There is an old school of thought in political philosophy, running from Plato’s guardians to the social contract thinkers, that holds one simple idea. Anyone who offers himself for public service must first submit to public scrutiny, so the people can see how upright he really is. Office is a loan from the people, and a lender is entitled to check the borrower’s papers.
So let us check the papers of Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola.
On its face, there is nothing wrong with changing your name. People do it for faith, for family, for a fresh start. Nobody should be mocked for it. But a name is also a signature, and a signature that keeps showing up where it should not raises fair questions.
Start with what his camp says. His aide has explained that the Senator changed his name on religious grounds, after becoming born again while working at The Guardian newspaper in the 1990s. That is a reasonable account. If it were the whole story, we would close the file here.
It is not the whole story, because the corporate records say something else.
A search of Sootem Nigeria Limited, registration number RC 391165, shows it was incorporated on 21 September 2000 as a photography services company. On 27 February 2018, Sootem Engineering Nigeria, RC 1474389, was registered in Egbeda. In the documents for both companies, the old name still appears. In this report it is given as Sulaimon Ogunleye. Other accounts give it as Ogundipe, and that difference must be settled against the original CAC filings.
Now note the dates. The first registration came in 2000, years after the supposed conversion. The second came in 2018, when he was already a sitting Senator known to the whole country as Solomon Adeola. A man who left a name behind in the 1990s was still putting it on official papers when he held high office.
That invites a plain question. Why would someone drop a name in public life and keep it for paperwork? Either the change was never complete, or there is a reason the old name is useful in some rooms and unwelcome in others. Only the Senator can say which. He has not.
There is a second question, about trade. Mr. Adeola is widely believed to be an accountant. If so, where did he practise? Which firm did he own, join or build? Instead, the companies tied to his old name are in photography and engineering. That does not prove wrongdoing. It does leave a gap between the résumé the public hears and the paper trail the public can read.
Some have also hinted that his exit from The Guardian was not a happy one. This report has seen no document to back that claim, so it stands as a rumour and nothing more. The Senator can end rumour in one afternoon by publishing his employment record.
That is the point of scrutiny. It is not persecution. It is a request for a straight answer to a few simple questions: Which name is real? Why does the old one survive on company papers? What was the work behind them?
Until those answers come, the public is right to keep asking. Anyone who does not pass the integrity test should be put aside and not trusted with the common patrimony of the people.
