A fresh political controversy has erupted in Saki West of Oyo State following a sharp rebuttal by the Chairman of the Oyo State House of Assembly Service Commission, Honourable Femi Julius Okedoyin, against an allegation by the incumbent lawmaker, Honourable Ibrahim Shittu, that he collects 60 per cent of the lawmaker’s constituency allowance.
Femi Julius, a former representative of Saki West in the Oyo State House of Assembly, described the allegation as a calculated falsehood, baseless accusation and an attempt to damage his reputation, challenging Shittu Ibrahim to produce credible evidence or immediately withdraw the statement and tender an unreserved public apology.
The controversy reportedly originated from a recent programme organised by the Nigerian Youth Congress (NYC), where Shittu Ibrahim allegedly claimed that 60 per cent of his constituency allowance goes to Okedoyin, while he retains the remaining 40 per cent.
However, in a strongly worded response signed and circulated to journalists, the Commission Chairman dismissed the allegation as entirely untrue, questioning the rationale behind associating his name with the management of a financial entitlement to which, according to him, he has no claim.
Femi Julius maintained that his position as Chairman of the Oyo State House of Assembly Service Commission does not qualify him for any constituency allowance, stressing that it would therefore be unreasonable and impossible for him to be receiving or sharing such an allowance with a serving legislator.
He further argued that constituency allowances, where applicable, are reportedly paid directly into the accounts of serving lawmakers, making the allegation against him particularly questionable.
The former legislator expressed disappointment that Shittu Ibrahim would make such a serious financial allegation in a public forum without presenting documentary evidence, transaction records or any other verifiable material capable of establishing the claim.
According to him, the allegation has already triggered unnecessary controversy and damaging public reactions, particularly across social media platforms, with the potential to undermine his integrity, reputation and the credibility of the office he occupies.
In what amounts to a direct challenge to the incumbent lawmaker, Femi Julius demanded that Shittu immediately retract the allegation and tender an unreserved public apology.
He warned that failure to meet the demand would leave him with no alternative but to pursue appropriate legal remedies to defend his reputation and seek redress over what he considers a damaging and unsubstantiated public accusation.
Taking the controversy beyond the immediate allegation, Femi Julius also raised questions about what he described as Shittu’s history of controversial public statements, alleging that the incumbent lawmaker had previously been compelled to apologise on the floor of the State Assembly over statements considered misleading and injurious to the image of the legislature.
He consequently questioned the wisdom of making serious allegations against individuals without first establishing the facts, insisting that public office holders must be conscious of the consequences of their utterances.
More significantly, Femi Julius shifted the political conversation towards Shittu Ibrahim’s legislative responsibilities, challenging him to concentrate on delivering the mandate given to him by the people of Saki West rather than engaging in what he described as allegations and attempts to attract public sympathy.
He listed legislative contributions, motions sponsored, participation in oversight functions, committee assignments and measurable constituency projects as critical indicators through which the incumbent lawmaker’s performance should be evaluated.
The former representative argued that political leadership should be measured by verifiable achievements and meaningful interventions rather than public accusations capable of creating unnecessary division and controversy.
He maintained that constructive criticism remains an essential component of democratic governance but warned that allegations bordering on financial misconduct must never be made casually or deployed as instruments of political confrontation without supporting evidence.
Femi Julius further appealed to the public to disregard the allegation, insisting that his years of public service and personal integrity should not be sacrificed on the altar of what he described as political or personal interests.
In a defiant conclusion, the Commission Chairman declared that he would not allow anyone to use his name to promote a narrative he considers deliberately constructed on falsehood.
He challenged Shittu Ibrahim to substantiate the allegation with credible evidence, withdraw it and apologise, or prepare for further legal action.
