega Oyetola: Grassroots Stakeholders Question Motives and Predict Political Fallout

Counter-Opinion by Concerned Grassroots Stakeholders on the Politically-Colored Petition Filed by Abuja-Based Legal Practitioner

In response to the recent petition filed by Mr. Pelumi—an Abuja-based legal practitioner—alleging financial misconduct during the tenure of former Osun State Governor, His Excellency Gboyega Oyetola, we, the Concerned Grassroots Stakeholders, deem it necessary to present a measured and objective counter-opinion.

While we uphold the constitutional role of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as a vital institution in the fight against corruption, we find Mr. Pelumi’s intervention to be marked by timing, tone, and substance that call into question its impartiality and motivation.

Upon reviewing Mr. Pelumi’s article titled “Oyetola Ongoing Corruption Investigation: We Must Continue to Commend the EFCC as It Stands Tall in This Defining Moment”, one is left with the impression of a narrative crafted more for political theatre than legal scrutiny. The language employed, though evocative, reveals an undertone of partisanship rather than a commitment to transparent justice.

We ask, quite candidly: If the search for justice is sincere, why is this fervor not applied uniformly? Why does the call for investigation appear selectively targeted toward political adversaries?

Selective outrage, while rhetorically powerful, erodes the integrity of public advocacy. When legal instruments are wielded as political weapons, the pursuit of justice becomes collateral damage.

Our Position

We respectfully challenge the legitimacy of Mr. Pelumi’s petition and request that the EFCC subject it to a rigorous and unbiased review. Our position is based on the following grounds:

1. Lack of Due Diligence

There is no public record indicating that the Osun State Auditor-General raised official audit queries against the administration of Mr. Oyetola. Similarly, no adverse report has been attributed to the State's Public Procurement Board during that period. These are crucial channels for procedural oversight. The absence of such institutional flags renders the foundation of the petition questionable, bordering on speculative rather than evidentiary.

2. Ethical and Professional Boundaries

As a member of the legal profession, Mr. Pelumi is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rule 1, which mandates objectivity and the maintenance of the legal profession's integrity. A petition premised on conjecture and partisan tones risks breaching these ethical expectations and warrants professional scrutiny.

3. Preserving Institutional Integrity

The EFCC must not be manipulated into serving the ends of political vendettas. Its independence must be guarded jealously. Entertaining petitions that lack substantiated claims not only undermines its credibility but also diverts attention from legitimate anti-corruption efforts.

Conclusion

We urge the EFCC to:

Dismiss the petition on the grounds of insufficient evidence and lack of procedural rigor;

Refer the matter to relevant legal professional bodies for an evaluation of Mr. Pelumi’s conduct in accordance with ethical standards.

In times where political discourse is often polluted by self-serving narratives, it is imperative that public institutions remain insulated from partisan manipulation and remain committed to truth, fairness, and justice for all.