As a build-up to 2027 general election in Kwara State, many political organisations have been founded to set agenda to ensure victory in the poll. In this interview with BIOLA AZEEZ, the convener of a sociopolitical organization, One Kwara Agenda (OKA), Dr Olufemi Adetola, speaks on issue of consensus-building, alleged marginalization, among other sundry issues. Excerpts:
YOUR group, the One Kwara Agenda, seems to have gained prominence after its unveiling last September, what milestones has the movement recorded since then?
Since the formal unveiling in September, OKA has deliberately focused on advocacy, engagement, and consensus-building. We have visited several media houses, engaged the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) at the state secretariat and various chapels, sought divine guidance from some Elders, and held interactions with organised youth platforms such as KWAYORG. These engagements were intentional—to clearly articulate our vision and mission, dispel misconceptions, and ensure that the message of unity, equity, and competence resonates across different segments of society. The response so far has been encouraging, particularly among youths, professionals, and civil society actors who see the urgent need for a united Kwara
From your engagements with media practitioners and civic groups, what feedback has stood out most to you?
The most consistent feedback is that Kwarans do not share any of these divisive narratives. There is a strong yearning for a new civic consciousness that places the collective interest of the state above narrow political or sectional considerations. Many stakeholders, especially journalists, appreciate that OKA is not pushing a partisan agenda but rather advocating principles that strengthen democracy, security, and development. That validation reinforces our resolve.
There are reports that some politicians are uncomfortable with the movement. What is your reaction to claims of clandestine meetings aimed at countering OKA?
We are not surprised. Any movement that challenges the status quo and insists on merit, equity, and unity will naturally unsettle those who benefit from division. We are aware of various clandestine meetings by some political actors who feel threatened by a united Kwara. Unfortunately, instead of engaging constructively, some have resorted to promoting divisive tendencies, which run contrary to the collective interest of the state.
There are allegations that some traditional rulers are being influenced to lend voice to what you refer to as divisive tendencies. How does OKA view this development?
We hold our traditional rulers and religious leaders in the highest esteem and recognise their critical role as custodians of faith, culture, peace, and social cohesion. That is why we find it deeply concerning when any political interest attempts to draw them into divisive narratives. Our appeal remains respectful but firm: traditional and religious institutions must remain neutral, unifying forces. Their moral authority should be used to promote peace, unity, and fairness—not to amplify political divisions that could undermine social stability and even compromise the fight against insecurity.
Does this development threaten the core objectives of One Kwara Agenda?
On the contrary, it reinforces the relevance of OKA. These actions validate why the movement exists in the first place. If unity, equity, and competence were not powerful ideas, there would be no need to resist them. We remain focused and undeterred. Our strength lies in moral clarity, public engagement, and the growing awareness among Kwarans that division only weakens our collective capacity to confront challenges such as terrorism, unemployment, and underdevelopment.
How do you intend to manage these pressures while sustaining the movement’s credibility?
We will do that by remaining transparent, principled, and inclusive. We will continue to engage openly with stakeholders, clarify our positions, and avoid being drawn into needless political confrontations. OKA is not in competition with anyone; it is an advocacy platform for the common good. History has shown that movements anchored on truth and collective interest ultimately prevail.
Some critics say One Kwara Agenda is indirectly confronting entrenched political interests, particularly those pushing zoning and identity politics. Are you deliberately taking on these forces?
We are confronting ideas, not individuals. Zoning and divisive narratives, when weaponised, weaken states and embolden mediocrity. Kwara’s history shows clearly that progress has never been driven by parochial calculations. Whenever merit, competence, and broad acceptability were prioritised, a state moves forward. OKA is unapologetic about defending that tradition. If that unsettles some interests, it only confirms that the conversation is due and overdue.
Supporters of zoning argue that it promotes fairness and inclusion. Why does OKA see it as a threat at this point?
Equity must not be confused with entitlement. Kwara has historically achieved inclusion not by rigid zoning formulas, but by producing leaders who governed inclusively across zones, religions, gender, and social strata. When zoning becomes an end in itself, competence is sacrificed and unity eroded. The danger today is that zoning is being deployed as a political tool to divide communities and rewrite history. That is what OKA firmly rejects.
You referenced history. Can you contextualise this argument with Kwara’s leadership experience?
Certainly, from the era of governors like Adamu Attah, Cornelius Adebayo, Mohammed Lawal (Shaba), Bukola Saraki, Abdulfatah Ahmed, to the present administration, leadership choices in Kwara were never dictated by narrow parochial sentiments. These leaders emerged because they were considered capable at their time, and they governed beyond primordial boundaries. That merit-based tradition is precisely what has sustained Kwara’s relative harmony. Abandoning it now would be a historic regression.
How dangerous is the situation where some political actors are allegedly drawing religious and traditional institutions into these narratives?
I said it, and let me re-emphasise: it is extremely dangerous. The sanctity of our religious and royal fathers must be protected at all costs. Once these revered institutions are dragged into partisan or divisive politics, society risks moral collapse and social instability. OKA’s position is clear: political ambition must never desecrate sacred institutions. Kwara’s peaceful coexistence depends on their neutrality and unifying influence.
Are you suggesting that some politicians are deliberately undermining this sanctity?
What we are saying is that certain political actors are attempting to cloak personal ambitions in cultural or religious garments. That approach is deceptive and harmful. It places undue pressure on traditional and religious leaders and exposes them to public contestation that should never exist. We call on these leaders to remain above the fray, as history and wisdom demand.
What is your assessment of the current governor’s performance in this context?
The present administration has demonstrated inclusiveness in appointments, projects, and policy direction—cutting across zones, religion, gender, and age. That is a continuation of Kwara’s best traditions. When performance is evident and governance is broadly inclusive, it should be consolidated, not undermined by divisive rhetoric. Legacies built on unity and competence must not be washed away by opportunistic political songs.
Your assessment looks like your group is positioning itself as a defender of the current administration?
No. OKA is not a support group for any individual or government. We defend principles—unity, merit, equity, and competence. If an administration aligns with these principles, it deserves objective acknowledgement. If it deviates, it will attract constructive criticism. Our loyalty is to Kwara State, not to political office holders.
What do you say to politicians who insist that without zoning, certain groups will always be marginalised?
Marginalisation is best addressed through fair governance, equal opportunity, and institutional inclusion—not through emotional politics. Competence-based leadership does not exclude; it empowers. The real marginalisation occurs when incompetent leadership stalls development and insecurity thrives. A united Kwara with effective leadership benefits every community more than any zoning arrangement ever could.
How would you address the feeling in some quarters that certain elements are pushing divisive narratives at this time?
Kwara is bigger than any ambition. History will not be kind to those who fracture unity for personal gain. Our state has always prioritised harmonious living, tolerance, and collective progress. OKA will continue to mobilise voices of reason to defend these values. The future of Kwara must be built on competence, peace, and unity—not on fear, division, or manufactured grievances.
What do you think should be paramount for the people os Kwara now and what is your message for them?
My message is simple: Kwara belongs to all of us. Unity is our strongest weapon against insecurity, underdevelopment, and political manipulation. Let us resist attempts to divide us along ethnic, religious, or partisan lines. Leadership must be earned through competence and character, not imposed through influence or intimidation. One Kwara Agenda remains committed to that vision, and together, we can build a safer, more prosperous, and more equitable Kwara State.