The media adviser to Ogun State APC governorship candidate Senator Solomon Adeola, popularly known as Yayi, has explained the history of the politician’s name change amid renewed questions over his identity ahead of the 2027 election.
Kayode Odunaro made the explanation in an interview on Saturday, September 26, 2026, while defending Adeola against questions surrounding his name and background.
According to Odunaro, Adeola was previously known as Sulaimon Ogunleye and adopted the name Solomon Adeola after converting from Islam to Christianity.
What the aide actually said
Odunaro said the change happened years before Adeola entered politics and while he was associated with The Guardian.
He argued that changing a name after a religious conversion is not unusual. He also explained the names by saying that Solomon is the biblical equivalent of Sulaimon, while Adeola was chosen as the surname.
The explanation is therefore the position of Adeola’s camp. It should not be presented as independent documentary confirmation of every detail of the candidate’s personal history.
Why the issue resurfaced
The question became politically relevant after former Ijebu East Local Government chairman Wale Adedayo alleged that Adeola was originally Sulaimon Ogunleye and came from Ekiti State.
Adedayo made the allegation during an appearance on Channels Television’s Politics Today in September and challenged Adeola to establish his Ogun ancestry.
Adeola’s camp rejected the allegation.
Minister of State for Health and Social Welfare Iziaq Salako also publicly defended Adeola’s Ogun ancestry, saying on Politics Today that the senator’s paternal and maternal roots were in Ogun State.
The two questions should therefore be separated.
A former name does not by itself establish a person’s place of origin.
Likewise, an allegation about a person’s origin does not establish wrongdoing merely because the person previously used another name.
What about allegations from his Guardian years?
Claims circulating around Adeola’s years at The Guardian and allegations of wrongdoing associated with that period require documentary evidence before they can properly be reported as established facts.
The available material establishes that his name history is now a subject of political dispute. It does not independently establish that a name change was connected to fraud, dismissal or any other wrongdoing.
That distinction is important in an election year. Changing one’s name after a religious conversion is not, by itself, evidence of misconduct.
The legitimate public question is whether the competing accounts of identity and ancestry can be supported by credible documents and verifiable records.
Do you want to advertise with us?
Do you need publicity for a product, service, or event?
Contact us on WhatsApp +2348033617468, +234 816 612 1513, +234 703 010 7174
or Email: validviewnetwork@gmail.com
CLICK TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
Why voters should hear the competing accounts
The controversy is ultimately about public accountability. A candidate seeking elective office will inevitably face questions about his biography, political history and public record.
Opponents have the right to raise questions, while candidates and their representatives have the right to respond.
The strongest way to settle such disputes is not through social-media insinuations but through evidence and direct answers.
ValidViewNetwork reports that the current dispute over Adeola’s name and ancestry remains contested, with Adedayo making the allegations and Adeola’s camp offering a different account.
Neither side’s political assertion should be treated as independently proven without documentary evidence.