As Bob Marley famously sang, “He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day.” Yet, in the complex and often challenging terrain of grassroots politics, retreat is rarely neutral; it can be decisive. Nowhere is this more evident than in the unfolding dynamics within the embattled African Democratic Congress (ADC) in Ajeromi-Ifelodun, where a contentious harmonization exercise has exposed deeper secrets within the opposition ranks.
Recent developments surrounding the ADC harmonization process have reignited critical questions about political stewardship, particularly in relation to Dr. Emilia Ezeude, the Labour Party’s 2023 flagbearer in Ajeromi-Ifelodun Federal Constituency. At the heart of the discourse lies a fundamental issue: what becomes of political structures inherited but not actively sustained?
Emilia Ezeude, the Labour Party’s 2023 flagbearer in Ajeromi Ifelodun Federal Constituency, remains a figure many believe was more than just a runner-up. While the official results favoured the APC candidate, there persists a widespread sentiment among grassroots observers that the real victory belonged elsewhere. Yet, it’s often said that politics is not won on sentiment; it is secured on structure.
Dr Emilia’s greatest asset was not merely her popularity because she didn’t gauge well there, but the formidable Labour party structure she rode on in that 2023 general election, a structure inherited on availability and swelling base of disenchanted voters seeking alternatives. However, in stormy currents of politics, structure is sustained; structure without vigilance quickly becomes prey as she’s alleged to be dodging members’ caring concerns.
In what many now describe as a costly miscalculation, she appeared to lean on counsel rooted more in idealism than political realism, like the proverbial porridge advice.
Concerns have since emerged over the apparent dissipation of this political capital. Questions persist as to whether the inherited structure was effectively managed. At a recent political happening, a stakeholder, Chief Francis Chima (popularly known as Omobarca), publicly demonstrated decisive intervention by offering to purchase nomination forms for prospective ADC executives, stating that financial barriers should not hinder participation.
This move has since drawn comparisons and raised further questions regarding Dr. Ezeude’s strategic positioning and moves. Observers argue that if such a humane gesture was possible from Chief Chima within the same political space, it underscores missed opportunities for Hon Dr Emilia to consolidate influence within her own base.
More striking, however, was her absence at the ADC harmonization meeting, a critical platform that demanded not just logistical support but physical presence and assertive engagement. Although reports indicate that provisions made for the event were from her, the fact that she was not there nor represented by anyone in her camp has been widely interpreted as a strategic misstep, similar to putting her political eggs in another’s basket in an environment where visibility often equates to control.
In politics, particularly at the grassroots level, nature abhors a vacuum.
An ambitious rival, long understood to be positioning for influence, capitalized on the moment. Moving swiftly within the ADC framework, he reportedly consolidated control by deploying loyalists and strengthening alliances. What was once perceived as a shared political inheritance has, in effect, transitioned into a consolidated bloc under new leadership.
The implications are significant. Chief Francis Chima is now said to have almost effectively taken charge of the ADC structure, facilitating its alignment and underwriting the cost of nomination forms for party executives, an act that not only cements loyalty but also signals authority.
For political observers, the unfolding scenario offers a familiar but sobering lesson: in Nigeria’s grassroots politics, goodwill is insufficient, and inherited structures are not self-sustaining. They must be actively defended, nurtured, and, when necessary, fiercely protected.
Dr. Ezeude’s experience illustrates the risks of conflating restraint with strategy. Well-intentioned counsel, described by insiders as the “proverbial porridge advice,” appears to have fallen short in the face of a system that rewards presence, decisiveness, and tactical control.
Ultimately, the contest in Ajeromi-Ifelodun extends beyond party affiliations or electoral narratives. It underscores a more enduring political truth: absence is often interpreted as surrender.
And in the high-stakes arena of Ajeromi politics, surrendered ground is rarely left unclaimed.
