Olawunmi Ajibike
History can serve as a guide, but in the hands of a desperate politician, it can also become a dangerous tool. Over the weekend in Ibadan, Seyi Makinde stirred controversy while hosting a summit of opposition parties by invoking “Operation Wetie” to warn against what he described as a drift toward a one-party state.
By referencing one of the most violent chapters in Nigeria’s political past, the governor moved beyond standard political criticism into territory many consider troubling. His remarks have since drawn strong reactions from the All Progressives Congress (APC) and sections of civil society.
To grasp the weight of the backlash, it is important to recall what Operation Wetie represents. Far from peaceful protest, it was a period in the 1960s marked by chaos and brutality in Nigeria’s Western Region, where political opponents and their properties were attacked and set ablaze.
The unrest contributed to a breakdown of order that eventually preceded Nigeria’s first military coup and the civil war.
For a sitting governor—also regarded as the chief security officer of his state—to invoke such a history carries significant implications. Ibadan, where the summit took place, was a central location during that violent era.
Referencing it in today’s political climate risks being interpreted not simply as a warning, but as language that could unintentionally legitimize extreme responses to political grievances, especially among younger audiences unfamiliar with the full historical context.
Makinde’s concerns about democratic balance and the need for a strong opposition are not without merit.
A functional democracy depends on credible alternatives and fair competition. However, critics argue that the current challenges facing opposition parties stem largely from internal divisions. Issues such as factional disputes within the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and instability in the Labour Party have weakened their collective strength more than external pressures.
By invoking Operation Wetie, some analysts believe the governor may be shifting focus from these internal struggles to a broader narrative of political threat. Yet history shows that political violence often begins not with action, but with rhetoric that gradually lowers the threshold for it.
As a public office holder, Makinde’s words carry weight beyond ordinary political speech. Leadership demands restraint, particularly when referencing painful chapters of national history. Such events are best remembered as cautionary tales, not as metaphors that could inflame tensions.
At a time when Nigeria faces economic and security challenges, many observers argue that political actors should prioritize constructive engagement. Democratic success, they insist, must be pursued through policies, persuasion, and the ballot—not through language that risks reopening old wounds.