t is agreed that matters pertaining to traditional rulers and the troubled Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs are fundamentally crucial and sensitive. I wish to put up a caveat in advance that I am not out to belittle or 'piss' on history and our revered traditional institutions as some cynics may want to allege, I am only out to reinforce the ongoing clamour for historical exigencies or realities, logic, good conscience, equity and justice in our royal system. It is more apposite to make such efforts at a time when government has already set the ball rolling for the review of our traditional council and chieftaincy laws. The past five years has been one of royal rumblings, though the crisis is more dated. The council itself and controversy are not strange bedfellows.

Alaafin of Oyo Kingdom, Alaiyeluwa Oba (Dr.) Abdul Hameed Olayiwola Adeyemi III

advertisement

In 1987, it was reported that six leading traditional rulers led by the late Oba Oyebade Lipede, Alake of Egbaland, met with Adetunji Olurin (the then military governor of Oyo State) in a renewed effort to settle the rift within the council. The rift had to do with the continued chairmanship of the council by Oba Okunade Sijuade (Ooni of Ife) which was being challenged by Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi III (Alaafin of Oyo), late Oba Yesufu Oloyede Asanke (Olubadan of Ibadan), Oba Jimoh Oyewumi Ajagungbade (Soun of Ogbomosho), and Oba Gabriel Adekunle Aromolaran II (Owa of Ijeshaland).

The Alaafin camp boycotted the peace meeting while the Alake group reacted by boycotting all social, cultural or traditional associations with Alaafin. Alaafin in turn told Alake to respect royal confines. It would be recalled that Osun State was carved out of the old Oyo State on 27 August 1991. Oba Adeyemi was a reputed boxer in his youthful days in Lagos; he would therefore not be tired of engaging his pugilist skills to square it up with his opponents in or out of the boxing ring. Also as a former insurance officer, he would know how to mitigate any casualty. Even though one cannot say nemesis is at work, but it is ironical that Alaafin is now entangled in chairmanship and consenting authority tussle with his former royal comrades. The same issues for which he took on the Ooni have now boomeranged to confront him. In TheNEWS of 21 January 2008, Oba Omowonuola Oyeyode Oyesosin II, Ogiyan of Ejigbo, the first graduate monarch in the South-West, further rubbed salt into Alaafin's injury when he declared point-blankly that "By tradition, the Ooni is superior to any Yoruba Oba, being the father of all, to whom we trace all our history. So if you can trace your history to somebody else, then you must realize that a river does not flow above its source, no matter the power.

There was a time the Alaafin ruled over an extensive territory, even up to Dahomey. But as long as he can trace his source to Ife, that is the proverbial last straw that broke the camel's back." The Ogiyan is however favourable to a complementary relationship between the duo.

The lesson here, as Bob Marley would sing, is that you can only deceive some people at a time you cannot deceive all the people all the time. No matter how long, you cannot keep a people under servitude forever. Alaafin is asserting a divine and unquestionable right to be the permanent chairman of the council and that his suzerainty includes a consenting authority over all chieftaincy titles in the State, especially in Oke Ogun, his supposed backyard. The Lam Adesina administration came up with a white paper on the Oloko Panel report and stripped Soun and Alaafin of any power of consenting authority. Lam Adesina suffered political vilifications for this. But, it all started during Kolapo Ishola's regime. However, Alaafin dashed to court and got the white paper quashed.

It was Ladoja who decided to bell the cat by not only disbanding the council in 2003; he came up with a zonal arrangement. He however could not fully implement this due to the political tide that pulled the rug off his feet then. Again, Alaafin dashed to court to nullify the zonal arrangement. Ladoja was however wrong to have canvassed for the rotation of council chairmanship between Alaafin, Soun, and Olubadan to the exclusion of all others. Oke Ogun cannot accept that, we are not their slaves. In the 1990s when the military made the chairmanship rotational between the trio, Alaafin left the council in anger. It was only an assurance of permanent chairmanship that lured him back into the council. Soun's suit to validate the rotational chairmanship was thrown out by an Ibadan High Court. The 11 months interregnum of Alao-Akala did not also correct the situation. Alaafin rejected a car gift from Akala partly for this reason; nevertheless, he led a group of Obas to pronounce royal blessings on Akala for electoral success in 2007. Akala equally appointed Alaafin's son as the Executive Chairman of Atiba LG in Oyo town. In 2008, Alaafin has accepted Akala's Greek gift. When some traditional rulers paid their usual visit to the governor in mid-2008, it was Alaafin who gave reasons for the absence of late Lamidi Adedibu but he was not bothered about his fellow Obas like the Olubadan and Soun who obviously boycotted the meeting. Politico-royal realignments and compromises are not impossible.

Another reason why Alaafin rejected Akala's car gift in 2006 was because he was given the same car as Olubadan and Soun, which he felt was insulting to him. The Daily SUN of 10 July 2006 reported Alaafin's protest letter to Akala, which read in part thus:

"Openly, as I have told you in my earlier letter, Soun insisted you should not be governor even at the eleventh hour of your assumption of office. Yet, in the last six months of your government, he has become the biggest beneficiary of that government….I was even told of the response Your Excellency got from Soun when you sought his advice on the car gift on Wednesday 21 June 2006, a day before the book launch jamboree he (Soun) held in Ogbomosho".

If Soun opposed the controversial assumption of office by his own subject (Akala) after the illegal impeachment of Ladoja, then, Soun should be praised for placing legal and moral sanctity above filthy lucre. It can be inferred that Alaafin backed Ladoja's impeachment and supported the emergence of Akala. Hence, we can understand his biffing for Soun. Little wonder that during Akala's 11months reign, when Adedibu disrupted a press conference at the NUJ Press Center in Ibadan under the guise of protecting the person and throne of the Alaafin of Oyo, Alaafin did not condemn the perpetration of violence in his name. But Alaafin is happy now having warmed his way into the governor's heart. The governor reconvened the dissolved Council on 08 November 2007 with Alaafin as chairman. Olubadan and Soun, Alaafin's archrivals, boycotted the ceremony.

Alaafin has been priding himself as the one who enabled Soun (Oba Ajagungbade III) and Olubadan (Oba Adebimpe) to wear beaded crowns through a powerful motion he moved in the old Oyo State House of Chiefs in 1976. Expectedly, Soun fought back with strong evidence to show that he started wearing a beaded crown since 14 December 1973 before Alaafin's powerful motion of 1976. Assumning that it was Alaafin's benevolent motion that got other Obas their beaded crown, is that why they should remain subservient to him? What manner of godfatherism is Alaafin working hard to force down the throat of his colleagues? Elderstatesman, Pa. Anthony Enahoro, is reputed to have moved the motion for self-governance in 1957, yet he is not creating a scene about that neither is he calving a seat for himself beside God.

Kings are regarded as divine, second-in-command to the gods. They have been renowned for their wisdom, power, and courage in peace and at war. They facilitate socio-economic development, beside this; they are bonds of unity and icons of their peoples' hopes and aspirations. These are however on the positive side. In the long run, obas are not only infallible but they are mere mortals too. They are sometimes victims of political and economic forces. That they can be enthroned, dethroned, and banished from their domains attests to this. Obas who were forced to kiss the throne goodbye for sundry reasons include Oba Adeyemi II (the father of the present Alaafin) over the 1954 political riots in Oyo town, he was banished to Ilesa where he died; Oba Fadina, Olota of Ota; Sir Muhammadu Sanusi (1963), Emir of Kano; Oba Olateru Olagbegi, Olowo of Owo; Alhaji Attahiru, Alhaji Tambari, and Alhaji Ibrahim Dasuki, all as Sultans of Sokoto; Alhaji Usman Sariki, Etsu Nupe; Alhaji Mohammed Aliyu (1906) and Alhaji Mustapha Jokolo (2005), all as Emirs of Gwandu; etc.

Some obas opposed slavery, fought against colonization, and joined the struggle for independence (such as the Late Oba Samuel Akinsanya, Odemo of Isara); while others profited from slavery. Some obas are also known to be greedy, wasteful, and wanton. They drive in siren-blaring state of the art cars, instead of empowering the majority of their subjects who are barely managing to survive. What is the difference between the reckless convoy of a politician and that of a traditional ruler? Conferment of empty chieftaincy titles on all manner of misfits has since assumed a nuisance value. Before Diya fell out of the power struggle in Aso Rock, he invited some Yoruba obas who came disguised like masquerades in their royal regalia, all because they wanted to hide their identity from Abacha. Nonetheless, some of them were so petty as to have heeded Abacha's call to watch the infamous Diya coup video, not only this, some of them (including our own iku baba yeye - as alleged by Mustapha Jokolo in the Sunday SUN of 03 December 2006) went ahead to endorse Abacha's aborted life presidency.

The race for the throne could be messy and bloody, in some instances a town could be left without a king for years. When royal fathers fight, they fight dirty. Some cannot even stomach their rage when they set eyes on an 'enemy' colleague, some cannot even sit together. The other day the Ooni of Ife and the Oba of Benin engaged each other in a verbal war over the true origin of Yoruba and Edo people. In a special interview in TheNEWS magazine of 17 May 2004, Oba Sikiru Adetona, the Awujale of Ijebuland, went on the offensive and declared, "You see, when they started Egbe Omo Oduduwa, it was all politics. That was why I told Ooni that look, the definition of Ooni is AG politics. That's what is called Ooni. And I've written to him eight pages, which I signed to tell him that there is no royal blood in him."

It would be recalled that the same Oba Adetona survived an attempt made to depose him in 1980 by the Olabisi Onabanjo administration. The Awujale defeated the government in court and has continued to reign on the throne ever since April 1960, apparently as one of Nigeria's longest reigning monarchs. This piece is not an effort aimed at castigating traditional rulers. Indeed, we have been blessed and still have obas whose personalities have endeared one to the throne, their worthy legacies and statesmanlike deeds have forever etched their names in the annals of history. However, the truth is-they are in short supply here.

It is an unassailable fact that the traditional institution itself is under siege from all fronts. At the risk of sounding immodest, it is my considered opinion that it is a dying institution. One whose hitherto revered power has been greatly battered and watered down. Ogun State is already working on a bill that will allow obas to elevate modern religions above traditional practices. Indeed, major leading obas in the state have opposed traditional rites in their ascension and burial. More so, the emergence of an oba is no longer the exclusive preserve of the oracle (ifa) and the kingmakers, it is now guarded by statutes and political permutations of the ruling party. Oba Adedapo Tejuoso was more daring. More than two years ago, he destroyed the shrine of the ancestral gods of Oke-Ona Egba and begged the gods (of his fore fathers) to strike him dead within 7 days if they were truly powerful. Oba Tejuoso is still alive, leading his people and savouring the beauty of his oloris. As Ola Rotimi would write, the gods are dead! The emerging trend of born again obas is another reality we must contend with. Ordinarily, a born again Christian or pious Muslim who would not worship lesser gods has no business sitting on the throne. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

The traditional institution is now being daubed with the garb of anachronism. This is not unconnected with the hurricane-like impact of colonization, modernization, and globalization. The late sage, Pa. Obafemi Awolowo, while paying glowing tribute to the late Sir Adesoji Aderemi, Ooni of Ife, (the quintessential traditional ruler par excellence), quoted Pandit Nehru of India as saying that at the end of the 20th century there would be only five surviving monarchs: the king of heart, club, diamond, spade and Britain. Arguably, Nehru was saying this in reference to empires, kings who ruled over nation states- constitutional monarchies and absolute monarchies, the number of whom continues to reduce drastically. The socio-political predominance of kings is bound to reduce but those with good deeds will always be on the right side of history.

The monarchy in Britain has come under growing criticism on grounds of its continued relevance and constitutional democracy. Same goes for the randy King Mswati II of Swaziland who has just 70 wives in his harem. Saudi Arabia too is now embracing constitutional democracy. The nation of Nepal has also abolished its 240 years old Hindu monarchy to become a republic. Most of the monarchies that transited into republics had their kings deposed or forced them to abdicate the throne, some were even killed. Political power can never return to our traditional rulers after the colonialists took it from them. The gospel truth is that kings cannot resist change; they can only delay it just as Alaafin is doing now.

Some monarchs shoot themselves in the foot in their prejudiced romance with mammon and partisan politics. It happened in Oyo and Osun states where virtually every traditional ruler of note endorsed PDP candidates thereby leaving others royal fatherless. Alaafin during a congratulatory visit to Governor Akala declared emphatically that "By the time we in Oyo State were making efforts to ensure that he (Alao-Akala) was elected as our governor, God had already perfected His work; He only used us as instruments." This statement was too partisan and unbecoming. Assuming the election tribunals upturn such elections in favour of those they had sidelined, what would be their standing in the new order of things? For all the traditional rulers who endorsed Andy Uba and kept quiet while INEC and others was busy gang raping democracy in Anambra, how do they expect Peter Obi to treat them? It is the same situation in Rotimi Amaechi's Rivers State and Adams Oshiomhole's Edo State. Gone are the days when royal fathers held political offices. In the former Regional Houses of Chiefs, traditional rulers like Sir Adesoji Aderemi, Ooni of Ife; Sir Muhammadu Sanusi, Emir of Kano; Alhaji Usman Nagogo, Emir of Katsina, etc were members. Likewise, the emergency government of Dr. Moses Majekodunmi as Sole Administrator in the Western Region had some royal fathers as cabinet members. It suffices to say that the traditional institution suffered debilitating damage from this royal incursion into politics.

Some religious and traditional leaders are wrecking a latent but great havoc on our democracy. INEC would conduct a very fraudulent election such as the April 2007 polls, and the winners of such a criminal enterprise would now engage the services (I don't know at what cost) of religious and traditional leaders to pacify their aggrieved opponents to drop their election petitions and then invite them to 'come and chop'. Those who refuse their admonitions are labeled as bastards and enemies of our nascent democracy. They encourage a thief to enjoy his stolen goods while persuading the owner to look elsewhere.

Let's now return to the issues that fired the salvo in me to delve into royalty. I need to also point out that, mostly; my references in this article will be to a chieftaincy title/office and not necessarily to the occupants of that office. Indeed, some of the events under deliberation here occurred before the present actors ascended the throne. On 09 July 2003, the Ladoja administration dissolved the Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs and came up with a zonal arrangement that would end the suzerainty of the Alaafin in the state. Eighteen obas led by the Alaafin sought legal redress on the termination of his consenting authority, particularly over Oyo North and South. Justice Moshood Abass, on 18 April 2007, ruled that the dissolution and reclassification of the council was illegal. The Alaafin must be commended for his approach to the issue. Nonetheless, the lingering opposition to Alaafin's permanent chairmanship of the council and exercise of consenting authority rages on. The Olubadan and Soun are leading the opposition. One could read Olubadan's mindset when he declared recently that "He (Alaafin) was a mere insurance clerk in 1974 when he was brought to me. I was instrumental to his installation. If not for me how can he become the Oba?" Why did Alaafin not exercise his consenting authority before Oba Samuel Odulana was made Olubadan?

It doesn't sound commonsensical or logical that after the kingmakers in a town have selected a prince as the oba elect, he can still not be coronated until another oba elsewhere says so. Some will argue, quite blindly, that in matters like this commonsense and logic or modernization does not come in, it is the exclusive preserve of culture or custom or tradition. This argument is isolated. Even customs and traditions are not static. I will dwell more on this later. The Alaafin obas who went to court emphasized Alaafin's consenting authority over Oyo North and South, why did they exclude or is it omit Oyo Central (mainly Ibadan)? Alaafin asserts that he is not primus interperes (first among equals) but that he is unrivaled and unequaled. How do we reasonably expect that until the Alaafin says yes, no prince can become the Olubadan or Soun? Take it or leave it, like it or dislike it, modern and emerging historical and political realities can no longer sustain Alaafin's larger-than-life sovereignty and suzerainty. I am not unmindful of the fact that some people hate my line of argument with passion.

From time immemorial, as Samuel Johnson confirmed in "The History of the Yorubas", the Alaafin was regarded as the head of all obas in the Yoruba nation. Oyo town was more or less like the political or administrative capital. Today, Alaafin would be in a world of his own if he wants to assert this. Alaafin stirred controversy recently with the installation of Chief Afe Babalola as Bamofin of Yoruba land and Chief (Mrs.) Alaba Lawson as Iyalode of Yoruba land. Many queried why Alaafin would unilaterally confer such sweeping titles on anybody. The Iyalode case was seen as a crude assault on the Alake who had sacked Lawson as the Iyalode of Egbaland. Alaafin used to command authority over the entire Yoruba land and even beyond but he is now restricted to Oyo State, and increasingly to Oyo town, and probably a section of the town. How did this come to be?

Yet some will say we should not tamper with age long culture and history. Is it in our culture or history for the Alaafin to ride in siren blaring state of the art cars, where are the horses and the slaves or abobakus (those who must die with the king); will Oba Adeyemi be on the throne today if the tradition of compelling the Aremos (the king's first son) to die with their fathers had not been abolished?, why did we end the evil of slave trade or the killing of twins; where is it in our cherished custom or history for the Alaafin to run to the law courts for cover, where he will also pay homage to the judge as my lord, what about his own court where he sits as the supreme judge? The modern court can even order an oba to abdicate the throne without the opening or closing of any calabash.

I agree that these things are contentious and controversial, but I'm not advocating the view that a modern day king (with particular reference to Alaafin) is powerless or totally irrelevant. Indeed the mediatory and advisory roles of traditional rulers have come in handy in certain crucial situations. However, is it still kabiyesi (that the king's acts are unquestionable) as usual? Today, how many people will simply keep quiet if an oba should gb'ese le (take over) their belongings? When did the rain start beating us? The traditional rulers were holding sway when the white men came here as missionaries, traders (especially slave traders), and finally as our colonial rulers. The coming of the white man via the sea and to some extent, the advent of the Arabs via the north, was the beginning of the end for most of our customs and our traditional institutions. When they left the scene at independence, sovereign power did not return to traditional rulers as we had already imbibed their own system of governance. No one is blaming our pre-Nigeria traditional rulers for allowing the white man to take over; they were ill prepared and equipped for it. We cannot embrace the good aspects of civilization or modernization, thinking that the 'bad' sides or side effects will not catch up with us. This is what is playing out on the traditional institutions today.

Let me now approach the issue at hand from an Oke Ogun perspective. Some of our traditional rulers in Oke Ogun, with greatest respect to their royal highnesses, are not leaving up to expectation- a kind of letting us down. An oba that would subject his domain and people to the whims and caprices of another oba must be seen as retrogressive and disastrous. It was reported in the Daily Trust of 09 February 2008 that some obas including our own Aseyin of Iseyin, Okere of Saki, Iba of Kisi, Sabigana of Igana, and Onjo of Okeho paid a courtesy visit to Alaafin where they told him that he is the King Solomon of our time and that without him they cannot reign over their respective domains. It is most saddening that traditional rulers in Oke Ogun are now divided along pro and anti-Alaafin camps. On 30 April 2007, some obas and chiefs held a meeting/conference at the Alaafin's palace, consequent upon which they came out with a resolution and a communiqué which were contained in an open letter to Ladoja as published in the Nigerian Tribune of 02 May 2007. A major part of the resolution highlighted the court judgment that reaffirmed Alaafin's consenting authority. Nineteen obas and chiefs including the Alaafin were signatories to the resolution, eighteen of whom are from Oke Ogun.

Similarly, they issued a communiqué, which was signed by 41 obas, and chiefs, 26 of the signatories were from Oke Ogun. What then is the essence of their numerical strength if they would still be subservient to others? They signed documents whose purpose was to further tie them to the apron string of Alaafin. It is informative to note that Olubadan and Soun did not attend the meeting/conference. It is necessary to ask that what is really the motive behind this struggle, because, topmost on the list of the demands of those who reconvened with Alaafin was the payment of 4 years arrears of salaries and allowances owed them by the state government for a job not done. After all, Alaafin supported Akala's invocation of the no work no pay rule during the workers strike in 2007, it was Soun and others who saved the day.

One remains askance as to the essence and benefits derivable from Alaafin's exercise of consenting authority over Oke Ogun. Are we lesser human beings here? This is feudalism and slavery in disguise. I challenge the advocates of Alaafin's supremacy to tell us the socio-economic and political developments that Alaafin has channeled to Oke Ogun. Rather he is blocking them. Yet our own could go ahead to sign away our liberty and development. There are pressing development projects which Oke Ogun obas ought to attend to, they should not be the straw for anybody to cling to. Some chiefs in other towns in Oyo State are even rated above Oke Ogun obas. While some of them are not recognized members of the council, the Balogun of Ibadan, Otun Olubadan, Basorun of Oyo, Baale of Lalupon are all members. We will continue to cherish progressive monarchs such as the late Oba Abimbola Oyedokun, Okere of Saki, and others who resisted modern imperialism. It is hoped that the present Okere of Saki, Oba Kelani Olatoyose, would carry on the struggle for freedom.

In the same Tribune edition, the obas issued a poorly written and contradictory communiqué in which they congratulated Nigerians for coming out of the April 2007 election unscathed. They stated further that the antecedents of politics and elections in Nigeria have never been palatable and that the scars of the election remain fresh in our memory and psyche. They stated their belief that Nigerians have been able to elect their leaders, which they see as a great feat that has become fait accompli, and is therefore worth celebrating. They also appealed to all that despite the obvious irregularities, politics as a game must produce winners and losers. The obas' stance on the election, to say the least, was most uncharitable. How can you congratulate a people for coming out of the elections unscathed while at the same time stating that the election was unpalatable and that the scar was till there? What is the great feat in an election that never truly reflected the wishes of the electorates? What is fait accompli in the election whose outcomes are crumbling like a pack of cards before the election tribunals?

Even if politics is a game of opon and ayo, must it produce winners and losers at the expense of a due process and democratic elections? The 2007 elections have been widely condemned by the majority of Nigerians as the worst in the country's history. After the Election Tribunal gave victory to Governor Alao-Akala, the Alaafin led some obas to Agodi and it didn't come as a surprise that Alaafin could threw all royal caution to the wind when he declared that 'they' would all have sunk with Akala had he failed at the tribunal. I don't know if he meant that 'they' would all vacate the throne if Akala's election was nullified. He even said that God used them as instruments for Akala's emergence. These are weighty statements coming from an oba. Where does Senator Abiola Ajimobi and other governorship candidates lie in all of these, are these obas not theirs? What if the Court Appeal favours Ajimobi, will Alaafin and others sink or jump ship to Ajimobi's side? Why can't Alaafin and others await the outcome of the Appeal Court before they will begin to sing songs, even if they must at all cost? The dissolution of the obas' council and its internal wrangling are very instructive lessons in the game of politics, and there must also be winners and losers too.

This trend of royal rumblings is also on course in the Gateway state but with the intervention of Governor Gbenga Daniel, it appears that a Daniel has come to judgment. In the Sunday Tribune of 28 May 2000, the royal trio of Oba Adedapo Adewale Tejuoso (Osile Oke Ona Egba, formerly Oloko of Oko [Abeokuta]), Late Oba Olawale Adisa Odeleye (Olowu of Owu Abeokuta), and Oba Alidu Laloko Sobekun (Agura of Gbagura, formerly the Alagura of Agura) signed an advertorial where they ran a detailed analysis to counter the claims of Oba Sikiru Adetona (Awujale of Ijebuland) which was published in the Punch of 04 April 2000. The protests and arguments of the trio were also not unconnected with the Egba crisis of who is the paramount or supreme oba in Egbaland between them and the Alake of Egbaland.

The Awujale was quoted to have declared that he was superior to the Osile, Agura, and Olowu. They found Awujale's statement contradictory to his earlier stance in the Guardian of 25 March 2000, where the Awujale had said among other things, "Any attempt to create a traditional rulers forum at the national level would end in chaos. It is not possible for say, an Emir from the north to be head over Awujale and vice versa. For me, I will not take that from anybody." Awujale said further that he preferred a situation where everybody would reign in his domain. Although ethnic differences might be the logic behind Awujale's stance, but why should others allow Awujale to be head over them? Whatever is good for the goose must also be good for the gander.

The royal trio also stated that there are four sectional obas in Egbaland - origun merin l'egba ni. They explained further that due to inter tribal wars between 1830 and 1834, they came together as four sovereign individual crowns from Oduduwa to form Abeokuta. They then jointly secured and run the territory of Egbaland as a federation in a cooperative way. They also averred that the Alake clandestinely and perfidiously schemed himself to be imposed by the colonial administration as the head of Egbaland in 1938. Alake later manipulated and monopolized the government of Egbaland for himself alone. They stated that their predecessors and ancestors had always fought against the imposition, sometimes paying with their lives. This is what their Oke Ogun counterparts have failed to do. Oba Tejuoso confirmed this when he was promoted last year as a first class oba that he has achieved what his predecessors had been clamouring for for over 100 years.

The trio cited the Colony of Lagos Gazette of 24 February 1903 to puncture Awujale's claim of superiority. In the said Gazette, the Ooni of Ife, Olubuse I gave evidence of the distribution of the 21 beaded crowns that were given by the house of Oduduwa. The list included Osile, Agura, Olowu, Alake, and Awujale, with this they declared Awujale's alleged superiority over them as only existing in his imagination. The trio also observed that the Awujale settled in Ijebu division while Akarigbo settled in Remo division, but none settled in Egbado division. Yet government promoted the Olu of Ilaro, who was not on the 1903 Gazette list, from Egbado division as a 1st class oba and co-chairman of the Ogun State Council of Obas alongside Alake, Awujale, and Akarigbo. They wondered why Awujale didn't protest against the elevation of the Olu of Ilaro to his equal in the council. They reminded Awujale that he and the Akarigbo of Remoland were not paramount rulers until the Ijebu and Remo divisions were carved out of Abeokuta province. The three royal comrades have however been promoted to the status of a first class oba on 19 August 2004 alongside 18 others.

Chief Olusegun Obasanjo and Prince Bola Ajibola, at the last Owu day celebration, emphasized that the Owus are superior to any section of Egbaland and if not for their past acts of bravery, Egbaland would have been devastated. The Alake however commented that the Owus are a minority in Egbaland. Chief (Mrs.) Alaba Lawson, who had been in a running battle with the Alake, was eventually removed by the Alake -in-Council as the Iyalode of Egbaland. However, in a swift reaction, the Osile of Oke-Ona Egba, Oba Tejuosho (whose mother Chief (Mrs.) Bisoye Tejuosho was the second Iyalode), said the removal lacks the blessing and consent of other sections of Egbaland.

The traditional council in Ogun State, before it was reconstituted last year, was actually constituted for 5-year tenure in 1991. This suggests that the council had fixed tenure, which does not allow for permanent chairmanship. The reconstitution was based on the need to align it with new realities and re-energize it to perform its consultative and advisory roles. Governor Daniel pointed out that the need to stem the tide of agitations among traditional rulers also informed the new policy. Ogun State came up with a 4-tiers structure which has 4 paramount obas at the apex, the 2nd tier is composed by the 21 obas who have just been elevated to 1st class status, followed by the 3rd tier of part two obas and while the 4th tier is occupied by part three obas. The chairmanship of the re-constituted council would be rotated among the four paramount rulers starting with the Alake, Awujale, Akarigbo, and the Olu of Ilaro, in that order. Although this arrangement is commendable for not making any oba a permanent chairman, however, limiting the chairmanship to four obas is still undemocratic and discriminatory. This is why the trio of Osile, Agura, and Olowu will continue their clamour for paramount status. Governor Akala has to build upon the wisdom of Governor Daniel if he wants posterity to be kind to him.

In the old Oyo state, while Ooni was the Chairman of the Council of Obas, Alaafin was only struggling for the chairmanship by the sidelines. Now that Ooni's suzerainty has been limited to Osun State, he cannot extend it to Oyo State. Why then should Alaafin extend his own suzerainty to Oke Ogun? It is arguable that Ooni cannot due to state differences, then, Alaafin too cannot due to local government differences. Alaafin has just three local governments to contend with in Oyo town, how do we expect Olubadan with 11, Ogbomosho with four and Oke Ogun with 10 local governments to be subjected to Alaafin? Even in Osun State, it is not a bed of roses for Ooni. At the height of the impasse between him and the Owa Obokun, the latter wrote a letter to Ooni wherein he stated that "Perhaps, you need to appreciate the fact that I, as the Owa-Obokun of Ijesaland, can never be a satellite to the Ooni of Ile-Ife."

Aare Ayandotun Ayanlakin, who claims to be the royal ambassador to Iku Baba Yeye, in the Sunday Tribune of 3 February 2008 wrote a rejoinder to an earlier piece titled "Alaafin's claims of supremacy", apparently written by Mogaji Gbade Ishola. Though the rejoinder sought to launder Alaafin's image, it however inadvertently lent credence to our claim that Alaafin's suzerainty and permanent chairmanship of the council are questionable. Ayanlakin wrote that when the first term of Alaafin Ladigbolu II as chairman expired it was renewed for another 2 years in 1963. He was again re-appointed for another term of 2 years in 1965. In 1966 (before the end of Alaafin's tenure), Ooni was appointed chairman while Alaafin was only made his deputy after he protested. Yet in 1980, Oba Sijuade Okunade inherited the chairmanship seat from Sir Adesoji Aderemi. It is clear from Ayanlakin's submissions that Alaafin has never enjoyed an unbroken permanent chairmanship of the council.

In a clear departure from his usual lucid and acerbic assertiveness, Festus Adedayo (now of the National Life newspaper) wrote in the Sunday Tribune of 07 October 2001, a piece titled "Alaafinate and pissing on history". Adedayo belaboured himself with assailable facts to uphold and canvass for the sanctity of the Alaafin. At that time, Lam Adesina had just withdrawn the consenting authority of Alaafin and Soun. It would be recalled that there have been frictions in the Ogbomosho area between Soun and other obas over exercise of consenting authority and land ownership. I have course to disagree vehemently with Adedayo on a number of issues.

For instance, he stated that "Oyo province was divided into Oyo North and South under the suzerainty of the Alaafin…The further splitting of Oyo into councils with time does not diminish the Alaafin's suzerainty." Time there was when Alaafin also controlled Adedayo's Ondo State, but that is no more. Adedayo also wrote that Alaafin was not imposed on any town but that each town subscribed to Alaafin's domination. Fine. Now that we strongly want to unsubscribe from it, nothing should stop us from so doing. We as a people reserve the right to determine who and how we will be governed. The truth is that as at the time those chieftaincy declarations subscribing to Alaafin's superiority were made, most of our obas then were largely unenlightened to fully grasp the propaganda and mischievous scheming that were being entrenched then. Most of them were coerced into submission to pay homage to Alaafin via arm-twisting tactics of threat of or actual war and selling the 'rebellious' ones into slavery (a crime against humanity).

Adedayo also claimed that Alaafin's sagacity was needed to guide government from delving into illegality in instances where there are controversies on who should and should not rule. Has that ended those controversies? Who will guide the government in the event of controversies as to who should become the Alaafin? Adedayo was very wrong in his account of the Okere of Saki stool, which he described as being stalemated in 1976 until Alaafin stepped in. Alaafin should rather tell the whole world what actually transpired before and during the coronation of the Late Oba Abimbola Oyedokun. Adedayo claimed wrongly that Oba Oyedokun was not crowned until he paid obeisance to Alaafin, rather, Alaafin only agreed to his coronation when reality dawned on him that the rug was about to be pulled off his royal feet. Is paying obeisance or homage the same thing as guiding the government on who is the right candidate for the throne? Even when the chieftaincy declaration or law recognizes only the Okere of Saki as the oba, Alaafin as an author of confusion was according recognition to the Onisaki of Saki while Oba Abimbola Oyedokun was alive, all because he would not have any of Alaafin's imperialist excesses. Now that Alaafin's choice is sitting on the Okere stool, he has abandoned Onisaki for the Okere.

Adedayo also wondered why Yoruba politicians were desecrating our tradition, arguing that no politician dare desecrate the Sultanate. Will the Sultan ever leave his palace to go and congratulate a governor for winning at the tribunal? In this desecration of traditional rulers in Yoruba land, some of the rulers are as guilty as the politicians. It is also illogical, as Adedayo argued that we should isolate traditional rulers from modern or democratic rulership, when modernity and democratic principles are written all over it. Why has Alaafin been frequenting the law courts? It must be noted that customs are dynamic; they reflect changes in the society. He wrote that we either jettison traditional rulership entirely or retain it with all its shortcomings and that it is the height of hypocrisy for some obas to now complain of slavery when they were quiet aware of the inherent hazards involved before they chose to ascend the throne. This argument leads nowhere and it is a plain admission of the fact that truly some obas are being unduly subjected to Alaafin's power. Do we say, for instance, that because the Lagos-Ibadan expressway is a death trap we must not travel on it again and that accident victims on the road must neither complain nor call for its rehabilitation because they chose to travel on a road that they knew to be bad.

When Chimaroke Nnamani, now standing trial for corruption courtesy of EFCC, emerged as governor of Enugu State in 1999 one of his first major assignments was to battle Jim Nwobodo, his godfather, to a standstill. In comparism with Chris Ngige and Chris Uba, Adedayo applauded Nnamani severally for this feat; it is a great feat indeed, if we look at the Ladoja-Adedibu case. I guess this was one of Nnamani's major attractions to Adedayo, apart from his much-touted cranial capacity. Adedayo should have condemned Nnamani for wrestling himself from Nwobodo knowing fully well that a godfather would always turn out to be a blood-sucking parasite. Little wonder that Sullivan Chime, who was installed by Nnamani, has also turned against him. What goes round must come round, but all the same, we say, TO GOD BE THE GLORY!

Like Adedayo, Wale Adele toed the same path of half-truths in the Nigerian Tribune of 14 January 2008. He also laboured to confer what was either not or no more on the Alaafin, however, he succeeded in revealing the vulnerability of the institution of the Alaafin. Adele described Alaafin as paramount and all-powerful because it was the Alaafin that signed some extant treaties or agreements with the colonialists to be of good behavior and not to interfere with the exploitation of our land by the colonialists. The Alaafin also had cause to invite the white men to help him quell the rebellion in Yoruba land in the wake of the Yoruba civil war. A typical instance was when Oba Adeyemi I Alowolodu, the Alaafin of Oyo wrote to the Rev. J. O. B. Wood on October 15, 1881 asking for mediation in the fragile peace in his kingdom that was being instigated by "belligerent powers".

The rebellious powers were Ibadan and Abeokuta, which had become emerging regional powers, who have become very strong and antagonistic against the imperial Oyo Empire. The tone of the letter speaks of a beleaguered King who was desirous in restoring authority, peace, and stability. In the letter, the Alaafin wrote, "I have undertaken several times to effect peace, but my authority is not respected by the belligerent powers and seeing that if this is not done in time, the extinction of the whole Yoruba race is inevitable". It would be recalled that Alaafin Ajaka was kidnapped by the then Olowu of Owu before Sango paid his ransom. Where then lays the all-powerful authority of the Alaafin? I do not know the parameters with which Adele came to the conclusion that Oyo has transformed into a cosmopolitan town. If Oyo is a cosmopolitan town, what then is Ibadan or Lagos?

I wish to further buttress my assertion on the unsuitability and unsustainability of Alaafin's consenting authority from a historical viewpoint. Historical reasons have been the umbrella under which Alaafin's foot soldiers seek to hide. We need not shout it again that the real Oyo empire or kingdom has long collapsed. What is referred to as Oyo today is not, it is Ago-Oja, the ruins of old Oyo are still there for those who are interested in archaeology or tourism. Old Oyo, also known as Oyo-Ile or Oyo-Oro or Katunga, was completely destroyed in the 1830s when its inhabitants, probably under Alaafin Oluewu, could not resist the rampaging war machine of the Fulani jihadists. It was after this that Alaafin Atiba declared the present Oyo as the seat of Alaafin, I shall return to the Ago-Oja issue later.

According to accounts from Samuel Johnson and others, the original Oyo was believed to have been founded before 1400 by Oranmiyan. The people of the old Oyo Empire settled in 16 different places because of military aggression by neighbours, two of these was before Oyo Ile itself. Sango reigned at Koso and was believed to have committed suicide on the Koso hill. Oranmiyan was said to have been advised by the king of Bussa (Borgu), in the present day Niger State, to follow a snake and settle wherever the snake disappears. The snake disappeared at the foot of the Ajaka hill, which was slippery. A likely meaning for Oyo is a slippery place. Although Oyo assumed political predominance throughout Yoruba land extending to the Dahomey kingdom in Benin Republic until late 18th century, the kingdom of Ife was more predated and preeminent. According to the history of the Oke Ona Egba people, Oranmiyan was the first king to occupy the throne of the Osile at the old Oko Orile near Ile Ife. When he left the old Oyo, he founded and reigned in the old town of Oko. The Oke Ona Egba history seems to corroborate Samuel Johnson's book, which indicated that Oko was for sometime the seat of government of Yoruba land before it was transferred to Oyo during the reign of Sango.

The origin of Old Oyo is traceable to Ife, the cradle of the Yorubas. Oranmiyan, a grandson of Oduduwa (however other accounts have it that Oranmiyan was one of the sons of Oduduwa) is the founder-king or first Alaafin of Oyo. Oduduwa gave birth to only one son named Okanbi, who also gave birth to eight children, 7 by his "legal" wife namely: Onipopo of Popo, Onisabe of Sabe, Alara of Ilara, Ajero of Ijero, Orangun of Oke-Ila, Owa Obokun Ajibogun of Ijesaland and Oranmiyan, and one Ooni by his slave turned wife, named Orunto. Another account holds that Ooni was born by a strange woman who was to be sacrificed but was spared when she was discovered to be pregnant. Either way, Ooni became the ruler that succeeded Okanbi while subsequent Ife rulers have maintained the title. This I guess is the reason why it is being argued today that Ooni, not being a (direct) descendant of Oduduwa, has no royal blood in him.

Is the Alaafin superior to Ooni of Ife? No Alaafin has disputed the fact of Ife being the cradle of the Yoruba race or Oduduwa as our common ancestor or that Oranmiyan from Ife founded Oyo. When Oduduwa died, Oranmiyan had already established a vast empire at Oyo Ile. In apparent recognition of Ife as the source, Oranmiyan was buried in Ife and not Oyo. Is it possible today for Ooni, claiming to be the king of the source, to seek to lord it over the whole of Yoruba land? Let each oba maintain his nuclear domain. Though some of these things are arguable, Ooni has however perfected survival and supremacy strategies with which he has continued to edge out the Alaafin nationally. For Ooni and Alaafin, the respect and influence which each of them commands is a function of their personality. Why did Oba Adeyemi not challenge the chairmanship or supremacy of Sir Adesoji Aderemi only for him to take on his successor, Oba Okunade Sijuade?

Even though Alaafin was a powerful king in Oyo (especially in Oyo Ile), his powers were not absolute. He was curtailed by the Oyo Mesi (council of non-royal chiefs) led by the Bashorun. Bashorun Gaa was more notorious in this wise. He installed and dethroned three Alaafins; where else does an individual wield so much power over the throne? The Oyo Mesi had power to elect and dethrone an Alaafin. They also control the military with Bashorun as the Commander-in-Chief. There was also the Ogboni group that was like a supreme court that has powers to review the actions of both Alaafin and Oyo Mesi. Unlike what obtains now, the Alaafin rarely leaves his palace; it was the Aremo that usually run the show outside the palace. This is a pointer to the fact that the present Alaafin himself is downplaying Oyo's culture and tradition.

Nupe or Borgu defeated Oyo during the reign of Alaafin Onigbogi at about 1535 and forced the people into exile for over 70 years. Oyo did not recover until early 17th century. Igboho, a town in Oke Ogun, became the new capital of the old Oyo Empire. In 1575, while on their way to Igboho, Okere Otiti of Saki defeated the Sabe invasion and provided a safe passage for Alaafin Eguguoju when he was leading the corpse of Alaafin Ofinran (Onigbogi's successor) and his people as refugees to Igboho. The cord with which Ofinran's corpse was bound got broken and fell to the ground. The spot where this happened is said to be where the palace of the Okere of Saki is located. Before the Oyo exodus got to Saki, they also temporarily camped at Ipapo. Four Alaafins (Ofinran, Eguguoju, Orompoto, and Ajiboyede) were buried at Igboho, yet we claim that ori ade ki sun ta. Alaafin Abipa reestablished Oyo Ile around 1610. Robert Smith (1965) confirmed this in his article titled "Alaafin in Exile: A Study of the Igboho Period in Oyo History". Alaafin and his people met Onigboho of Igboho as the paramount ruler on arrival but while relocating to Oyo Ile, Alaafin empowered Alepata (a hunter) above Onigboho as the paramount ruler of the town. The seed of discord, often marked by fatal casualties, which Alaafin sowed then is still brewing crisis in Igboho till date.

The final fall of Oyo Ile was triggered by Afonja's Ilorin revolt against Alaafin Aole which eventually led to the incursion of the Fulanis. There was also an intense internal struggle for power between the Oyo Mesi and Alaafin at the beginning of the 18th century. Oyo never regained its prominence as some areas such as the Egbas under Lishabi, Ibadan, Ijebu, Dahomey under King Gezo, etc became more powerful and populous. All these weakened Oyo's structure and when Alaafin Aole could not contain the raging forces of attrition in his kingdom, Afonja sent him the calabash-a kind of impeachment- and he was forced to commit suicide. Alaafin Aole, out of frustration and anger, was said to have decreed out his infamous curse on the entire race. It was translated thus: "My curse be on you and your disloyalty and your disobedience, so let your children disobey you. If you send them on an errand, let them never return to bring you word again. To all points I shot my arrows, you will be carried as slaves. My curse will carry you to the sea and beyond the seas. Slaves will rule over you, and you their masters will become slaves. Broken calabash can be mended but not a broken dish; so let my words be irrevocable." It was not statesmanlike for Alaafin Aole to curse his people for his failings and the shortcomings of the ruling class, did that solve the problem?

Oyo and Alaafin created and are still creating more problems than they can solve. We cannot continue to be aligned to a leader who delights in cursing rather than blessing us. Oyo is also not synonymous with the Yoruba race or Yoruba land. Oyo did not start out as an empire, some of the provinces or towns under it were forced to pay tribute while those that refused were brutally destroyed and sold away as slaves (Oyo prospered greatly from this). It is just natural that Oyo empire should collapse too. British colonialism and imperial domination of the Queen ended in Nigeria, so also will the royal domination of Alaafin in Oyo State.

Now to the Ago D'Oyo/Alago Oja - Alaafin controversy. The Alago Oja title is often confused with the Ashipa title in Isale Oyo. Alhaji Ganiyu Ajiboye Busari was installed as the new Alago Oja in August 2006 by Alao-Akala. He made stunning revelations in the Sunday Tribune of 6 August 2006. Alhaji Busari disclosed that Ago Oja was founded by Oja in 1792 at a time Awole Arogangan was the Alaafin. According to him, it was Alaafin Atiba Atobatele who foisted the Asipa title on them in 1837 to replace the original Oloja of Ago Oja title. He stated that Atiba was a royal refugee who left Akeetan to seek asylum in Ago Oja between 1830 and 1837. Atiba was also a friend and in-law to Oja, having married Efunrogun, Oja's daughter. Before Atiba became Alaafin, he had promised to relocate to Oyo Ile. He however reneged on his promise and when eventually he became Alaafin in 1837, he started calling Ago Oja Ago d'Oyo. When he became more prosperous, he changed the name of Ago Oja to Oyo and not that he founded an entirely new Oyo town.

Samuel Johnson (1921) corroborated the above in his own account that "Thus Ago…became the royal city of Yoruba and as such it was no longer called Ago-Oja but Oyo as the Alaafin now resides there". This was also confirmed by Stephen Goddard (1971) in "Ago that Became Oyo: An Essay in Yoruba Historical Geography" where he wrote that "…the Alaafin's personal acquaintance with Ago also probably played an important part in its selection as the new capital. A northern quarter of the present town, between the Awerintu and Ishowin streams, appears to lie on the actual site of Ago. The Alaafin went to great lengths to make his new capital resemble Old Oyo…"

Alhaji Busari stated further that the site of the Alaafin's palace was the place Oja gave Atiba to settle, which was close to his own abode being friends, and that explains the proximity of Oloja and Alaafin's palaces in Isale Oyo as they are today. He pointed out that Oja and his younger brother, Elebu, had reigned for 45 years in Oloja's palace before the coming of Atiba. It is a universal truism that no two kings can cohabit in the same palace at the same time, is it therefore possible to have two palaces in the same town? Why did past Alaafins choose to cut the link between them and their ancestor by abandoning Oyo Ile completely? The fact that there are two palaces in 'Oyo' today shows that Alaafin does not enjoy absolute possession and ownership of 'Oyo'. If Alaafin were the true owner of 'Oyo', he would never have allowed another palace to be built in his domain, and if by chance, it would not be so close to his own palace. A kind of scientific date test on the two palaces would be helpful. Alhaji Busari's statement of claim appears more valid more so Oba Adeyemi has neither denied nor contradicted it, while other facts have corroborated Alhaji Busari's claims.

Alhaji Busari also explained that the boundaries of Oja extends to Awe, Akinmorin, Odo-Oba, Ojongbodu, and Iseyin. On why the people of Ago Oja condoned Atiba's actions, he stated that the level of understanding and assimilation then was below average. The people were naïve and did not grasp the treacherous agenda of Atiba and since Oja and Atiba were friends who were also related by marriage, the people did not suspect any foul play. More so, Alaafin enjoys more government patronage. I concur with Alhaji Busari in this regard, because this was the same way some Oke Ogun obas mortgaged their liberty and future to Alaafin. He declared that the Alago of Ago Oja title cannot have Alaafin as a consenting authority and he cited the recommendations of Arthur Mbanefo and Moshood Adio Panels to back up his claim. He also disclosed that from the time of Atiba to Alaafin Orimadegun, Alaafin consults Oloja for advice and approval in certain matters but that it was Alaafin Adeyemi who stopped this practice.

The Alago Oja/Ashipa family has been engaged in a running battle to right the wrongs of the past and reclaim their land. Recently, after the ruling of a High Court in Awe, there was a bloody clash between the Alago and Alaafin sides, with casualties on the side of Alaafin. The Alago side instituted the Awe case based on moves by Alaafin to appoint another Ashipa. Alhaji Amuda Olorunosebi, the last holder of the Ashipa title, who had a running battle with Alaafin Adeyemi in his lifetime, was murdered in controversial circumstances. The Alago also appealed the judgment that nullified his appointment as the Alago of Ago Oja. It is baffling that the government of Alao-Akala that appointed Alhaji Busari chose not to file an appeal. The Alago family has also instituted two other cases on the murder of the late Ashipa and the lawful owner of the present 'Oyo' town.

Historical records by Samuel Johnson, Prof. JF Ade Ajayi, Prof. Bolanle Awe, Prof. Akinjogbin, etc have shown that Ibadan empire succeeded the old Oyo empire. The Ijaye war fought from 1859 to 1862 confirmed Ibadan's supremacy over Oyo, Ijaye, and the Egbas. Oyo, particularly the Alaafin, owes a debt of gratitude to Ibadan. Ibadan warriors led by Bashorun Oluyole defeated the Fulani warriors thereby ending their rapacious jihadist expansion towards the south. The Ijaye war, largely, was fought and won by Ibadan for Alaafin Adelu. Adelu succeeded Atiba in 1859 but Kurunmi of Ijaye, who was Atiba's Are Ona Kakanfo (commander of Oyo army) opposed Adelu's emergence on the ground that the sacred practice, which require that the Aremo must die with the Alaafin, must continue.

Ibadan opposed on grounds of civilization and won Kurunmi by the war. Consequently, Adelu was able to succeed Atiba, his father. Mary Slessor is credited with stopping the killing of twins in Calabar; Ibadan should also be credited with stopping the barbaric practice of killing the Aremos in Oyo town. The second leg of Ibadan's quarrel with Kurunmi was also to the benefit of Alaafin but to the detriment of Oke Ogun. Kurunmi opposed while Ibadan supported the ceding of Oke Ogun and other territory to Alaafin in order to boost his dwindling income. Ibadan has never meant well for Oke Ogun. It is therefore saddening to behold some Oke Ogun obas, acting in apparent ignorance of history.

How do we end this evil regime? We must categorically draw the bottom-line that Alaafin's claim of consenting authority and permanent chairmanship of the obas' council is repugnant to natural justice, equity, and principles of human rights. Indigenous peoples have their right to self-determination. Where is democracy in permanent chairmanship? It is the height of dictatorship. Why should we belong to a council where we have no right to aspire to its leadership? The Okere or Eleruwa has no right to sit as chairman over other obas, yet if an indigene of Saki or Eruwa becomes the state governor all obas, including Alaafin, will come under the governor's authority and seek to be in his good books. The governor can even depose any oba. The present obas and chieftaincy laws in Oyo State must be amended to abrogate the issues of consenting authority and permanent chairmanship. Our legislators should take the bull by the horn now before it enters the china dish shop. We must prevent further and avoidable crisis and violence. The peace and development of Oyo State is more important than the self-image and ego of an individual.

The present law is fundamentally flawed and unduly twisted in favour of Alaafin. This is why he will continue to win in the courts as if he holds the ace. The Oloko Panel report and the government white paper issued by the Lam Adesina administration was a revolutionary document that Alaafin suppressed. The Akala administration claimed that it followed the law put in place by Lam Adesina in 2000 to reconvene and expand the council. But the fact that government's actions has continued to generate more disquiet underscores the fact that our chieftaincy laws need urgent review. The honourable members of the Oyo State House of Assembly and other stakeholders should review the Chieftaincy Laws and Declarations in force in Oyo State to right these wrongs. It is heartwarming that the Akala administration is already planning to review these obnoxious laws. Those opposing such moves are those unjustly benefitting from the status quo.

The Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs must include all obas that are legally recognized. Co-chairmanship as is being practiced in Ogun State is not the best. We can adopt the Ekiti State model where the chairmanship is rotated among members of the council in an agreed order or let the chairman be elected for a fixed tenure. Oba Lawrence Omowole, the Amapetu of Mahin Kingdom, is the present chairman of the Ondo State Council of Obas, and not such famous obas like the Deji of Akure, Osemawe of Ondo, or Olowo of Owo. Even among the permanent members of the UN Security Council, none of them enjoys permanent chairmanship of the council. The presidency of the UN General Assembly is not the exclusive preserve of any country.

Alaafin confirmed my position in this essay when he declared in an interview with Focus Magazine (UK) in 2003 thus:

"If you read your history books very well, you'd discover that the mere mention of "Alaafin" or "Oyo" strikes fear into other adjoining towns. The old Oyo Empire is dreaded and admired for its wide powers and influence."

"But as you can see for yourself, the palace is now a shadow of its old self as things are no longer the way they used to be in the colonial era."

Aside the controversies, the Alaafin is one monarch you cannot but admire for his suave personality and for being a deep repository of history, but we cannot be carried away by all that. It is thus natural for a royal sovereign to display fearsome symptoms when the reality begins to dawn on him that he is fast losing his supremacy and territory. At this precarious stage, he can only compensate himself by engaging in grand delusions and fantasies by posturing as the last emperor of the Niger. The end of Alaafin's imperial lordship, which began several years ago, is a thing that will soon be resolved by time and other exigencies. Royal terrorism cannot and will not last forever. Though it will be a long walk to freedom, but like Nelson Mandela, we say the struggle is our lives. Cetera desunt…!