● The aides, contractors, and allies who vanished after his defeat scheme to be part of his 2027 guber race
● Beneficiaries who prospered, then pretended they never knew him
Power keeps a calendar no man can alter. It arrives with music, draws a crowd, blesses hands, then departs without apology. Those who mistake its warmth for friendship learn the lesson late, when the courtyard empties and the songs thin into echoes. Akinwumi Ambode learnt that lesson in Lagos, the city that crowns quickly and dethrones with equal speed; the city that teaches loyalty by withdrawing it.
There was a period when Ambode’s name opened doors across Lagos. As governor, access came easily. Calls were returned promptly. Meetings were arranged at short notice. Political actors, contractors, party men, advisers and hangers-on clustered around him, drawn by the authority of office and the opportunities that followed it. Familiar faces became constant presences, repeating loyalty in words and gestures, presenting themselves as indispensable allies. In those years, Ambode occupied the centre of a busy political universe that revolved around the power of Alausa.
That universe collapsed abruptly. Ambode’s failure to secure a second term brought his time in office to an unceremonious end. The loss did not come gradually; it arrived decisively, closing a chapter before it could be properly defended or explained. Almost immediately, the circle around him began to thin. Calls slowed, then stopped. Meetings were cancelled or indefinitely postponed. Associates who once sought his attention daily found reasons to stay away. The same political space that once amplified his presence grew quiet, and relationships that had seemed solid proved conditional.
What followed became a familiar Lagos story about the fragility of political loyalty. Many of those who had benefited directly from Ambode’s administration recalibrated their positions with speed. Aides who once declared personal allegiance began to disappear from view. Political associates who had shared both strategy sessions and public triumphs turned their attention elsewhere. Contractors and beneficiaries adjusted their loyalties to align with new centres of power. Ambode, once spoken of with reverence, was recast in some circles as a failed experiment, his record reduced to whispers and selective criticism.
Observers of Lagos politics say the scale of the withdrawal surprised even seasoned insiders. Staff members who had played key roles in shaping policy and managing political access quietly aligned with rival camps. Power brokers who traded influence as a profession quickly updated their networks. Individuals who had prospered under Ambode’s watch discovered, almost overnight, a vocabulary of doubt about his leadership style and political judgment. Praise gave way to silence, and silence soon hardened into open disparagement.
Several political sources point to specific cases that illustrate this shift. One frequently cited example involves a businessman who rose to prominence during Ambode’s tenure after securing a public contract valued in the billions of naira. The award, according to insiders, enjoyed the governor’s full backing and placed the beneficiary among Lagos’s expanding class of politically connected entrepreneurs. Once Ambode lost his re-election bid, that relationship reportedly collapsed. Calls went unanswered. Channels of communication were closed. The contractor was soon seen aligning openly with the new power structure and, in private conversations, questioning the very administration that had facilitated his rise.
Accounts like this are not isolated. Multiple figures who built substantial wealth during Ambode’s years in office later distanced themselves from him. Some criticised his governance in discreet conversations, framing themselves as long-standing skeptics. Others offered cautious, qualified praise that barely concealed contempt. A few went further, attempting to rewrite history by portraying their association with his administration as minimal or reluctant, despite documentary evidence of their involvement. In Lagos, political memory is long, and such reversals rarely go unnoticed.
For a time, it appeared that Ambode had been written out of the city’s political future. That perception has begun to change. In recent months, his name has resurfaced in political discussions, accompanied by speculation about a return to the governorship race in 2027. Sources within party structures and business circles confirm that renewed interest in Ambode’s political plans has triggered quiet manoeuvring among various interest groups. Meetings are being held discreetly. Old contacts are being reactivated. Former associates are making tentative overtures, gauging the seriousness of his intentions and the strength of his support.
This renewed attention has altered the tone of conversations around him. Individuals who once dismissed the idea of his comeback are now hedging their positions. Some continue to publicly downplay his chances while privately preparing for a possible realignment. Others have begun to express regret over past actions, often through intermediaries rather than direct engagement. In Lagos politics, such dual positioning is common, allowing actors to preserve relevance regardless of outcome.
At the centre of this shifting landscape is a question that many insiders consider unavoidable: how will Ambode respond to those who abandoned him? Will he reopen his inner political circle to individuals who disappeared when he lost office? Does he have a clear sense of who remained loyal without expectation of immediate benefit, and who maintained contact only when power was within reach? These questions matter because they will shape the credibility and stability of any political comeback he attempts.
Those close to Ambode say the years outside office have been instructive. Losing power, they argue, exposed the transactional nature of many political relationships and stripped away illusions about loyalty. Where office once accelerated decision-making and widened influence, its absence forced reflection. According to associates, Ambode became acutely aware of how quickly public applause turns into criticism and how readily political friendships dissolve once access is lost.
This awareness has informed his current approach. Politics, particularly at the level Ambode once occupied, attracts individuals whose primary interest lies in proximity to power. Support is often conditional, expressed in anticipation of reward. Expressions of regret from former allies, therefore, are being received with caution. Those seeking to return frequently cite pressure, misunderstanding, or circumstances beyond their control as explanations for their earlier withdrawal. Such accounts are familiar within Lagos political circles and are often viewed with scepticism.
People who have spoken with Ambode in recent months describe him as measured and observant. They say he is neither embittered by past experiences nor naive about human behaviour. The time away from office, they argue, sharpened his judgment. He understands that power exposes character, revealing who stands firm during periods of uncertainty. He also recognises that forgiveness can be politically useful but that unguarded trust carries risks, especially in an environment as competitive as Lagos.
Within the broader political class, reactions to Ambode’s possible return vary. Some figures express respect for the composure with which he handled his defeat and subsequent withdrawal from frontline politics. Others remain wary, uncertain whether his re-emergence could disrupt existing arrangements. Many are watching closely for signals—appointments, alliances, public statements—that might indicate how he intends to rebuild his political structure and whom he is prepared to accommodate.
Ambode himself has offered little detail publicly. His comments have focused on governance, continuity, and the long-term development of Lagos. He has spoken about unfinished work and the importance of institutional stability, avoiding direct references to past betrayals or personal grievances. This restraint has been interpreted by supporters as maturity and by critics as strategic ambiguity.
Despite this, those who distanced themselves from him after his defeat remain active behind the scenes. They understand the advantages of restored access and the opportunities that accompany political resurgence. Their efforts to reconnect take various forms: informal visits through mutual contacts, favourable commentary in public forums, and gestures framed as reconciliation. Each attempt is a test of how much the past still matters.
Political analysts warn that excessive accommodation could prove costly. Lagos politics is unforgiving of leaders who appear to forget too quickly. Individuals who shifted allegiance once may do so again if circumstances change. Without clear boundaries, a revived political structure risks internal sabotage or divided loyalty. For Ambode, any second-term ambition will require a support system built on proven commitment rather than convenience.
His experience reflects a broader reality of public office. Power attracts attention and loyalty, but its withdrawal clarifies motivations. Many relationships thrive only under the warmth of authority. When that warmth fades, only those anchored by principle remain. This pattern repeats itself across administrations and political cycles, though Lagos often provides its most vivid examples.
The implications extend beyond Ambode. His story serves as a reminder to public officials about the difference between access-driven relationships and genuine political partnership. Confusing applause with loyalty carries long-term consequences. Ambode paid the price for that confusion and, according to those close to him, emerged with a more disciplined understanding of political trust.
There is also a measure of respect for how he handled his period of political isolation. He avoided public confrontation, resisted the temptation to trade accusations, and focused on private reassessment. That approach, observers say, positioned him for a potential return grounded in experience rather than grievance.
As the 2027 election cycle approaches, Ambode is likely to face renewed scrutiny. Support will come with expectations. Opposition will intensify. Former allies will seek re-entry, while past critics may offer conditional support. The same individuals who once distanced themselves may again present themselves as dependable partners.
How Ambode manages these dynamics will shape perceptions of his leadership going forward. Forgiveness, if extended, will need to be balanced with accountability. Inclusion will require clear terms. Political survival in Lagos demands both openness and vigilance.
The city understands political performance, but it also understands consequences. Many Lagosians recognise that those who abandoned a leader once may repeat the pattern if circumstances shift again. Genuine loyalty, they note, often reveals itself quietly, away from the spotlight.
Ultimately, Ambode’s political journey illustrates the fleeting nature of power and the enduring importance of discernment. He stands at a point where past experience informs future choices. The setbacks he endured exposed vulnerabilities but also sharpened perspective. Any return to power would require a different configuration of trust, one shaped by memory and restraint.
Those who turned away may attempt to reshape the narrative, presenting themselves as misunderstood or unfairly judged. Records and recollections, however, remain. As Ambode considers his next steps, many in Lagos will be watching to see whether he responds with clarity rather than resentment.
Power may return, or it may not. Regardless, the lesson is clear within political circles. Relationships built solely on office fade with office. Those sustained without it endure. Ambode, by most accounts, understands this distinction now. In the complex terrain of Lagos politics, that understanding could determine the success or failure of any comeback attempt.
