APC’s Defeat in Ife is Beyond Omisore

There has been a convenient explanation for the All Progressives Congress’s poor performance in Ife: that APC lost because the party sidelined Senator Iyiola Omisore, an influential son of Ife East, and imposed a governorship candidate without adequately considering his political influence.

The actual figures, however, tell a more complicated, and perhaps more revealing, story.

The results across the four Ife local governments are:

• Ife North: Accord 13,879; APC 9,613 — Accord ahead by 4,266.
• Ife South: Accord 13,507; APC 14,678 — APC ahead by 1,171.
• Ife East: Accord 27,201; APC 18,600 — Accord ahead by 8,601.
• Ife Central: Accord 21,171; APC 15,913 — Accord ahead by 5,258.

Altogether, Accord polled 75,758 votes, against APC’s 58,804, giving Accord a substantial overall advantage of 16,954 votes.

The interesting part is that Omisore is from Ife East, the very local government where Accord recorded its biggest margin. That certainly makes his political influence worthy of consideration. But it does not, by itself, prove that Accord’s victory across Ife was principally an Omisore protest vote. In fact, the wider numbers make that explanation less convincing.

If Omisore’s sidelining was the dominant reason for APC’s defeat, how do we explain Accord’s victories in Ife North and Ife Central, where the margins were 4,266 and 5,258 respectively? Those two local governments alone gave Accord a combined advantage of 9,524 votes, more than the 8,601-vote margin it achieved in Omisore’s own Ife East.

And then there is Ife South, where APC actually defeated Accord by 1,171 votes. This is hardly the pattern of a simple, uniform anti-APC backlash orchestrated by one sidelined politician. The more plausible interpretation is that Accord’s candidate, Adeleke, had substantial electoral appeal of his own. Voters may have been making a positive choice for Adeleke rather than merely voting against APC because of Omisore. That distinction is important.

Omisore undoubtedly has a significant place in the political history of Osun and has demonstrated considerable electoral influence over the years. But political influence is not a permanent inheritance. Electoral value can diminish, evolve or be overtaken by a new political personality. The Ife results provide evidence that deserves to be examined from that perspective.

Adeleke’s performance was not confined to Ife East. Accord won three of the four local governments, including Ife North and Ife Central, while APC managed to retain Ife South. That suggests a broader electoral movement rather than merely the mobilisation of Omisore’s traditional political base.

The real lesson for APC may therefore be uncomfortable: the party should stop looking for an Omisore explanation for every vote it lost in Ife and start asking why Adeleke was able to win the confidence of so many voters. Political parties that attribute defeat entirely to the absence of a godfather risk misunderstanding the electorate.

Voters are not permanently owned by politicians. They can respect an old political leader and still choose a new candidate. They can abandon established loyalties when another candidate appears more attractive, accessible or acceptable. The Ife figures do not prove that Omisore’s electoral influence has disappeared. But they certainly challenge the assumption that his sidelining alone explains APC’s defeat.

The numbers suggest something bigger: Omisore may have been an important factor, but Adeleke appears to have become a political factor in his own right. And if that is what the Ife electorate is saying, APC would do well to listen.