By Maryanne Awuya
Two civil society organizations—the Civil Society Groups for Good Governance (CSGGG) and the Integrity Advocacy for Development Initiative (IADI)—have defended projects facilitated by Ogun West Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola, demanding verifiable proof from his critics.
Speaking at a press briefing in Abuja onTuesday, the groups addressed recent controversy surrounding the Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman’s legislative interventions and constituency projects.
CSGGG President Chief Dominic Ogakwu clarified that their endorsement stems from independent field monitoring rather than claims by the senator’s office.
According to Ogakwu, inspection teams visited project sites across Ogun West and other regions, documenting roads, schools, healthcare facilities, power infrastructure, and empowerment programs through on-the-ground reports, photographs, and beneficiary interviews.
The groups also said they witnessed empowerment programmes involving traders, artisans, farmers, youths and students, with identifiable beneficiaries.
According to them, their monitoring showed evidence of project execution and, in some cases, interventions they considered to have been delivered to a commendable standard.
The organisations said their monitoring was not restricted to Ogun West, stressing that projects outside the senatorial district should also be considered when assessing the senator’s interventions.
They further disclosed that their teams had, during some monitoring exercises, observed officials of anti-corruption agencies, including the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), at some programmes.
They, however, clarified that they were not speaking for the ICPC and had no basis to claim what findings the agency may have made.
They stressed that seeing a completed project does not automatically answer questions about procurement, contract pricing, quality, value for money or the movement of public funds.
According to the CSOs, such issues should be investigated through official records and other verifiable evidence.
They, therefore, called on anyone alleging that a project was not executed to identify the project and provide evidence, while allegations of financial diversion should be backed by a traceable financial trail.
The groups also demanded credible corporate and beneficial ownership records where claims are made that companies executing public projects are secretly controlled by a public official.
They said the same standard should apply to allegations of inflated contracts, procurement breaches and personal financial benefits.
“Repetition does not turn an allegation into evidence, and publication does not make an allegation a verdict,” He said said.
The organisations also used the briefing to raise concerns about the independence of civil society organisations, warning against the use of CSOs as instruments in political disputes.
They said they had received information suggesting that political interests could be connected to parts of the controversy, but noted that they had not independently verified the information.
As a result, the groups said they would not present the claim as an established fact.
They maintained that their intervention should not be interpreted as an attempt to shield Adeola from legitimate investigation or prevent scrutiny of his public activities.
Rather, they said their concern was that both allegations and projects should be subjected to the same standard of verification.
The CSOs also pointed to the timing of the controversy, noting that some of the projects they monitored had been implemented before the current political contest intensified.
They, however, cautioned that the timing of the allegations should neither be used to dismiss them nor treated as proof of political motivation.
The groups urged Nigerians, particularly residents of Ogun State, to examine available records, visit project locations and speak directly with beneficiaries before reaching conclusions about the allegations.
They also appealed to fellow civil society organisations to verify claims before amplifying them and to apply consistent standards when scrutinising public officials.
The organisations said their monitoring reports, photographs and field observations were available for examination, adding that they remained ready to stand by what their teams had independently documented.