Former Deputy Governor of Edo State, Philip Shaibu, has made a startling revelation about his lack of faith in former Governor Godwin Obaseki, even before they assumed office on November 12, 2016. The disclosure came during an interview on Channels Television’s “Political Paradigm” programme on Tuesday, shedding light on the internal dynamics and decision-making processes that shaped the leadership of Edo State during their tenure. Shaibu’s candid remarks provide a rare glimpse into the political intricacies behind Obaseki’s emergence as governor and the uneasy alliance that followed.
In his opening statement, Shaibu did not mince words when describing his initial skepticism toward Obaseki’s suitability for the role of governor. “Obaseki is not a politician,” he stated emphatically. “We made him governor; Oshiomhole convinced us. I was not one of those that believed he should be the governor because I didn’t believe in him.” This admission underscores the pivotal role played by then-National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Adams Oshiomhole, in securing Obaseki’s candidacy—a move that Shaibu reluctantly supported despite his reservations.
Shaibu elaborated on the circumstances that led to Obaseki’s selection as the APC’s gubernatorial candidate. According to him, the decision was driven by strategic considerations rather than personal conviction. At the time, Nigeria was grappling with an economic recession, and there was a pressing need for leadership with a strong economic background and private sector expertise. Oshiomhole reportedly argued that Obaseki fit this profile, convincing key stakeholders, including Shaibu, to back his candidacy.
“Comrade predicted well,” Shaibu recalled. “He said we needed someone with economic knowledge and private sector experience because we were going into a recession. We believed Comrade, we didn’t believe him.” These words highlight the delicate balance between trust in Oshiomhole’s judgment and lingering doubts about Obaseki’s capabilities. For Shaibu, the decision to support Obaseki was rooted in respect for Oshiomhole’s vision rather than confidence in Obaseki himself.
The former deputy governor also revealed that significant sacrifices were made to accommodate Obaseki’s leadership style and priorities. Reflecting on their first term in office, Shaibu disclosed that their existing political structure was dismantled to align with Obaseki’s approach to governance. This restructuring, he explained, was done in good faith, based on assurances from Oshiomhole about the direction of the state under Obaseki’s leadership. However, it appears that these assurances ultimately fell short of expectations, contributing to growing tensions within the administration.
Shaibu’s reflections paint a picture of a fraught relationship marked by underlying mistrust and conflicting visions for Edo State. While he acknowledged Obaseki’s contributions, particularly in areas requiring technical expertise, his comments suggest that the partnership was never built on a solid foundation of mutual respect or shared goals. Instead, it was held together by external pressures and the hope that Oshiomhole’s predictions would come to fruition.
The revelations have sparked widespread discussion among political analysts and observers, many of whom see this as further evidence of the challenges inherent in imposing technocrats on deeply political environments. Critics argue that while individuals with private sector experience may bring valuable skills to governance, their success often depends on their ability to navigate complex political landscapes—a task at which Obaseki seemingly struggled, at least in Shaibu’s view.
Supporters of Obaseki, however, have pushed back against Shaibu’s characterization, pointing to the former governor’s achievements during his two terms in office. They credit Obaseki with implementing progressive policies in education, infrastructure development, and healthcare, arguing that his non-political background allowed him to focus on tangible results rather than partisan interests. Nevertheless, Shaibu’s account raises important questions about the sustainability of alliances forged out of convenience rather than genuine alignment of values and objectives.
Beyond the specifics of Obaseki’s governorship, Shaibu’s comments offer broader insights into the dynamics of power-sharing and coalition-building in Nigerian politics. His admission of initial opposition to Obaseki serves as a reminder that political decisions are often influenced by pragmatic considerations rather than ideological purity. Moreover, it highlights the critical role played by influential figures like Oshiomhole in shaping electoral outcomes—a phenomenon that continues to shape the country’s political landscape.
For Shaibu personally, the interview represents an opportunity to set the record straight and provide context for his actions during his time as deputy governor. By openly discussing his misgivings about Obaseki, he demonstrates a willingness to engage in honest self-reflection—a quality that is increasingly rare in public discourse. At the same time, his remarks underscore the importance of transparency and accountability in leadership, urging future administrations to prioritize unity and trust over expedience.
As reactions to Shaibu’s revelations continue to unfold, one thing is clear: the relationship between him and Obaseki was far more complicated than previously imagined. What began as a reluctant partnership ultimately evolved into a tenuous collaboration marked by compromises, disappointments, and unmet expectations. Whether viewed as a cautionary tale or a case study in political pragmatism, their story offers valuable lessons for aspiring leaders and citizens alike.
In the end, Shaibu’s candidness invites reflection on the nature of trust and cooperation in governance. Can a leader succeed without the full confidence of their team? Is it possible to bridge the gap between technical expertise and political acumen? And perhaps most importantly, how can governments ensure that decisions are guided by the collective good rather than individual ambition? These are questions that will undoubtedly linger long after the dust settles on this latest chapter in Edo State’s political history.
