The controversy surrounding alleged multiple levies imposed on commercial motorcycle operators in Akure deserves serious attention. The concerns raised by the riders are legitimate issues for investigation, particularly where operators allege repeated collections for similar purposes.
However, legitimate grievances do not automatically establish the identity of the person responsible for an allegedly unauthorised collection.
That distinction is particularly important in the case of the Chairman of Akure South Local Government, Dr. Gbenga Fasua, whose name has been repeatedly associated with the controversy despite his categorical denial that he authorised the disputed levy.
The Vanguard report published on October 7, 2026, states that commercial motorcycle operators and ticket sellers clashed in different parts of Akure following disagreement over alleged multiple levies.
The riders alleged that they were being compelled to pay about ₦7,000 for an emblem purportedly introduced by the Akure South Local Government Chairman.
Some riders subsequently accused the Chairman, Dr. Fasua of authorising the collection, an allegation he has since come out to debunk.
He stated that neither he nor Akure South Local Government Council authorised the disputed levy. He further stated that no money from the alleged collection had been remitted to the council.
The question, therefore, is; What evidence establishes that Dr. Fasua authorised the collection?
Dr. Fasua reportedly explained that the disputed emblem carried the name of Akure South Local Government but did not originate from his office.
That a government institution's name appear on a document, sticker, emblem or other material does not, by itself, prove that the institution authorised its production or that its chief executive approved the associated financial transaction.
If someone unlawfully or improperly uses the name of a government institution to collect money, the appropriate response is investigation, not insinuations, not automatic attribution of responsibility to the head of that institution.
The relevant questions are therefore straightforward:
• Who produced the emblem?
• Who instructed the collectors to sell it?
• Who determined the amount being charged?
• Who received the proceeds?
• What official document authorised the collection?
Those are the questions that should drive the investigation.
Perhaps the most important factual issue raised by Dr. Fasua is his statement that no money from the disputed levy had been remitted to Akure South Local Government accounts. That assertion is open to verification, so there should be no need for speculation.
If money was collected in the name of Akure South Local Government, the relevant financial records should establish whether any such proceeds entered the council's accounts.
If money did not enter the council's accounts, the investigation should then establish where it went.
The money trail is therefore considerably more useful than political accusations.
There is another aspect of the story that should not be overlooked.
According to the reports, Dr. Fasua said he encountered protesting riders, listened to their complaints and subsequently went to other locations where the disputed sales were reportedly taking place.
He then instructed those involved to suspend the sales pending clarification from Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa.
That action is relevant because it demonstrates that his response to the controversy was not simply to dismiss the riders but He intervened, seeking clarification before directing that the sale be suspended while also appealing for calm
Those actions do not, by themselves, establish whether the underlying levy was lawful or unlawful. But they are important facts and should form part of any fair assessment of his conduct.
However, the controversy has now attracted political commentary. That is unsurprising given that issues involving local government, revenue collection and relations between elected officials and the state government will naturally generate political interest.
But political commentary should not be allowed to answer questions that properly belong to an investigation.
If there is documentary evidence establishing that Dr. Fasua authorised the disputed levy, that evidence should be produced.
If there is evidence establishing that he directed collectors to demand the payment, it should be presented.
If there is evidence establishing that the proceeds went to Akure South Local Government, the financial trail should be made available.
But if such evidence does not exist, then repeating the allegation does not make it a fact.
No office either political, governmental or otherwise should substitute political messaging for evidence.
There is no argument that no commercial motorcycle operators should be subjected to unexplained or repeated demands for payment.
The riders are entitled to transparency.
They are entitled to know what they are paying for.
They are entitled to know who is authorised to collect it.
And they are entitled to receipts and accountability.
But those rights do not conflict with another basic principle:
Nobody should be held responsible for an unauthorised collection merely because their institution's name appears on the material being used to collect the money.
The two issues must be separated.
If there has been illegal or unauthorised collection, identify those responsible.
If there has been an administrative failure, establish where it occurred.
If a public official is responsible, hold that official accountable.
But if an allegation against a public official cannot be substantiated, the records should equally reflect that fact.
Political actors should resist the temptation to convert unresolved questions into settled conclusions.
The appropriate response to this controversy is not political noise. It is evidence.
Akosile Adewale
*Special assistant on media to the akure south chairman*
Tags
News