Legal icon, Chief Adeniyi Akintola, SAN, and a constitutional lawyer, Adebisi Adeyemo have taken opposing stands on the issue of Friday’s coronation of Ibadan Obas in absentia by the government of Oyo State under Engr ‘Seyi Makinde.
The government of the state had, on Friday, crowned the Senator representing Oyo South, Sharafadeen Alli, High Chief Akeem Bolaji Adewoyin, and High Chief Kola Babalola as Obas in their absence in an elaborate ceremony held at the historic Mapo Hall in Ibadan, the capital city of the state.
It was gathered that the affected chiefs had earlier notified the state government of their inability to attend the coronation and formally requested a new date.
However, the request was declined, and the government proceeded with the ceremony, declaring them duly installed.
The development has sparked widespread debate among legal practitioners, scholars, and traditional authorities, raising questions about the legality of installing a traditional ruler in absentia under Nigerian law.
Niyi Akintola, on Saturday, while speaking on a popular radio show anchored by Isaac Brown on Fresh 105.9fm in Ibadan submitted that “in the eye of the law, the promotion and installation of the said trio as Obas is valid.
“It is a hierarchical thing – whether they are there in person or not. The Olubadan of Ibadan, Oba Rashidi Ladoja was officially represented by Oba Tajudeen Ajibola while the governor, Engineer Seyi Makinde too was represented by his deputy, Barrister Bayo Lawal. So, the process was carried out statutorily.”
Chief Akintola, SAN also announced that the decision to carry out the coronation event was actually instigated by the parties involved when they expressed desire to be promoted earlier.
Said Akintola during the radio show: “The amended chieftaincy law in Oyo State conferred the power to carry out the processes on the Governor. Senator Abiola Ajimobi had earlier codified this amendment. It was further worked on by the government of Engineer Seyi Makinde. The coronation stands. Ibadan is too big to be slowed down. There are over 33 towns in Ibadan. Our people must learn to read and understand what the law says.
However, in his contribution, constitutional lawyer, Adebisi Adeyemo criticised Oyo State’s Governor Seyi Makinde and the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs over the coronation the Ibadan High Chiefs as Obas in their absence.
Adeyemo argued that, under Nigerian law, it is impossible for a traditional ruler to be validly installed in absentia.
His position followed the legal controversy that trailed the state government’s decision to crown three Ibadan High Chiefs as Obas last Friday, despite requests by the affected chiefs for a postponement of the ceremony.
In his submission, Adeyemo described the government’s action as potentially ultra vires, meaning it may have exceeded its legal authority.
According to him, where no law permits coronation in absentia, and where customary requirements demand personal participation, such an exercise is void and without legal effect.
He noted that although the 1999 Constitution (as amended) vests executive powers in a state governor, such powers are not absolute and remain subject to constitutional supremacy and the rule of law.
Citing constitutional provisions, Adeyemo maintained that government actions must strictly conform to established legal frameworks, stressing that executive authority cannot confer legitimacy where none exists.
While acknowledging that a governor may approve or recognise a chieftaincy appointment under relevant laws, he argued that installation is a distinct process governed by customary law, chieftaincy declarations, and prescribed traditional rites.
“These include personal appearance, acceptance of insignia and, in some cases, oath-taking—acts that are inherently personal and cannot be performed by proxy or in absentia,” he said.
Adeyemo added that his position is supported by established judicial authorities.
“In Adefulu v. Oyesile (1989), the Supreme Court held that strict compliance with prescribed procedures is a condition precedent to the validity of any chieftaincy appointment.
“Similarly, in Oladele v. Aromolaran II (1996), the court reaffirmed that any deviation from laid-down processes renders such appointments invalid.
“These are not mere formalities; they go to the root of legitimacy.
“Beyond procedural issues, the decision to proceed with the coronation despite the chiefs’ request for postponement has also raised constitutional concerns.
Legal analysts point to the right to a fair hearing, arguing that taking a decision affecting an individual’s legal status in their absence and against their expressed position may fall short of procedural fairness.
Packaged by Olayinka Agboola with additional reports from thenationonlineng.net
