Seyi Odewale
When last week the Ibadan High Chiefs, erstwhile elevated as kings, made a volte-face to withdraw their suit challenging the consent judgment that nullified their elevation to beaded crown monarchs to put an end to the seemingly protracted tussle, their action, no doubt, ended the almost five-year-old controversy.
They also agreed to drop their titles as a way of solving the impasse that engulfed the selection of the new Olubadan after the transition of Oba Saliu Adetunji.
The controversy stemmed from the former governor of Oyo State, the late Senator Abiola Ajimobi’s review of the 1959 Olubadan Chieftaincy Declaration, which elevated eight High Chiefs of Ibadan to kings with the title of Royal Majesty and13 baales as coronet-wearing obas on August 27, 2017.
The late governor in his defense said it was a practical demonstration of his administration’s commitment to the enhancement of dignity and honour of the chieftaincy institution in Ibadan land and Oyo State in general. But those who suspected the review decided to challenge it in court.
Before the imbroglio, the High Chiefs and the late Olubadan were in good accord, with the chiefs respecting the authority of the monarch and the monarch, reciprocating them. However, the biblical proverbial fad of “trying to be like other nations” made the late Ajimobi tinker with the 1957 Chieftaincy Declaration to elevate the high chiefs to their royal majesties. This action was vehemently opposed by the late monarch and the Osi-Olubadan, a former governor of the state.
But the late Ajimobi, undeterred by this, said: “I wish to state categorically that we are not changing history, we are not changing tradition, we are not changing the culture of Ibadanland.”
According to him, the review was not an easy thing, as administrations before him had done the same in 1974, 1981, 1993, and 2000 without succeeding. The late governor also said one of those opposed to the review, a former governor, had attempted to review the same declaration but abandoned the recommendations that came out of the commission set up by him.
The late governor said: “We are not reinventing the wheel. We have simply, like others before us, embarked on a review of the Olubadan Chieftaincy Declaration in response to the yearnings of well-meaning stakeholders.”
To him, the exercise was for Ibadan to be like every other big Yoruba town that has many obas. “This promotion will put Ibadan on a strong footing in the traditional institution of Yorubaland. With 33 obas, Ibadan can now renew its clamour for the creation of Ibadan state,” he said.
Novel as the intention appeared, a political dimension was, however, introduced to it. Former Governor Rashidi Ladoja, also a high chief in Ibadan land and the Osi Olubadan, was vehemently opposed to the elevation. To him, the status quo should not have been tinkered with. Although Ladoja would have benefitted and ‘crowned’ as a royal majesty if he had tagged along, he did not, hence he was the only one among the high chiefs that opposed it apart from the late Olubadan.
To some, Ladoja’s opposition might have arisen from the fact that he was not in the same political party as the late governor. Not only this, but the late Ajimobi’s action also appeared to have brought about a frosty relationship between Ladoja, who is the Osi-Olubadan, and those elevated as obas. Ladoja would not want to be a party to their elevation.
His argument was based on the illegality of the action of the late governor. According to him, the late Ajimobi did not have the statutory power to embark on such a review or confer on anyone the right to wear a beaded crown and coronet.
The late Oba Adetunji, who was on the same page with Ladoja, also said the crowning of those obas was illegal and void since the late Ajimobi did not consult the Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs, adding that the late governor’s action violated the provisions of the CAP 28 of the Chiefs Laws of the state. Those in opposition headed to court to challenge the legality or otherwise, of the late governor’s action.
Although the judgment favoured them, there was an appeal. The parties were later asked to settle for a consent judgment and stop further litigations. However, the consent judgment did not favour the elevated high chiefs, hence their appeal, which was withdrawn last week to ease the High Chief Lekan Balogun’s ascension to Olubadan stool, being the Otun Olubadan and the next in rank to the Olubadan.
But the journey to this amicable settlement, as it were, was nevertheless smooth. Governor Seyi Makinde when he assumed office in 2019 extended an olive branch to the ‘warring’ chiefs and urged them to settle out of court. However, the then settlement, the High Chiefs argued, did not favour them, hence they challenged the ruling, claiming that they were not part of the agreement that produced the consent judgment.
The legal tussle, again, created a succession hurdle on the proprietary or otherwise, of who to succeed the departed Oba Saliu Adetunji, who died on January 2, this year. Senator Ladoja, the Osi-Olubadan, and others argued that the next in rank to the late Oba Adetunji, High Chief Lekan Balogun, should not be enthroned as oba in Yorubaland is enthroned twice. But Balogun and his supporters insisted that both the 2017 review and the pending appeal suit did not affect the traditional transition as laid down in the chieftaincy declaration.
With their decision to drop their titles, revert to their former prefixes, and finally withdraw their appeal, the high chiefs seemed to have agreed that certain traditions and cultures cannot be subjected to the whims and caprices of some political officeholders.
Some of the chiefs who supported Governor Makinde’s strategy in solving the crisis were the Osi-Balogun Olubadan, High Chief Tajudeen Ajibola. According to him, the governor’s move to end the crisis was good, adding that the chiefs supported the governor on his decision to revert to the original concept and return to the status quo.
He stressed that the original concept remained constant. He said: “We agreed with the governor. All the processes leading to the nomination of a successor to the late Olubadan were in line with the original concept of line of a hierarchy under the Olubadan Chieftaincy Declaration.”
While he agreed with the governor’s move to end the controversy in selecting a new Olubadan, he, however, felt that the suit challenging the consent judgment should run its full course. “It has nothing to do with the original concept of hierarchical status in the succession plan to the Olubadan throne,” he maintained.
According to him, what was taken to court was an infringement on the fundamental human rights of the respective plaintiffs (the High Chiefs), asking the court to determine the lawfulness of judging a case in the absence of the direct beneficiaries of the issue in the contest. Their ground of appeal, the Osi-Balogun, who is also a lawyer, was that the chiefs were not part of the consent judgment.
The governor, he said, could do his job in line with the Olubadan Chieftaincy Declaration while the court case is allowed to run its course. At the Olubadan’s palace last month when Governor Makinde met with the High Chiefs while trying to resolve the issue, he was quoted to have said he would toe the path of the late Oba Adetunji on the issue, which was a total rejection of the reform and return to the pre-reform status of all the personalities involved.
Like a death knell, the governor’s pronouncement may have put “future reforms or reviews to the Olubadan Chieftaincy Declaration of 1957” to sleep as the governor reportedly said it should “be kept in view for now.”
