The Unending Political Feud Between Obasanjo and Osoba

The rivalry between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and former Ogun State Governor Olusegun Osoba has been a significant factor in Ogun State's political landscape. Their political divergence is rooted in contrasting visions of leadership, influence, and power within Ogun State and the Yoruba political establishment. This rivalry has persisted through various political transitions and continues to shape Ogun politics decades after both men held high offices.

Despite their shared Egban heritage, Obasanjo's political background in the military and his presidency during 1976-1979 and 1999-2007 contrasted sharply with Osoba's rise through journalism and his affiliation with progressive movements. This divergence laid the groundwork for their enduring rivalry.

When democracy returned in 1999, both men emerged victorious, Obasanjo as President and Osoba as Governor. However, their differing political ideologies led to tensions. Obasanjo sought to expand the PDP's influence beyond the Southwest, while Osoba and Afenifere leaders viewed this as a threat to the political structure established by Chief Obafemi Awolowo.

The 2003 general election further intensified their rivalry, with many AD leaders believing there was an understanding that Obasanjo would receive their presidential support. However, Obasanjo denied any such arrangement, citing electoral realities. The political fallout from this event is still evident today.

The core of their rivalry lies in their approaches to political influence. Obasanjo's influence stems from his institutions and national coalitions, while Osoba's influence is more organizational, having mentored many politicians within the progressive movement. This difference in influence manifests in their contrasting styles of political engagement.

Despite their differences, both men have played significant roles in shaping Ogun's political landscape. Their relationship has generally been marked by mutual respect, with exchanges focusing on historical interpretation and political decisions rather than personal attacks. The 2026 dispute over the 2003 election negotiations demonstrates that even after many years, the wounds from their political feud remain open and unresolved.