Olu Allen
Let’s be honest: Ademola Adeleke’s decision to reaffirm his support for President Bola Tinubu’s 2027 re-election, barely after defeating the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the Osun governorship election, has left many people scratching their heads.
The question practically writes itself: how do you fight a man and his political structure in an election, defeat them, and then turn around to support the same man for president?
To some, it is cowardice.
To others, political betrayal.
But perhaps there is another way to look at it.
Perhaps Adeleke is simply playing politics the way politics has always been played: with an eye on survival, influence and the interests of those he governs.
Adeleke has just secured another four years as governor of Osun.
He understands, perhaps better than most, the enormous influence the federal government can wield over a state.
He also understands that a governor who chooses permanent confrontation with Abuja may win applause from his supporters but could ultimately pay a price in the delivery of governance.
So what is preferable?
A governor who spends four years at war with the presidency?
Or one who says, in effect: the election is over; now let us work together?
That may offend the sensibilities of partisan supporters, but governance is not always about satisfying partisan emotions.
Sometimes, it is about getting things done.
Adeleke has also offered his own explanation for the endorsement.
He has denied any secret agreement with Tinubu and has reportedly framed his support around his belief that the president deserves another term, as well as the need for Osun and the wider Yoruba region to benefit from the administration’s projects and policies.
One may disagree with that reasoning.
Indeed, one may find it politically inconvenient or even hypocritical.
But disagreement is not evidence of cowardice.
THE POLITICAL PARADOX
Yet there is something undeniably uncomfortable about Adeleke’s position.
His supporters went into the Osun election with a powerful political narrative: that the people’s mandate could withstand federal pressure and that electoral power ultimately belonged to the voters.
They won.
And almost immediately after that victory, the governor publicly reaffirmed his support for the same president whose party he had just defeated at the state level.
That creates a legitimate political question:
What exactly changed?
Did Tinubu change?
Did Adeleke change?
Or was the electoral battle simply one thing, while the business of governing is something entirely different?
That distinction is important.
Political competition does not necessarily have to become permanent political warfare.
You can fight someone at the polls and still negotiate with them afterwards.
You can oppose a party without opposing every policy of the government it controls.
You can defeat a political structure in your state and still recognise that the federal government remains an important partner in the development of that state.
Politics, after all, is full of strange alliances.
Yesterday’s opponent can become tomorrow’s negotiating partner.
The politician who understands this often survives longer than the one who treats every disagreement as a declaration of permanent war.
PRAGMATISM OR SURRENDER?
This is where Adeleke must tread carefully.
Political pragmatism is useful.
Political surrender is not.
Supporting Tinubu in 2027 should not mean Osun surrendering its interests at the altar of political accommodation.
It should not mean Adeleke stops demanding accountability from Abuja.
It should not mean he becomes incapable of criticising policies that negatively affect his people.
And it certainly should not mean that the people of Osun have automatically transferred ownership of their votes to anybody.
Adeleke’s mandate belongs to the people who elected him.
If he chooses to support Tinubu, he must still remember that his first political responsibility is to those people.
There is also a broader lesson here.
Nigerian politics has repeatedly demonstrated that political alliances are rarely permanent. Politicians who appear to be bitter enemies today can become allies tomorrow when circumstances change.
That reality may disgust the politically romantic, but it is hardly new.
The question, therefore, should not simply be whether Adeleke has endorsed Tinubu.
The more important question is: what does Adeleke hope to achieve from that relationship, and what will Osun gain from it?
If the answer is better federal-state cooperation, infrastructure, investment and development, then perhaps his strategy deserves consideration.
But if the relationship eventually becomes nothing more than political submission, then his critics may have been right all along.
THE SAGA OF SURVIVAL
I therefore hesitate to call Adeleke a coward.
I also would not rush to call him a political genius.
Perhaps he is doing something much more basic and much more common in politics:
surviving.
Build relationships.
Keep yesterday’s enemies from becoming permanent enemies.
Secure opportunities for your people.
Avoid unnecessary confrontation.
Protect your political future.
There is nothing inherently cowardly about any of that.
The danger, however, is that survival politics can become an excuse for abandoning principles.
That is the line Adeleke must not cross.
The Osun governor has demonstrated that he understands how to win an election.
His next challenge is demonstrating that he understands how to convert political victory into meaningful governance without losing the confidence of the people who gave him that victory.
Whether his embrace of Tinubu ultimately strengthens him or weakens him remains to be seen.
But one thing is already clear:
The man who just defeated the APC in Osun has now offered to help Tinubu win Nigeria.
That is no small political development.
And if Nigerian politics has taught us anything, it is that the most interesting chapter of a political story often begins after the election results have been announced.
Adeleke may be acting out of pragmatism.
He may be calculating his political future.
He may genuinely believe that supporting Tinubu is in the interest of Osun and the Yoruba people.
Or perhaps, as is often the case in politics, all three explanations can be true at the same time.
The real test will not be the endorsement.
It will be what Adeleke gets for Osun—and what he is willing to give up in return.
For now, I would rather watch the game than rush to condemn the player.
Because in politics, the man who survives the battle is not necessarily the coward.
Sometimes, he is simply the man who understands that winning the war requires knowing when to stop fighting.
Allen writes on public affairs and advocates for good governance.
