Awujale Succession: Why govt can’t abdicate its statutory responsibility, By Soji Adeyemi

The controversy surrounding the succession to the revered Awujale throne of Ijebuland has reached a point where the distinction between legitimate customary authority and the statutory responsibilities of government must be clearly understood. What should ordinarily be a structured process governed by tradition, established chieftaincy procedures and the laws of Ogun State is increasingly being complicated by misinformation, political insinuations and attempts to portray legitimate government oversight as interference.

At the heart of the controversy is a fundamental question: Should the Ogun State Government abandon its statutory responsibilities simply because the succession involves a traditional institution?

The Awujale stool is not an ordinary traditional institution. It is one of the most distinguished and historically significant traditional thrones in Yorubaland. Its integrity, prestige and continuity are matters of considerable public interest. Consequently, the process of selecting its next occupant must be conducted with the highest standards of transparency, fairness, procedural discipline and fidelity to the law.

The Ogun State Government is not the kingmaker. It has no authority to impose its preferred candidate on Ijebuland, nor should it attempt to substitute its judgment for the legitimate functions of the ruling house and kingmakers. However, this does not mean that government must become a passive observer when questions arise about the legality, regularity and credibility of the succession process.

The Ogun State Obas and Chiefs Law, 2021, together with the applicable Chieftaincy Declaration, provides the statutory framework for the appointment and recognition of traditional rulers. These provisions are not decorative legal instruments. They establish the boundaries within which customary authority must operate and define the responsibilities of government in ensuring compliance.

It is therefore fundamentally erroneous to suggest that government has no business with the process once a ruling house begins the nomination exercise.

The ruling house has its customary responsibilities. The kingmakers have their legally recognised functions. Government, on its part, has regulatory and administrative responsibilities under the law, including the exercise of applicable approval and review powers. These roles are distinct but interconnected. Respecting customary authority does not require government to abandon the law, just as exercising statutory oversight does not confer on government the power to select a monarch.

This distinction is particularly important in the present circumstances. The late Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona occupied the Awujale throne for an extraordinary 65 years, transforming the institution into a symbol of authority, stability and cultural pride. His reign elevated the profile of Ijebuland nationally and internationally. The process of selecting his successor must therefore reflect the dignity of the institution he left behind.

It would be a grave disservice to that legacy if the succession became defined by procedural controversies, competing claims, financial inducements or political manoeuvring.

Government has indicated that its interventions have been informed by petitions, procedural concerns and considerations relating to peace and security. These are not matters that a responsible administration should ignore. Where credible questions arise about the conduct of a chieftaincy process, the appropriate response is to examine them within the provisions of the law, rather than allow unresolved disputes to undermine the legitimacy of the eventual outcome.

Indeed, permitting a process clouded by unresolved procedural questions to proceed unchecked could create a more complicated situation in the future, potentially exposing the emergence of the next Awujale to prolonged litigation and avoidable institutional instability.

There is also the equally important question of protecting the sanctity of the throne from commercialisation. The selection of an Awujale must never become an exercise in financial competition, where the ability to deploy money, political connections or personal influence becomes more decisive than the provisions of customary law.

The throne is an institution of history, heritage and collective identity. It must not be reduced to an instrument of personal ambition or financial advantage. The applicable customary procedures and statutory provisions must remain the ultimate determinants of the process.

Those who disagree with the government’s interpretation of its statutory responsibilities are entitled to challenge its actions through appropriate judicial channels. Indeed, the Fusengbuwa Ruling House has instituted legal proceedings challenging aspects of the government’s intervention. That is a legitimate constitutional avenue, and the courts remain the appropriate authority to determine contested questions of law.

What should be discouraged, however, is the growing tendency to substitute anonymous publications, social media campaigns and unsubstantiated allegations for established legal processes.

At the same time, government must recognise that the legitimacy of its intervention depends on the manner in which it exercises its powers. Every action must be transparent, impartial, properly documented and firmly anchored in the law. No aspirant should receive preferential treatment, and no ruling house or kingmaker should be deprived of rights guaranteed under the applicable customary and statutory framework.

The objective must not be to secure an outcome favourable to any individual or interest, but to guarantee a process that commands the confidence of Ijebuland and withstands judicial scrutiny.

Governor Dapo Abiodun has publicly assured the people of Ijebuland that a new Awujale will emerge before 29 May 2027. This commitment should be pursued with the seriousness and urgency it deserves. However, speed must not come at the expense of due process. A credible succession is far more important than a hurried conclusion that could generate fresh disputes.

Ultimately, the Awujale throne belongs to Ijebuland and its people. It is not the personal possession of any aspirant, ruling-house official, kingmaker or political interest. Its preservation is a collective responsibility that transcends individual ambitions and temporary political disagreements.

The responsibility of government is not to choose who wears the crown. It is to ensure that whoever eventually occupies the throne emerges through a process consistent with the law, established custom and the overriding interest of peace and stability in Ijebuland.

Those who genuinely desire the preservation of the Awujale institution should be more concerned about the credibility of the succession process than about manufacturing controversies around government’s involvement.

Government must not usurp customary authority. But neither must it surrender its statutory responsibility in the name of avoiding controversy. Protecting the integrity of the Awujale throne requires both respect for tradition and fidelity to the law.

*Soji Adeyemi is a member of the Ijebu Focus Group, Ijebu-Ode