Shame on Fayose! The Oga has no shame at all! Is he like the proverbial dog that returned to its vomit? With all his gragra, political swagger, and loud declarations, Ayodele Fayose has still condescended to accept a major APC appointment from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. No wonder there has been so much pakurumo-pakurumo between him and the President. He has no shame, abi? Good.
My brother, let us now calm down and ask a simple question: Shame on Fayose for what exactly? For accepting an invitation to serve Nigeria? For being considered worthy of contributing his experience to the Rural Electrification Agency? Or for refusing to allow yesterday’s political disagreement to become a permanent obstacle to national progress?
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has appointed former Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Fayose, as Chairman of the Board of the Rural Electrification Agency (REA). The Presidency announced the decision on July 21, 2026, as part of 26 strategic appointments across 10 federal agencies and commissions. Since the announcement, critics have resurrected an earlier statement credited to Fayose claiming he would rather remain at home than accept an appointment under an APC-led administration.
They are now shouting:
“Fayose said he would never work for the APC!”
“Fayose has contradicted himself!”
“Fayose has eaten his words!”
But before anyone begins to beat the drum of ridicule, let us apply logic, fairness, and a proper understanding of governance.
Understanding the Ayodele Fayose REA Appointment
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a leading member of the All Progressives Congress. He contested and won the presidential election on the platform of the APC, but he does not function merely as an APC party officer. He is the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. His constitutional responsibilities extend far beyond party loyalists, APC governors, or communities that voted for his party. He is the President of every Nigerian—including members of the PDP, Labour Party, NNPP, APGA, and citizens who belong to no political party whatsoever.
The offer extended to Ayodele Fayose did not come from the National Chairman of the APC. It was not an appointment to serve at the APC National Secretariat, nor was he appointed chairman of a campaign or reconciliation committee. He was appointed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to chair the board of a federal institution that belongs to all Nigerians.
That distinction is fundamental. The Rural Electrification Agency is not an agency of the APC. Its offices are not owned by the party, its workers are not paid from party membership dues, and its projects are not intended exclusively for communities controlled by the ruling party. Its core mandate is to provide and facilitate access to electricity for underserved and unserved Nigerian communities, irrespective of political affiliation. Therefore, serving as Chairman of the Board of the REA is not the same as working as an official of the party. Fayose has been appointed to serve Nigeria, not a political party.
It is entirely possible to work under a President elected on the platform of a political party without becoming an employee, officer, or member of that party. A judge appointed by an APC President does not become an APC judge. A professor appointed to a federal committee does not become an APC academic. A technocrat appointed to the board of a federal agency does not automatically receive a party membership card. Why, therefore, should the Ayodele Fayose federal role be interpreted any differently?
Beyond Past Declarations: Why Times Change
Life is not static. We live in a dynamic world where times, circumstances, responsibilities, and relationships continuously evolve. The statement now being aggressively circulated on social media was made many months before this appointment. It was not made yesterday, nor was it made on the morning the decision was announced. Many waters have passed under the bridge.
The circumstances under which Fayose declared that he would not work under an APC-led administration may no longer be the circumstances confronting him today. Perhaps the statement arose from political disappointment, a period of partisan disagreement, or a reaction to a specific situation. Whatever the circumstances were, must one statement made during a political squabble become an eternal covenant? Must a leader be permanently imprisoned by every past political declaration?
That would make no logical sense. There is no wisdom in arguing that once a Nigerian has expressed frustration during a period of political disagreement, he must reject every future opportunity to serve his country. What sense would that make? Must Nigeria be denied the service of a qualified citizen simply because, at an earlier moment of partisan tension, he made a statement reflecting the heat of that period?
Suppose the nation later requires his knowledge, experience, contacts, courage, or administrative capacity. Should he refuse to serve merely because political spectators are waiting to accuse him of inconsistency? Should Nigeria lose merely so critics can praise him for remaining faithful to an old quarrel? That would be the ultimate triumph of ego over patriotism.
Mature leaders review their positions. Responsible public figures reconsider earlier decisions, and statesmen rise above personal grievances when the national interest demands it. The relevant question is not whether Fayose once said he would not accept a role. The more important questions are: Does Nigeria require his service? Is he competent to undertake the assignment? Can his experience add value to the **Rural Electrification Agency**? Is he prepared to discharge his duties faithfully?
Where the answers are positive, it would be senseless to reject the appointment merely to satisfy those who prefer rigid political posturing to national progress. Indeed, there would be greater shame in rejecting an opportunity to serve millions of Nigerians simply because of an old political quarrel.
Cross-Party Service Under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu
Consistency is a virtue, but consistency must never be confused with stubbornness. There is nothing admirable about remaining permanently attached to a position that has been overtaken by events merely out of fear of public commentary. Human beings change their views, governments change their policies, and leaders who once criticised one another frequently work together when national interest demands cooperation.
In established democracies, competence consistently rises above party boundaries. In the United States, President Barack Obama, a Democrat, retained Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense after he had served under Republican President George W. Bush. Gates continued to serve his country across two administrations led by opposing political parties because national security was far more important than partisan labels.
Such decisions do not mean the appointee has abandoned his core political beliefs. They simply demonstrate that a government recognises that national talent is not confined to a single party membership register. Nigeria must actively encourage this culture. A nation of over 200 million people cannot limit its talent pool to the membership register of whichever party holds power.
When elections end, governance must begin. The national debate must now move away from social media mockery to the central question: Can Fayose perform the assignment? As a former governor with substantial executive experience, he has supervised public institutions, navigated complex political terrains, and managed state administration. Whether one admires or dislikes his political style, pretending he lacks relevant governance experience is simply unreasonable.
The chairmanship of a federal board requires leadership, oversight, policy guidance, and strict accountability. Fayose should therefore be judged strictly by his performance. Will he help the agency extend electricity to neglected rural communities? Will he insist on transparency? Will he protect public funds and bring urgency to the agency?
If he fails, criticise him. If he mismanages the responsibility, expose him. But do not condemn a Nigerian simply because President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has called upon him to serve his nation.
Shame on Fayose? No. The real shame would be for Nigeria to reject experience and competence merely to preserve an old political quarrel.
