By Bilesanmi Abayomi
In a divisive debate, contrasting viewpoints emerge regarding the allocation of contracts as palliatives to Local Government-appointed cabinet members, supervisors, and councilors. While some argue it’s a well-deserved privilege, others condemn it as unethical and criminal.
Amidst a growing discourse on the allocation of contracts to Local Government-appointed officials, Comrade Sulaiman Olayiwola Opomulero takes a firm stance against the practice. Opomulero questions the moral integrity of councilors who seek personal gain by engaging in government contracts while being paid by citizens’ taxes. He emphasizes that their primary role is to oversee executive activities and legislate for their localities. Opomulero criticizes the trend of officials allegedly fighting for contracts, rather than focusing on equitable wealth distribution.
Opomulero acknowledges that the precedent was set by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who established TVC while serving as the governor of Lagos. However, he urges Local Government Chairmen to avoid self-centeredness and greed, advocating for fair treatment of councilors and supervisors to prevent them from eyeing contracts meant for public benefit.
On the opposing side, Kemi Lawal firmly opposes the idea of granting contracts to officials already benefiting from government salaries and allowances. He argues that constitutionally, morally, and politically, this practice is incorrect. Lawal asserts that there are loyal party members and citizens struggling to make ends meet, deserving of these contracts more than those who are already enjoying government perks. He advocates for pushing contracts to those who genuinely need them.
The debate rages on, with supporters of both perspectives passionately expressing their opinions. As Local Government Chairmen grapple with the decision of whether to extend contracts to their appointed officials, the wider society watches closely, waiting to see if privilege or ethical principles will ultimately prevail.