Kunle Adelabu
Stakeholders have called for debate to be made mandatory for anyone aspiring for public offices, as a measure to articulate their plans when they get into the office, and to enable the public hold them accountable.
They made the call at the 3rd Ikorodu Division Public Debate, tagged, ‘Ikorodu Local Government Debate 2025’, held on Sunday at the Ikorodu Town Hall, Ikorodu, for candidates vying for the Chairmanship position of Ikorodu Local Government in the forthcoming July 12 elections across Lagos State.
Three parties at the moment have candidates that will participate in the elections – the All Progressives Congress (APC) which is fielding Prince Adedayo Ladega, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which has Princess Saidat Odofin, and Labour Party (LP) which has Qs. AbdulAzeez Adekunle Awesu.
At the debate was organized by the Real Initiatives and Concerned Ikorodu Division Youth (CIDY) in partnership with THE IMPACT newspaper, R.B.E.A.V, C. C. I and Mass Communication Department, Lagos State University of Science and Technology (LASUSTECH) as technical partners.
While the PDP and LP candidate attended the debate, the APC flag bearer did not, a situation which made the opposition candidates that were present to refuse to go ahead with the debate after introducing themselves to the audience.
Meanwhile, the organisers had announced at the commencement of the debate that they received a message from the ruling party’s candidate around 12pm on the day of the debate excusing himself on the ground that he would be attending a meeting at the LASIEC office.
The founder, Real Initiatives and Convener of the debate, Mr Elesho Abolaji Oluwaseun, during an interview with reporters, explained the circumstances surrounding the debate:
“This is the third edition of this debate, and we have always had it right in this hall. One of the candidates wrote to us at 11:20 this morning (Sunday) that he would not be able to attend because he had something to do at the LASIEC office, and we had to respect his idea.
“You can see that other candidates came in, and they actually spoke to the audience because we gave them 5 minutes each to introduce themselves despite the fact that they had initially said that they would not go ahead with the debate if the other candidate is not attending. They still went ahead to introduce themselves and they even told us what they hoped to do.
“We just have to respect their positions once they said that they didn’t want to continue since the APC candidate is not here”, he said.
He said that the debate is just one of the ways that the platform is engaging those in public offices and others that are aspiring, and added that the engagement would be intensified.
“I think we are going to intensify more on that. We actually want the people to hear those that they want to vote for. I am of the school of thought that believe that you should be able to talk to the people in a calm way and by the time you win an election and you get into power, those things that you said you will do would be implemented and by the time you start doing them, the people will not complain again, because they have listened to you and asked questions.
Elesho also charged the National Assembly to make public debate mandatory for any candidate seeking public office.
“For me, I think this is good, and I think that the National Assembly should look into it, and make it mandatory that candidates vying in all elections must go for debate before the election.
“It is good that we have such a system in place so that people can make reference to what you said during the debate. Don’t get me wrong, these candidates still go around to talk to the people but when they do, they just speak to them without anyone asking them questions. Even the candidates themselves don’t have the opportunity to express themselves and explain how they intend to implement their programmes, such that by the time they start implementing their programmes, it will not come as a surprise to the people”, he said.
A former Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) who chaired the debate, Barr. Saheed Shillings, frowned at a situation where political parties candidates prefer to engage in funfair rather than submitting themselves for critical assessment through debate.
“The way we are running our democracy, we have taken it to a level that what we see is funfair, people don’t even know what the candidate stands for.
“We are just voting for the paparazzi. We can’t hold them accountable for anything because they never promise anything. So, it has to come to a stage that you will have to tell them that at this particular occasion, you said this.
“What is happening now during these campaigns is the reality of what is happening in government. If they don’t talk, where do we start from? Somebody has not promised you anything and he is already in government. How do you access such? What will you say about that kind of person?”, he asked.
While describing the debate as a good development, he emphasised that the public is a very good way of not just assessing candidates, but also means of making them accountable.
He expressed his disappointment not just in the candidate that was absent, but also in those that refused to go ahead with the debate despite making themselves available for the debate.
“I see this as a very good development; development of holding them accountable. Accountability starts from letting us know who you are, and what you have for us. Is it not what you promise that you will be made accountable for?”, Barr. Shillings asked rhetorically.
“I see today’s event as a success in its own way. The only disappointment is that aside from that candidate who did not appear, even those that are present said that they would not go ahead with the debate. In my own view, that is an error of judgement. If your opponent is not around, why don’t you just go ahead, but it seems that people don’t just want to talk.
“They don’t want to be held responsible. They just want to stay in their shell and when they are eventually voted, they want to act in the way they like so that if he doesn’t do any particular thing, how will you hold him responsible?
“So, that is what this event is meant to correct. Let us be able to see you, hear you, hear your promises and then hold you accountable for it, but we are not seeing that”.
