A fresh legal perspective has entered the ongoing debate surrounding the elevation of Ibadan high chiefs to Obaship, as constitutional lawyer Adebisi Adeyemo insists that traditional titles cannot be used to restrict political participation in Nigeria.
The intervention comes amid heightened tension in Ibadan, where the planned coronation of prominent high chiefs—including Sarafadeen Alli—has sparked controversy over their eligibility to remain active in partisan politics.
Chieftaincy and Political Rights in Nigeria
At the heart of the debate is the question of whether newly crowned traditional rulers—or those eligible for such positions—can simultaneously pursue political ambitions.
Addressing this issue, Adeyemo maintained that the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria remains unequivocal in protecting citizens’ political rights, regardless of traditional considerations.
According to him, no customary practice or administrative directive can override constitutional provisions that guarantee eligibility to contest elections. He cited Sections 65 and 106 of the Constitution, which outline qualifications for elective offices, alongside Sections 66 and 107, which specify disqualification criteria.
“Chieftaincy status is not listed among the conditions that can disqualify a Nigerian from contesting elections,” Adeyemo argued, stressing that any attempt to impose such a restriction would be legally void.
Ibadan Obas Controversy Intensifies
The legal clarification comes as the Seyi Makinde administration proceeds with plans to elevate selected Ibadan high chiefs to crown-wearing Obas. However, the development has not been without resistance.
The Rashidi Ladoja had earlier indicated that some of the affected chiefs would not be present at the coronation ceremony, further fueling speculation about underlying disagreements within Ibadan’s traditional hierarchy.
Observers note that the situation reflects a broader institutional tension between evolving governance frameworks and deeply rooted traditional structures.
Legal Distinction Between Eligibility and Installation
Adeyemo drew a critical distinction between being eligible for a traditional stool and being formally installed as a monarch. According to him, individuals who are merely candidates or nominees for chieftaincy titles retain full constitutional freedoms, including political participation.
He explained that only those who have been officially installed as traditional rulers may face expectations of political neutrality, largely as a matter of convention rather than enforceable law.
“Eligibility does not translate into obligation,” he said. “Until installation occurs, such individuals remain ordinary citizens under the Constitution with full political rights.”
Historical Precedents Support Dual Roles
To reinforce his argument, the lawyer referenced historical examples where traditional authority coexisted with active political engagement.
He cited Adesoji Aderemi, who served as Governor of the Western Region while holding the revered stool of the Ooni of Ife. Similarly, Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola contested the 1993 presidential election despite holding multiple traditional titles.
Nigeria’s first President, Nnamdi Azikiwe, was also known to have held traditional honours without any constitutional barriers to his political career.
These precedents, Adeyemo argued, demonstrate that the coexistence of traditional and political roles is neither new nor unconstitutional.
Implications for Governance and Democracy
The ongoing Ibadan Obas controversy raises broader questions about governance, constitutional supremacy, and the role of traditional institutions in modern Nigeria.
Legal analysts warn that attempts to restrict political participation based on chieftaincy considerations could set a dangerous precedent, potentially undermining democratic principles and triggering avoidable legal disputes.
There are also concerns that administrative overreach—particularly by state ministries overseeing chieftaincy affairs—could lead to constitutional conflicts if not carefully managed.
Adeyemo described any such interference as “ultra vires,” meaning beyond legal authority, and warned that affected individuals could seek judicial redress.
Call for Restraint and Constitutional Compliance
Amid the tension, stakeholders have been urged to exercise caution and prioritize adherence to constitutional provisions. Adeyemo emphasized that political disagreements must remain within lawful boundaries to prevent escalation.
“Misinterpretation of the law should not become a tool for conflict,” he cautioned, adding that respect for constitutional supremacy is essential for maintaining peace and democratic stability.
As the situation continues to unfold, the Ibadan Obas controversy is shaping up to be a defining moment in the intersection between Nigeria’s traditional institutions and its constitutional democracy.