OP-ED: Why I Think Makinde’s “Operation Wetie” Warning Crossed a Dangerous Line- Oluwatosin Babatunde

By Oluwatosin Babatunde

I listened carefully to Governor Seyi Makinde’s remarks in Ibadan, and I find myself both concerned and uncomfortable—not with his right to speak, but with the tone and historical weight he chose to deploy.

When a sitting governor invokes “Operation Wetie” in today’s Nigeria, it is impossible for me to hear that as a neutral historical reference. That phrase is not academic. It is not abstract. It is a reminder of blood, chaos, and a time when politics collapsed into violence. So the question I cannot ignore is simple: what exactly are we being prepared for?

Makinde says he is warning against one-party dominance. Fair enough. Any serious democrat should be concerned about political imbalance. No one who understands Nigeria’s history should be comfortable with the erosion of opposition space. That is a legitimate argument.

But legitimacy of concern does not automatically justify intensity of language.

There is a difference between warning and amplifying fear. And I believe Makinde stepped too close to that line.

Nigeria today is not the Western Region of the 1960s. The institutions are imperfect, yes, but they are not absent. Elections are contested under a constitutional framework, courts exist, and political competition—however messy—is still structured. To draw a straight emotional line from today’s political disagreements to “Operation Wetie” is, in my view, an overreach.

And overreach matters in politics. Words from leaders do not float harmlessly; they settle into public consciousness. They can either calm tensions or sharpen them. I worry that this kind of historical framing does the latter, even if unintentionally.

At the same time, I will not dismiss Makinde’s core concern. Nigeria’s democracy does need strong opposition voices. Any system where one party becomes overwhelmingly dominant without credible challenge risks stagnation. That is a real debate we should be having more seriously.

But that debate should be anchored in institutions, electoral fairness, party organization, and governance performance—not in emotionally loaded historical references that awaken old fears without offering clear solutions.

What troubles me most is not just what was said, but what it signals: a growing tendency among political actors to escalate language as a form of influence. In Nigeria, we often mistake intensity for truth. The louder the warning, the more urgent it seems. But democracy is not sustained by alarm—it is sustained by balance.

Makinde has since clarified that his remarks were not targeted at any individual or ambition. I take that clarification seriously. Yet I still believe political leaders must be more conscious of how easily historical trauma can be reactivated in public discourse.

We cannot keep reaching into the darkest parts of our political past every time we want to make a point about present competition. A democracy that constantly speaks as though it is on the edge of collapse will eventually train its citizens to believe it.

And that, in the long run, is its own kind of danger.