Dayo Israel Is Not Wrong for Investing in Political Mobilisation

Dayo Israel Is Not Wrong for Investing in Political Mobilisation

I find the criticism of Dayo Israel over the seven Toyota Prado SUVs he presented to youth leaders of the All Progressives Congress rather interesting. In a country where politics requires organisation, resources and people willing to work, I struggle to understand why providing vehicles for political mobilisation has suddenly become a scandal.

Political parties do not win elections by making speeches on social media. They win through organisation, grassroots engagement, transportation and the ability to reach people across communities. These things require resources. If Dayo Israel believes that providing vehicles will help youth leaders mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections, what exactly is wrong with that?

We cannot continue to demand that politicians build strong political structures while condemning every attempt they make to provide the resources those structures need. Political mobilisation is work, and work requires tools. A vehicle is a tool. It helps people travel, attend meetings, reach communities and coordinate activities. There is nothing extraordinary about this.

What makes the criticism even more interesting is that political parties across the world spend money to strengthen their structures before elections. They invest in offices, campaign materials, transportation, communication and people. Nobody expects a serious political organisation to operate without resources. Yet, in Nigeria, we sometimes behave as though investing in political organisation is a crime.

The argument that Nigerians are suffering also deserves some perspective. Yes, the economic situation is difficult. Many families are struggling, and the government must do more to address their challenges. But must every political activity stop because the economy is struggling? Must every donation, investment or expenditure be judged solely against the price of food in the market?

A country can face economic challenges while political organisations continue their legitimate activities. These realities can exist at the same time. The APC’s responsibility to organise for an election does not disappear because Nigerians are experiencing hardship.

Besides, reports indicate that the First Lady, Oluremi Tinubu, confirmed that she donated the vehicles to the APC youth wing. This is an important detail. If individuals choose to contribute their resources to support a political organisation, they should not automatically be treated as though they have committed an offence. Political parties are allowed to receive support, subject to the law.

We should also stop pretending that elections can be won through goodwill alone. Young people are expected to mobilise voters, organise meetings, travel to communities and work for their parties. If we want them to take these responsibilities seriously, they need the means to do their jobs. It is unreasonable to expect people to deliver results without giving them the necessary tools.

Dayo Israel has been involved in youth politics, and supporting the structures that will mobilise young people is consistent with the responsibilities of political organisation. Whether one supports the APC or not, the logic is straightforward: a party preparing for an election needs an organised team and the resources to support its work.

There is also a question of consistency. Would the same people criticising Dayo Israel react similarly if an opposition politician provided vehicles to youth leaders ahead of an election? Would they call it wasteful, or would they describe it as strategic investment in grassroots mobilisation? Too often, our political judgments depend on who is involved rather than what has actually happened.

We cannot demand that politicians be strategic and then condemn them when they make strategic investments. We cannot ask political parties to engage young people and build grassroots structures while treating every resource provided for that purpose as evidence of insensitivity.

Of course, every political organisation must obey the law. But there is a difference between questioning a political decision and assuming that the decision is wrong simply because it involves expensive vehicles. The fact that a Prado SUV is costly does not automatically make its purchase or donation improper.

Dayo Israel should not have to apologise simply because he has provided resources for political mobilisation. If the vehicles were lawfully acquired and donated for legitimate party activities, then he has every reason to stand by the decision. Political leadership requires the willingness to organise, invest and prepare for the future, even when those decisions attract criticism.

Nigerians are entitled to their opinions, but criticism should not become an excuse to condemn every action taken by someone whose politics we may not share. We should be able to recognise legitimate political activity without turning everything into a controversy.

At the end of the day, elections require preparation. Political structures require investment. Young people require the resources to do their work. Dayo Israel has chosen to invest in the machinery of political mobilisation ahead of 2027, and that decision should not be treated as a scandal simply because it has attracted public attention.

Not every expensive political decision is a scandal, and not every act of political investment is waste. Sometimes, a vehicle is simply a vehicle, and political mobilisation is simply political mobilisation.