Governor Seyi Makinde has sparked a fresh legal and traditional controversy in Oyo State after three Ibadan High Chiefs were reportedly crowned as Obas despite not being present at the ceremony.
The development has drawn sharp reactions from constitutional lawyers and traditional stakeholders who argue that installing traditional rulers without their physical presence raises serious legal and cultural questions.
The affected chiefs — Sharafadeen Alli, Akeem Bolaji Adewoyin, and Oyekola Babalola — had earlier informed the state government that they would not be able to attend the coronation ceremony scheduled for Friday and requested that it be postponed to a later date.
Despite their appeal, the ceremony went ahead as planned. The government subsequently announced that the chiefs had been officially installed. Alli was named the Ekaarun Balogun of Ibadanland, while Adewoyin and Babalola were installed as Ekeerin Balogun and Ekaarun Olubadan of Ibadanland respectively.
The move has since ignited intense debate across legal and traditional circles, with many questioning whether a coronation carried out in the absence of the appointees can stand under Nigerian law and established custom.
Providing a legal perspective, constitutional lawyer, Adebisi Adeyemo strongly dismissed the validity of such a process.
According to him, a coronation done without the presence of the individual being installed has no backing in either statutory law or customary practice.
He acknowledged that under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, a state governor holds executive powers but stressed that such authority must operate within the limits of the law.
Adeyemo explained that while a governor may approve or recognise a chieftaincy appointment, the installation itself is a separate traditional process that requires the physical participation of the person being crowned.
He noted that critical elements of the ceremony — including accepting traditional insignia and taking the oath of office — are deeply personal rites that cannot be delegated or performed on someone’s behalf.
“These are not just ceremonial gestures; they are the core acts that give legitimacy to traditional leadership,” he argued.
Backing his position with judicial precedents, Adeyemo referenced the Supreme Court rulings in Adefulu v. Oyesile and Oladele v. Aromolaran II, both of which emphasised strict adherence to laid-down procedures in chieftaincy matters.
He also warned that proceeding with the coronation despite the chiefs’ request for a postponement could raise constitutional concerns, particularly around the right to fair hearing.
According to him, taking a decision that alters someone’s legal status without their participation or against their expressed wishes may be legally indefensible.
Adeyemo further argued that if the process itself is legally questionable, then the use of public funds to conduct the ceremony could also come under scrutiny.
He stressed that traditional institutions operate within a framework of both law and long-standing customs, cautioning that bypassing due process could weaken both legal certainty and cultural integrity.
As debate around the issue continues, several legal experts maintain that legitimacy in chieftaincy matters cannot be created by executive declaration alone but must strictly follow established legal and customary procedures.
Meanwhile, some residents have warned that the situation could create a troubling precedent for traditional institutions if it is not properly addressed.
