The ongoing public discourse surrounding Badagry Constituency II—sparked by commentaries from Prince Mawutin Ofade, followed by Prince Semako Babatunde Kuwande’s rebuttal, interventions by community voices such as Hungbeji, and subsequent reactions within the political space—has generated significant attention. While debate is a vital part of democratic engagement, it is important that such discussions remain anchored in consistency, facts, and good faith. In response to these developments, and particularly to narratives questioning the integrity, performance, and future political intentions of Hon. #Setonji David, his camp has issued a firm clarification through his aide and spokesperson, Posu Davies. The essence of that response is not merely defensive; it challenges what it describes as selective criticism and transactional activism masquerading as public accountability. On the Nature of the Criticism According to #Posu Davies’ counter-response, the central concern is not dissent itself, but the pattern and motivation behind certain commentaries. The aide argues that critiques directed at Hon. Setonji David appear inconsistent when juxtaposed with public praise for other political figures based largely on welfare gestures, festive gifts, or financial inducements. This, the statement maintains, raises legitimate questions about credibility: Can a voice credibly condemn “stomach infrastructure” while simultaneously celebrating material patronage from preferred actors? On Performance Versus Personal Grievance The counter-statement further asserts that Hon. Setonji David’s political trajectory—spanning multiple terms and culminating in his emergence as Deputy Chief Whip of the Lagos State House of Assembly—was not the result of sentiment or handouts, but of legislative experience, political competence, and internal confidence earned within the Assembly. Posu Davies stresses that disagreement over tenure length or political ambition should be debated on verifiable records and measurable impact, not inferred motives or speculative ambitions such as speakership aspirations for which, he notes, no substantiated evidence has been presented. On Kinship, Constituency, and Political Choice Addressing insinuations that internal criticism represents a necessary “awakening,” the aide cautions against framing constituency politics as a campaign of internal sabotage. He argues that political participation—whether for a first, fourth, or even fifth term—remains a constitutional right, subject only to party processes and the will of the electorate. Invoking historical precedents within Badagry politics, the statement warns against premature political verdicts that have, in the past, nearly cost the constituency experienced leadership later acknowledged as invaluable. On Public Accountability and Civic Debate The counter-statement concludes by aligning with Prince #Kuwande ’s broader call for open, structured public debate, rather than personalised insinuations. It echoes the view that Badagry’s political maturity demands transparency, consistency, and fairness—values that cannot coexist with selective outrage or benefit-driven advocacy. As Posu Davies’ response underscores, criticism rooted in principle will withstand scrutiny; criticism shaped by convenience will not.