Open Letter Accuses Ikorodu Political Leaders of Betrayal Amid Leadership Debate
An open letter addressed to political leaders across Ikorodu Division has sparked fresh debate over representation, loyalty and internal cohesion within the Lagos political landscape, as the author accuses key stakeholders of undermining the division’s chances at securing higher political leadership.
The letter, signed by Princess (Mrs.) Aderoju Ladega-Akinjobi, delivers a strongly worded critique of leaders within Ikorodu, alleging that the division has been repeatedly sidelined despite decades of political loyalty and electoral support to the state’s power structure.
According to the letter, Ikorodu has consistently contributed its voting strength and influence to Lagos politics but has yet to benefit from equivalent representation at the highest levels of leadership. It argues that the division’s long-standing commitment has not translated into meaningful political advancement.
The author claims that at a critical moment, when the possibility of producing a governor became more realistic, internal actions by key figures worked against the collective interest of the division. The letter describes this development as a deliberate act of sabotage rather than an oversight or miscalculation.
It further alleges that elders entrusted with representing Ikorodu’s interests failed to reflect the will of the people by not presenting what was described as the most credible and widely supported option during high-level consultations.
Raising questions about the motives behind the decisions, the letter suggests that factors such as fear of political overshadowing, personal rivalry and alignment with existing power structures may have influenced the outcome. It insists that the situation was not accidental but a conscious choice that could have long-term implications for the division.
The letter warns that missed political opportunities of this scale could have lasting consequences, noting that moments of strategic importance in politics are often fleeting and difficult to recover once lost.
It also highlights concerns about internal division within Ikorodu, stating that what should have been a unified push for representation has instead exposed fractures that weaken its position in broader state politics.
Addressing those accused of contributing to the situation, the author emphasises that leadership goes beyond holding positions and requires the protection of collective interests, particularly at critical decision-making points.
The letter cautions against interpreting public silence as acceptance, stressing that residents remain aware of political developments and are likely to remember actions taken during pivotal moments.
Calling for a shift in approach, the author urged stakeholders across political lines, age groups and constituencies within Ikorodu to prioritise unity and collective interest over individual considerations in future engagements.
While acknowledging that some room for correction still exists, the letter maintains that significant damage has already been done and warns that failure to address the situation could make the consequences irreversible.
The statement concludes with a note of accountability, asserting that both history and the people of Ikorodu will judge the actions of those involved, and that the division will not forget the events surrounding the current political moment.
