WHEN POLITICAL THUGGERY TURNS AGAINST ITS OWN

WHEN POLITICAL THUGGERY TURNS AGAINST ITS OWN

For much of his first tenure, Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke faced persistent allegations that his administration tolerated—and, according to his critics, institutionalised—political thuggery by allegedly appointing individuals described as known cultists and street enforcers into political positions. Opposition figures also accused the administration of using violent political networks to intimidate and silence its opponents.

Yet, in the build-up to the election, a disturbing narrative emerged. Because the APC was the ruling party at the federal level, many Nigerians were quick to attribute virtually every incident of political violence in Osun to the party. That assumption overlooked a fundamental political reality: the APC was the opposition party in Osun State, not the ruling party.

The argument, therefore, was simple: if political violence was being encouraged or tolerated by those controlling the machinery of the state, the opposition would naturally have been under pressure to defend itself rather than surrender the political space to intimidation.

The subsequent pattern of killings, counter-killings and clashes involving rival groups allegedly linked to the political establishment should have prompted a more objective examination of the real sources of violence in the state.

The latest tragedy involving Emir Ajagungbade, who was reportedly killed yesterday, has once again brought the dangerous consequences of political thuggery into sharp focus.

Ajagungbade was widely portrayed by some residents and opposition supporters as a feared political enforcer. Allegations had previously linked him to violent attacks against APC supporters, including claims that he used stones and other weapons during political clashes. He was also reportedly facing serious criminal allegations, including murder and terrorism charges, before being granted bail and subsequently becoming a fugitive after allegedly jumping bail.

For an extended period, critics alleged that despite being declared wanted, he continued to operate freely. There were even public allegations that the state authorities were shielding him and other wanted individuals—claims that should properly be judged against verified evidence rather than political narratives.

Most tragically, reports indicate that those who eventually killed him were themselves members of the same Accord Party violent ecosystem in which he had allegedly operated.

And therein lies the greatest lesson.

When politicians empower thugs to fight their political battles, they may eventually lose control of the monsters they have created.

Thuggery has no permanent loyalty. Violence does not distinguish between the person who starts it and the person who eventually becomes its victim. Once political violence becomes a tool of governance, it can quickly mutate into a cycle of revenge, counter-revenge and bloodshed.

This is why political leaders must understand that violence never produces sustainable political victory. Elections should be won through ideas, performance, persuasion and the confidence of the people—not through intimidation, cult groups or street violence.

Those who live by violence eventually risk becoming victims of the same violence they once unleashed.

Violence doesn't pay. Thuggery doesn't pay. Political power is temporary, but the consequences of the methods used to acquire and protect it can last a lifetime.

As the timeless warning goes: “Those who take the sword may perish by the sword.”

Osun deserves politics without thuggery, elections without bloodshed and leadership without fear, sc,fb.