Ogun State Government led by Prince Dapo Abiodun has again walked itself into a storm of credibility questions after citing a letter allegedly written by a lawmaker who had already died weeks before the date on the document.
In a statement signed by Governor Dapo Abiodun’s Senior Special Assistant on Media, Tayo Mabeweje, the government claimed that former federal lawmaker, Hon. Adewunmi Onanuga, submitted a letter dated February 1, 2025, requesting approval for rural road construction in Simawa, Ilara, and Irolu.
But Hon. Onanuga tragically died on January 15, 2025 — two weeks before the supposed letter was signed.
The embarrassing slip has set off a wave of outrage across Ogun, with residents, civil society groups, and political analysts questioning how such a glaring error could make its way into an official government defence.
Earlier, Commissioner for Works and Infrastructure, Engr. Ade Akinsanya, had justified the suspension of the Paddy-Arikawe–Oye Igbimo Road project, insisting it was a legal requirement under the Ogun State Urban and Regional Planning Law (2005) and the guidelines of the Public Works Agency. He said contractor Minim and Tonye Nigeria Limited was asked to halt work until proper clearance was obtained, stressing that “no physical development, including roads, can proceed without state approval.”
But the so-called “precedent” now lies in ruins. By invoking a February 1 letter from a lawmaker who had already been buried, the government has fuelled suspicions that politics, not procedure, is behind the road blockade.
“This is not just about politics — it’s about truth. If the government can claim a dead person wrote a letter, then the entire explanation collapses,” one civil rights advocate fumed.
The commissioner has since doubled down, insisting the Igbimo Road is still in the state’s rehabilitation programme and only paused for “coordination purposes.” But analysts say the controversy has shifted the debate away from law and process, straight to integrity and trust.
Unless the government directly addresses the “dead man’s letter” scandal, critics warn, its due-process defence risks being drowned out by suspicions of lies and manipulation.