Yayi Under Fresh Pressure Over Alleged Contradictory INEC Declarations

The controversy is no longer simply about where Yayi comes from — A political controversy that began with a question about Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola’s ancestral background is now moving into a more serious legal territory: what exactly did the APC governorship candidate declare in documents submitted under oath, and can contradictory declarations, if proved, amount to an offence?

That is the central argument advanced by Victor Agaga in a statement titled “PERJURY IS THE OFFENCE: YAYI LIED ON OATH AND IS NOT FIT TO BE GOVERNOR.”

Agaga argues that the debate has been deliberately reduced to the question of whether Adeola is from Ogun or Ekiti, when, in his view, the more important question concerns alleged contradictions in Adeola’s sworn declarations.

But there is an important legal distinction.

The allegation of perjury is not yet an established fact. Whether a particular declaration amounts to perjury depends on the document, the circumstances in which it was made, its materiality and the applicable law.

That distinction is crucial in a political season where accusations can easily become substitutes for evidence.

What Agaga is actually alleging

Agaga begins by rejecting the suggestion that simply being from another state automatically prevents a Nigerian from becoming governor of Ogun State.

He argues that the Constitution does not make state indigeneity one of the express qualifications for election as governor.

Section 177 of the Constitution provides that a person qualifies for election as governor if the person is a Nigerian citizen by birth, is at least 35 years old, belongs to and is sponsored by a political party, and has at least a School Certificate or equivalent qualification.

ValidViewNetwork reports that the distinction matters because the Constitution’s stated qualifications and the political arguments surrounding indigeneity are not necessarily the same thing.

Agaga’s argument is that Adeola could be from Ekiti, Lagos or anywhere else and still seek the governorship of Ogun if he satisfies the constitutional requirements.

His objection begins elsewhere.

The allegation: contradictory sworn declarations

According to Agaga, Adeola personally declared different states of origin in different documents submitted to INEC. He alleges that one declaration identified Ekiti State, another identified Lagos State, while another identified Ogun State.

Agaga therefore argues that the controversy should not be framed simply as an ethnic or ancestral dispute.

His position is that if certified official documents establish that the same person knowingly made contradictory sworn declarations concerning a material fact, the legal consequences should be examined.

This is the part of the allegation that requires documentary verification.

ValidViewNetwork has not independently established from the publicly accessible material reviewed for this report that the alleged three INEC declarations actually exist in the form described by Agaga.

That does not mean the allegation is false. It means the allegation should remain an allegation until the documents are produced, authenticated and properly examined.

Is it automatically perjury?

This is where the political argument requires a legal X-ray.Agaga describes the alleged conduct as “perjury” and says lying under oath is a grave criminal offence.Perjury is indeed an offence under Nigeria’s Criminal Code.

Section 117 defines it as knowingly giving false testimony in a judicial proceeding, or for the purpose of instituting such a proceeding, on a material matter.

The law also states that the false testimony may be written or oral. That wording is important. It means the mere existence of two apparently inconsistent documents does not, by itself, allow a newspaper to pronounce a person guilty of perjury.

The prosecution would still have to establish the relevant legal elements, including that the statement was false, that it was knowingly false and that it fell within the circumstances contemplated by the applicable law.

ValidViewNetwork reports that “contradictory declaration” and “proven perjury” are therefore not interchangeable expressions.

That is precisely why the documents, oath, context and legal proceedings matter.

Yayi’s response has changed the direction of the controversy

The controversy intensified this week after Adeola threatened legal action against Abayomi Hunye and PDP chieftain Ambassador Folake Marcus-Bello over claims that he is an indigene of Ekiti State.

Through his media adviser, Chief Kayode Odunaro, Adeola gave the two individuals 24 hours to produce evidence supporting their claims or face legal action.

Adeola described the allegations as false and libellous.In his response, he said:

“They should produce their evidence in 24 hours or be ready for my lawsuits.” He also argued that similar allegations had been used against him during the 2023 Ogun West senatorial contest.

That response is significant because it moves the dispute from political rhetoric towards evidence.

Hunye, rather than retreating, welcomed the threatened lawsuit and said he was prepared to meet Adeola in court. His media aide, Femi Oyewale, also claimed that documentary evidence existed to support his position.

That creates the clearest route for resolving the dispute. Documents, not television arguments.

The Tinubu and Gbenga Daniel comparisons

Agaga also rejects comparisons with earlier political controversies involving former Ogun Governor Otunba Gbenga Daniel and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

His argument is that allegations about where Daniel or Tinubu’s ancestors came from are different from an allegation that a candidate personally made contradictory declarations in official documents.

That distinction can be understood in principle.

If an opponent merely alleges that a politician’s ancestry originates from another state, the allegation does not automatically establish wrongdoing.

But if authenticated official documents show that a candidate personally made materially contradictory declarations, the legal question becomes different.

Even then, however, the conclusion must come from the evidence and applicable law.

ValidViewNetwork stated in an earlier report that the controversy surrounding Yayi’s ancestry should not be confused with the separate question of his constitutional eligibility to contest the governorship.

The two questions must be kept apart.

The bigger question for Ogun

The most consequential question is not whether political opponents can make allegations. They can. The question is whether the allegations can be substantiated.

Adeola has demanded evidence from those accusing him of being from Ekiti. Hunye says he has documentary evidence.

Agaga now argues that the controversy should focus on alleged sworn declarations rather than ancestry itself.

The logical next step is therefore straightforward. Produce the documents. Authenticate them. Examine the declarations. Allow the affected parties to respond.

Then let the appropriate legal institution determine the consequences.

ValidViewNetwork has been able to establish that several legal challenges surrounding Adeola’s 2027 governorship bid were recently withdrawn, while the ancestry controversy has now generated a separate threat of litigation.

Four suits challenging his governorship bid were reported as having been discontinued in August and September.

That background makes the current controversy even more important to watch.

But it also makes restraint more necessary.

A political candidate cannot be declared guilty of a criminal offence by headlines, just as an accuser cannot be dismissed simply because the allegation is politically inconvenient.

Ogun deserves evidence, not political theatreThe 2027 election will inevitably produce fierce arguments over candidates.

That is normal. What should not become normal is the substitution of accusation for evidence.

If certified INEC documents genuinely show that Adeola made three contradictory sworn declarations about his state of origin, those documents should be placed before the appropriate authorities and subjected to legal scrutiny.

If they do not, those making the allegations should be prepared to withdraw or substantiate them.

ValidViewNetwork had earlier reported on the confrontation between Yayi and Hunye over the Ekiti-origin allegation.

The latest development has now moved the argument from “Where is Yayi from?” to a more precise question: “What did Yayi declare in his official documents, and what is the legal consequence, if any?”

That is a question the courts can answer better than political rallies.

And if a court eventually establishes that an offence was committed, the law should take its course without fear or favour.

Until then, calling a sitting senator or governorship candidate a criminal on the basis of an allegation would itself abandon the same principle of due process that the controversy claims to defend.

The Constitution must govern eligibility, authenticated documents must govern disputed facts, and the courts must govern allegations of criminal conduct.

Ogun State needs neither political intimidation nor self-help, but evidence, due process and the rule of law, ValidViewNetwork reports.