When Barrister Akeem Agbaje declared in a recent statement that “No Agbaje, no progressives” at a gathering of his supporters and sympathetic leaders in Ibadan, he did more than renew his governorship ambition. He reopened a question the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Oyo State has been trying to answer for months: has the party achieved genuine reconciliation among its competing tendencies, or has it merely secured temporary political accommodation from some of its aggrieved aspirants?

The question is particularly important because Agbaje’s latest position came after several rounds of reconciliation, including an earlier consensus initiative involving prominent aspirants, the constitution of a reconciliation committee by the APC and the eventual decision by four members of the original group of six aggrieved aspirants to work with Senator Sharafadeen Alli, who emerged as the party’s governorship candidate. However, Agbaje remains publicly dissatisfied.

At the same time, his latest declaration contained another important political message: while challenging the handling of the Oyo governorship contest, he reaffirmed his support for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and pledged that his political camp would work for the President in 2027. That distinction may be central to understanding the current Oyo APC crisis.

Remember, the current dispute did not begin with Alli’s emergence. In April, Florence Ajimobi, wife of the late former Oyo State governor, Senator Abiola Ajimobi, hosted several prominent APC governorship aspirants and stakeholders at her Lagos residence in an attempt to build consensus ahead of the 2027 contest. Among those associated with the meeting were the 2023 APC governorship candidate, Senator Teslim Folarin; Senator Abdulfatai Buhari; Akeem Agbaje; former deputy governor Rauf Olaniyan; Adebayo Adelabu; Remi Oseni and other party figures.

Reports of the meeting indicated that the aspirants discussed the need for unity and agreed to support whoever President Tinubu endorsed, while also emphasising the importance of an inclusive and transparent process. That meeting is significant because it shows that the APC’s reconciliation challenge predates the dispute over Alli. If prominent aspirants were already meeting to prevent division before the governorship ticket was settled, the subsequent emergence of a fresh reconciliation committee suggests that consensus was never fully achieved in the first place.

The Oyo APC governorship contest attracted a sizeable field. Among those who obtained nomination or expression-of-interest forms were Alli, Adelabu, Agbaje, Hakeem Alao, Rauf Olaniyan, Ayobami Lam-Adesina, Musibau Asanike, Ololade Bakare, Abdulfatai Buhari, Adewale Kareem and Muyiwa Gbadegesin. The competition was therefore not a simple contest between two political camps. It involved several politicians with established political structures and ambitions across different parts of the state.

Following Alli’s emergence, six aspirants, Alao, Olaniyan, Lam-Adesina, Agbaje, Bakare and Asanike, rejected the outcome and questioned the process. The six maintained that the procedure did not satisfy their expectations of transparency and compliance with the party’s rules and relevant electoral provisions. Their objections were therefore presented not simply as opposition to Alli personally, but as concerns about how the candidate emerged. That distinction remains important. The APC subsequently intensified its reconciliation efforts.

A reconciliation committee was constituted to engage aggrieved aspirants and other stakeholders, with the objective of bringing the different tendencies together ahead of the 2027 elections. By August, four members of the original group of six, Rauf Olaniyan, Musibau Asanike, Ololade Bakare and Oyedele Alao had agreed to work with the party and support its candidate. The development represented movement for the APC. However, it did not amount to complete reconciliation.

Agbaje remained outside the arrangement, while other prominent figures were not present at a subsequent meeting involving the national leadership and the reconciliation committee. That is why Agbaje’s latest declaration matters. It shows that the political dispute did not disappear simply because some of the aggrieved aspirants decided to move on.

The experience of Chief Adebayo Adelabu further demonstrates why reconciliation should not be measured simply by whether a politician remains in the contest. Adelabu was one of the most prominent aspirants in the race and subsequently announced that he would not continue pursuing his governorship ambition through an internal appeal or litigation at that stage.

However, his position did not amount to an endorsement of every aspect of the primary process. Adelabu raised questions about the conduct and documentation of the primary and called for broader reconciliation within the party. His decision therefore illustrated an important distinction: a politician can decide not to continue a particular battle without necessarily declaring that every grievance surrounding that battle has disappeared.

The Adelabu factor became more complicated in September following the defection of his former Personal Assistant, Ajiboye Akande Sangogade, popularly known as Boye Nation, from the APC to the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).

Sangogade led a group of APC supporters from different parts of Oyo State into the APM during the Boye Nation/JAF Movement Mega Concert held at the Lekan Salami Sports Complex, Adamasingba, Ibadan. Reports on the event described Sangogade as a former aide and loyalist of Adelabu, while the defectors were reported to include APC supporters associated with the former minister. Governor Seyi Makinde formally received the defectors at the event. 

The development immediately raised questions about whether the movement represented a wider political shift within Adelabu’s camp. Adelabu, however, moved to separate himself from the defection. In a statement issued by his media office, he said Sangogade was no longer his Personal Assistant and had ceased to have any official, political or representational relationship with him. He said their working relationship had ended following differences in their political alignments. 

Adelabu also “reaffirmed” that he remained a member of the APC and had no intention of leaving the party. He said his disagreement with aspects of the Oyo governorship nomination process concerned transparency, documentation and legitimacy rather than an intention to abandon the APC. He further stated that he had neither defected nor authorised anyone to defect on his behalf. 

The episode therefore needs to be separated into two distinct developments. Sangogade and the APC supporters who followed him moved to the APM, but Adelabu himself says he remains in the APC. The defection of a former aide and supporters associated with him does not, by itself, establish that Adelabu has changed parties. At the same time, the movement adds another layer to the APC’s reconciliation challenge because it demonstrates that political networks connected to prominent aspirants can move in different directions even when the aspirant himself remains within the party.

That distinction is relevant to the current situation because political reconciliation does not necessarily require every aggrieved aspirant to conclude that the original process was perfect. It requires the parties to agree on how to move forward.

Where do Folarin and Buhari fit into the equation? Senator Teslim Folarin and Senator Abdulfatai Buhari also remain important to the broader story because both are established APC figures whose political calculations can influence the party’s ability to maintain cohesion. Folarin was the APC’s governorship candidate in 2023 and therefore has an existing political base and electoral experience in the state.

Buhari, who also participated in the 2027 governorship contest, was among the prominent aspirants involved in the wider discussions around the party’s direction. Folarin, Buhari, Adelabu and Olaniyan were subsequently reported to have met privately to discuss the future of the APC and strategies for delivering Oyo State for Tinubu in 2027.

The importance of that meeting was less about producing another governorship candidate and more about demonstrating that support for Tinubu could remain a common denominator among politicians whose positions on the Oyo governorship contest were not necessarily identical. This is precisely the distinction Agbaje is now making publicly. His argument is, in effect, that supporting Tinubu does not require him to abandon his objections to the handling of the Oyo governorship contest.

Now, Agbaje’s September declaration takes the dispute beyond the question of who should occupy the governorship ticket. He argues that the issue concerns the survival and influence of the progressive bloc within the Oyo APC. At the conference in Ibadan, he accused unnamed party actors of attempting to weaken the progressive tendency and complained that decisions were allegedly being taken without adequate consultation with established leaders.

He also claimed that some members were considering leaving the APC for the Allied Peoples Movement. Agbaje said he was contesting the governorship ticket for the third time on the APC platform and questioned the process through which the party’s candidate emerged. Agbaje also maintained that his disagreement with the state-level party process should not be interpreted as opposition to Tinubu.

The claim about the progressive bloc is Agbaje’s political position and should not automatically be treated as representing every APC leader in Oyo State. The declaration nevertheless shows that his grievance remains active even after the party’s reconciliation exercise.

Now, this is where the evidence becomes more complicated than a simple “APC has reconciled” or “APC has not reconciled” narrative. The party has made progress. Four former members of the G6 have moved towards the party’s candidate. Other aspirants have publicly committed themselves to the APC and Tinubu. Adelabu has stepped away from continuing his governorship challenge through an internal appeal or litigation at this stage, while continuing to identify himself as an APC member.

However, the process has also exposed continuing fault lines. Some prominent stakeholders were absent from a major reconciliation meeting in August, while APC National Chairman Nentawe Yilwatda described reconciliation as an ongoing process rather than a concluded exercise. Agbaje’s latest outburst now provides fresh evidence that at least one significant political camp still considers the underlying grievances unresolved.

The movement of Sangogade and other APC supporters into the APM adds another development to that picture. It should not be presented as Adelabu’s defection, given his explicit denial, but it nevertheless shows that political networks linked to prominent figures can experience movements of their own while the principal politician maintains a different formal position.

Therefore, it would be premature to describe the Oyo APC as either completely divided or completely reconciled. The party has achieved partial reconciliation while significant political disagreements remain. But can APC simply substitute Alli? This is where the political debate must be separated from the legal position. The fact that reconciliation has not satisfied every aspirant does not, by itself, give the APC a legal right to replace its governorship candidate.

Under Section 33 of the Electoral Act 2026, a political party cannot simply change a candidate whose name has been submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission except in circumstances recognised by the law, principally the candidate’s death or withdrawal. Where a candidate dies or withdraws, the party is required to conduct another primary within 14 days to produce a replacement candidate and submit the name to INEC. This means there is a major difference between political substitution and legal substitution.

Politically, a party can review its strategy, negotiate with factions and attempt to build a new consensus. Legally, however, it cannot simply replace a submitted candidate because another aspirant is dissatisfied with the primary, because reconciliation has failed or because party leaders believe another arrangement would produce greater unity. There has to be a lawful basis for the substitution.

The 90-day question also matters. The Electoral Act 2026 provides a statutory window for withdrawal and substitution of candidates, subject to the conditions set out in the law. With the 2027 governorship election scheduled for March 6, 2027, the 90-day threshold falls in early December 2026, assuming the existing electoral timetable remains unchanged. The existence of that deadline does not mean APC can freely replace Alli before then.

Rather, it means that if a legally recognised circumstance for substitution arises, the party has a defined period within which it must comply with the law. Thus, Agbaje’s renewed challenge does not itself trigger substitution. What would make substitution possible?

Under the present legal framework, the clearest route would arise if the existing candidate withdraws or dies, after which the party would have to conduct another primary within the prescribed period. Another possibility could arise from judicial intervention if a court determines that the existing nomination or primary is legally defective. But that would be a consequence of a legal determination, not simply the political failure of reconciliation.

Therefore, it would be misleading to suggest that another reconciliation meeting could automatically lead to Agbaje, Adelabu, Folarin or any other aspirant replacing Alli. The law does not work that way.

Can there still be true reconciliation? Yes, but the nature of the reconciliation will determine whether it lasts. A reconciliation in which aggrieved aspirants are merely asked to publicly endorse the existing candidate may produce a photograph, a statement and temporary calm without resolving the grievances that caused the dispute.

A more durable reconciliation would have to address the issues that produced the disagreement in the first place. That could involve clearer assurances about party structures, recognition of the political relevance of defeated aspirants, commitments on future internal contests, campaign responsibilities and mechanisms for resolving disputes without repeated public confrontations. Most importantly, the parties would need to distinguish between accepting an electoral outcome and pretending that there was never a disagreement about how that outcome was produced. The former can produce reconciliation. The latter can merely postpone the conflict.

What does the Agbaje development tell us?

The Oyo APC experience since the beginning of the 2027 contest provides a sequence. First came attempts at consensus. Then came the governorship contest. Then came objections to the process. Then came reconciliation. Four aggrieved aspirants moved towards the party’s candidate. Adelabu stepped away from continuing his challenge through an internal appeal or litigation at that stage while maintaining his membership of the APC. Folarin, Buhari and other stakeholders continued to engage around the broader question of delivering Oyo for Tinubu.

Meanwhile, a former Adelabu aide, Sangogade, led APC supporters into the APM, while Adelabu publicly disowned the move and reaffirmed his APC membership. Agbaje, for his part, remained dissatisfied and has now publicly reasserted his claim to represent the progressive bloc.

That sequence suggests that the APC’s problem is not simply about producing a candidate. It is about building a political coalition around that candidate that the major factions genuinely accept.

Again, the question facing the party is therefore not simply whether Alli remains its candidate. It is whether the APC can persuade its competing tendencies that the 2027 contest is bigger than the governorship primary. If the party succeeds, Agbaje’s current challenge could eventually become another chapter in a wider reconciliation process. If it fails, the issue could continue through political negotiations, litigation or further factional mobilisation.

However one point is already clear, reconciliation is not the same as substitution, and substitution is not the same as reconciliation. The APC can reconcile its members without changing its candidate. It can also, under legally recognised circumstances, change its candidate without every member necessarily becoming reconciled. What it cannot do is assume that a few declarations of loyalty have automatically erased every grievance.

Agbaje’s “No Agbaje, no progressives” declaration has therefore placed the unresolved question back in the open. The months ahead will show whether Oyo APC can turn its series of reconciliation meetings into a broader political settlement or whether the party will enter the 2027 campaign carrying unresolved grievances beneath a surface of unity.

When Barrister Akeem Agbaje declared in a recent statement that “No Agbaje, no progressives” at a gathering of his supporters and sympathetic leaders in Ibadan, he did more than renew his governorship ambition. He reopened a question the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Oyo State has been trying to answer for months: has the party achieved genuine reconciliation among its competing tendencies, or has it merely secured temporary political accommodation from some of its aggrieved aspirants?

The question is particularly important because Agbaje’s latest position came after several rounds of reconciliation, including an earlier consensus initiative involving prominent aspirants, the constitution of a reconciliation committee by the APC and the eventual decision by four members of the original group of six aggrieved aspirants to work with Senator Sharafadeen Alli, who emerged as the party’s governorship candidate. However, Agbaje remains publicly dissatisfied.

At the same time, his latest declaration contained another important political message: while challenging the handling of the Oyo governorship contest, he reaffirmed his support for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and pledged that his political camp would work for the President in 2027. That distinction may be central to understanding the current Oyo APC crisis.

Remember, the current dispute did not begin with Alli’s emergence. In April, Florence Ajimobi, wife of the late former Oyo State governor, Senator Abiola Ajimobi, hosted several prominent APC governorship aspirants and stakeholders at her Lagos residence in an attempt to build consensus ahead of the 2027 contest. Among those associated with the meeting were the 2023 APC governorship candidate, Senator Teslim Folarin; Senator Abdulfatai Buhari; Akeem Agbaje; former deputy governor Rauf Olaniyan; Adebayo Adelabu; Remi Oseni and other party figures.

Reports of the meeting indicated that the aspirants discussed the need for unity and agreed to support whoever President Tinubu endorsed, while also emphasising the importance of an inclusive and transparent process. That meeting is significant because it shows that the APC’s reconciliation challenge predates the dispute over Alli. If prominent aspirants were already meeting to prevent division before the governorship ticket was settled, the subsequent emergence of a fresh reconciliation committee suggests that consensus was never fully achieved in the first place.

The Oyo APC governorship contest attracted a sizeable field. Among those who obtained nomination or expression-of-interest forms were Alli, Adelabu, Agbaje, Hakeem Alao, Rauf Olaniyan, Ayobami Lam-Adesina, Musibau Asanike, Ololade Bakare, Abdulfatai Buhari, Adewale Kareem and Muyiwa Gbadegesin. The competition was therefore not a simple contest between two political camps. It involved several politicians with established political structures and ambitions across different parts of the state.

Following Alli’s emergence, six aspirants, Alao, Olaniyan, Lam-Adesina, Agbaje, Bakare and Asanike, rejected the outcome and questioned the process. The six maintained that the procedure did not satisfy their expectations of transparency and compliance with the party’s rules and relevant electoral provisions. Their objections were therefore presented not simply as opposition to Alli personally, but as concerns about how the candidate emerged. That distinction remains important. The APC subsequently intensified its reconciliation efforts.

A reconciliation committee was constituted to engage aggrieved aspirants and other stakeholders, with the objective of bringing the different tendencies together ahead of the 2027 elections. By August, four members of the original group of six, Rauf Olaniyan, Musibau Asanike, Ololade Bakare and Oyedele Alao had agreed to work with the party and support its candidate. The development represented movement for the APC. However, it did not amount to complete reconciliation.

Agbaje remained outside the arrangement, while other prominent figures were not present at a subsequent meeting involving the national leadership and the reconciliation committee. That is why Agbaje’s latest declaration matters. It shows that the political dispute did not disappear simply because some of the aggrieved aspirants decided to move on.

The experience of Chief Adebayo Adelabu further demonstrates why reconciliation should not be measured simply by whether a politician remains in the contest. Adelabu was one of the most prominent aspirants in the race and subsequently announced that he would not continue pursuing his governorship ambition through an internal appeal or litigation at that stage.

However, his position did not amount to an endorsement of every aspect of the primary process. Adelabu raised questions about the conduct and documentation of the primary and called for broader reconciliation within the party. His decision therefore illustrated an important distinction: a politician can decide not to continue a particular battle without necessarily declaring that every grievance surrounding that battle has disappeared.

The Adelabu factor became more complicated in September following the defection of his former Personal Assistant, Ajiboye Akande Sangogade, popularly known as Boye Nation, from the APC to the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).

Sangogade led a group of APC supporters from different parts of Oyo State into the APM during the Boye Nation/JAF Movement Mega Concert held at the Lekan Salami Sports Complex, Adamasingba, Ibadan. Reports on the event described Sangogade as a former aide and loyalist of Adelabu, while the defectors were reported to include APC supporters associated with the former minister. Governor Seyi Makinde formally received the defectors at the event. 

The development immediately raised questions about whether the movement represented a wider political shift within Adelabu’s camp. Adelabu, however, moved to separate himself from the defection. In a statement issued by his media office, he said Sangogade was no longer his Personal Assistant and had ceased to have any official, political or representational relationship with him. He said their working relationship had ended following differences in their political alignments. 

Adelabu also “reaffirmed” that he remained a member of the APC and had no intention of leaving the party. He said his disagreement with aspects of the Oyo governorship nomination process concerned transparency, documentation and legitimacy rather than an intention to abandon the APC. He further stated that he had neither defected nor authorised anyone to defect on his behalf. 

The episode therefore needs to be separated into two distinct developments. Sangogade and the APC supporters who followed him moved to the APM, but Adelabu himself says he remains in the APC. The defection of a former aide and supporters associated with him does not, by itself, establish that Adelabu has changed parties. At the same time, the movement adds another layer to the APC’s reconciliation challenge because it demonstrates that political networks connected to prominent aspirants can move in different directions even when the aspirant himself remains within the party.

That distinction is relevant to the current situation because political reconciliation does not necessarily require every aggrieved aspirant to conclude that the original process was perfect. It requires the parties to agree on how to move forward.

Where do Folarin and Buhari fit into the equation? Senator Teslim Folarin and Senator Abdulfatai Buhari also remain important to the broader story because both are established APC figures whose political calculations can influence the party’s ability to maintain cohesion. Folarin was the APC’s governorship candidate in 2023 and therefore has an existing political base and electoral experience in the state.

Buhari, who also participated in the 2027 governorship contest, was among the prominent aspirants involved in the wider discussions around the party’s direction. Folarin, Buhari, Adelabu and Olaniyan were subsequently reported to have met privately to discuss the future of the APC and strategies for delivering Oyo State for Tinubu in 2027.

The importance of that meeting was less about producing another governorship candidate and more about demonstrating that support for Tinubu could remain a common denominator among politicians whose positions on the Oyo governorship contest were not necessarily identical. This is precisely the distinction Agbaje is now making publicly. His argument is, in effect, that supporting Tinubu does not require him to abandon his objections to the handling of the Oyo governorship contest.

Now, Agbaje’s September declaration takes the dispute beyond the question of who should occupy the governorship ticket. He argues that the issue concerns the survival and influence of the progressive bloc within the Oyo APC. At the conference in Ibadan, he accused unnamed party actors of attempting to weaken the progressive tendency and complained that decisions were allegedly being taken without adequate consultation with established leaders.

He also claimed that some members were considering leaving the APC for the Allied Peoples Movement. Agbaje said he was contesting the governorship ticket for the third time on the APC platform and questioned the process through which the party’s candidate emerged. Agbaje also maintained that his disagreement with the state-level party process should not be interpreted as opposition to Tinubu.

The claim about the progressive bloc is Agbaje’s political position and should not automatically be treated as representing every APC leader in Oyo State. The declaration nevertheless shows that his grievance remains active even after the party’s reconciliation exercise.

Now, this is where the evidence becomes more complicated than a simple “APC has reconciled” or “APC has not reconciled” narrative. The party has made progress. Four former members of the G6 have moved towards the party’s candidate. Other aspirants have publicly committed themselves to the APC and Tinubu. Adelabu has stepped away from continuing his governorship challenge through an internal appeal or litigation at this stage, while continuing to identify himself as an APC member.

However, the process has also exposed continuing fault lines. Some prominent stakeholders were absent from a major reconciliation meeting in August, while APC National Chairman Nentawe Yilwatda described reconciliation as an ongoing process rather than a concluded exercise. Agbaje’s latest outburst now provides fresh evidence that at least one significant political camp still considers the underlying grievances unresolved.

The movement of Sangogade and other APC supporters into the APM adds another development to that picture. It should not be presented as Adelabu’s defection, given his explicit denial, but it nevertheless shows that political networks linked to prominent figures can experience movements of their own while the principal politician maintains a different formal position.

Therefore, it would be premature to describe the Oyo APC as either completely divided or completely reconciled. The party has achieved partial reconciliation while significant political disagreements remain. But can APC simply substitute Alli? This is where the political debate must be separated from the legal position. The fact that reconciliation has not satisfied every aspirant does not, by itself, give the APC a legal right to replace its governorship candidate.

Under Section 33 of the Electoral Act 2026, a political party cannot simply change a candidate whose name has been submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission except in circumstances recognised by the law, principally the candidate’s death or withdrawal. Where a candidate dies or withdraws, the party is required to conduct another primary within 14 days to produce a replacement candidate and submit the name to INEC. This means there is a major difference between political substitution and legal substitution.

Politically, a party can review its strategy, negotiate with factions and attempt to build a new consensus. Legally, however, it cannot simply replace a submitted candidate because another aspirant is dissatisfied with the primary, because reconciliation has failed or because party leaders believe another arrangement would produce greater unity. There has to be a lawful basis for the substitution.

The 90-day question also matters. The Electoral Act 2026 provides a statutory window for withdrawal and substitution of candidates, subject to the conditions set out in the law. With the 2027 governorship election scheduled for March 6, 2027, the 90-day threshold falls in early December 2026, assuming the existing electoral timetable remains unchanged. The existence of that deadline does not mean APC can freely replace Alli before then.

Rather, it means that if a legally recognised circumstance for substitution arises, the party has a defined period within which it must comply with the law. Thus, Agbaje’s renewed challenge does not itself trigger substitution. What would make substitution possible?

Under the present legal framework, the clearest route would arise if the existing candidate withdraws or dies, after which the party would have to conduct another primary within the prescribed period. Another possibility could arise from judicial intervention if a court determines that the existing nomination or primary is legally defective. But that would be a consequence of a legal determination, not simply the political failure of reconciliation.

Therefore, it would be misleading to suggest that another reconciliation meeting could automatically lead to Agbaje, Adelabu, Folarin or any other aspirant replacing Alli. The law does not work that way.

Can there still be true reconciliation? Yes, but the nature of the reconciliation will determine whether it lasts. A reconciliation in which aggrieved aspirants are merely asked to publicly endorse the existing candidate may produce a photograph, a statement and temporary calm without resolving the grievances that caused the dispute.

A more durable reconciliation would have to address the issues that produced the disagreement in the first place. That could involve clearer assurances about party structures, recognition of the political relevance of defeated aspirants, commitments on future internal contests, campaign responsibilities and mechanisms for resolving disputes without repeated public confrontations. Most importantly, the parties would need to distinguish between accepting an electoral outcome and pretending that there was never a disagreement about how that outcome was produced. The former can produce reconciliation. The latter can merely postpone the conflict.

What does the Agbaje development tell us?

The Oyo APC experience since the beginning of the 2027 contest provides a sequence. First came attempts at consensus. Then came the governorship contest. Then came objections to the process. Then came reconciliation. Four aggrieved aspirants moved towards the party’s candidate. Adelabu stepped away from continuing his challenge through an internal appeal or litigation at that stage while maintaining his membership of the APC. Folarin, Buhari and other stakeholders continued to engage around the broader question of delivering Oyo for Tinubu.

Meanwhile, a former Adelabu aide, Sangogade, led APC supporters into the APM, while Adelabu publicly disowned the move and reaffirmed his APC membership. Agbaje, for his part, remained dissatisfied and has now publicly reasserted his claim to represent the progressive bloc.

That sequence suggests that the APC’s problem is not simply about producing a candidate. It is about building a political coalition around that candidate that the major factions genuinely accept.

Again, the question facing the party is therefore not simply whether Alli remains its candidate. It is whether the APC can persuade its competing tendencies that the 2027 contest is bigger than the governorship primary. If the party succeeds, Agbaje’s current challenge could eventually become another chapter in a wider reconciliation process. If it fails, the issue could continue through political negotiations, litigation or further factional mobilisation.

However one point is already clear, reconciliation is not the same as substitution, and substitution is not the same as reconciliation. The APC can reconcile its members without changing its candidate. It can also, under legally recognised circumstances, change its candidate without every member necessarily becoming reconciled. What it cannot do is assume that a few declarations of loyalty have automatically erased every grievance.

Agbaje’s “No Agbaje, no progressives” declaration has therefore placed the unresolved question back in the open. The months ahead will show whether Oyo APC can turn its series of reconciliation meetings into a broader political settlement or whether the party will enter the 2027 campaign carrying unresolved grievances beneath a surface of unity.