Oyo State Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters, Honourable Bimbo Kolade speaks with DARE ADEKANMBI on the controversy trailing government’s review of Olubadan Chieftaincy Declaration, the stalemate in the state Council of Obas’ meeting.
THE decision of Governor Abiola Ajimobi, to tinker with the process of emergence of the Olubadan of Ibadanland has met a stiff opposition from certain circles. What does the governor want to achieve with this review of the 1959 Olubadan Chieftaincy Declaration?
If you look at the terms of reference, you will see that it is not only the title of the Olubadan but chieftaincy titles in Ibadanland generally. What happens to the lines through which the chiefs ascend to the throne of the Olubadan? How many are the chiefs in the lines? What can we do about them? What happens to the over 200 Mogajis that are waiting to get into the lines? What is the prospect of them becoming the Olubadan? Outside the Ibadan metropolis, those that are Baales in the villages that have become towns, what can we do about them and their status and their titles? So, the Judicial Commission of Inquiry is actually made to look at the Olubadan and other chieftaincy matter in Ibadanland.
The aim of government is that we want to review the process. This Declaration that has been in force over 60 years ago, how good is it? How can we make it better? What new things can we introduce? Yes, it has worked for 60 years, but how can it continue to meet with the modern-day realities and bring up the status of the Olubadan? So, generally this is what the panel is aimed.
What is to be reviewed? Is it the Chieftaincy Laws or the Olubadan Declaration?
Specifically, it is the Olubadan Chieftaincy Declaration that we want to review, and not the total Oyo State Chieftaincy Law, which would have included other places and not single out Ibadan. But, the review is specifically addressing the Olubadan and other chieftaincy matters and Declarations.
The panel has concluded its public sittings. How many memoranda did it receive and when will the report be ready?
When the panel called for memoranda from stakeholders, a total of 118 memoranda were received. Out of these, 91 of them requested for beaded crowns in Ibadanland. So, it means that, for over a long period of time, which is what government is out to correct, some people have actually been denied some importance and rights that should ordinarily have been accorded them. In other towns and cities that are junior or less in status to Ibadan, these rights and importance are enjoyed. This is what those who presented the 91 memoranda are clamouring for.
The panel actually concluded its public sitting last week Friday and they sat in public for three weeks. Those, who presented memoranda did not just dump the documents on the panel. The drafters of the memoranda spoke about what they submitted. They all spoke about their memoranda, brought out historical facts and justifications to show why they deserve beaded crown obas in their localities. Making the big towns in Ibadanland have beaded crowns will not in any way diminish the title and status of the Olubadan. Rather, it will enhance his status and title. In places that are lower than Ibadan in terms of population, popularity and even history, they are already doing it. So, why not in Ibadan?
If you look at Ijebu Ode, for instance, see how many obas are there. If the Awujale is going for a function today, see how many Obas that follow him. Even within Ijebu towns, there are quarters that have Obas- Awa Ijebu, Oru Ijebu, and so on. In Sagamu, which is the headquarters of Remoland, there is the Olu of Makun, there is an Oba is Soyindo and others, which have beaded crown Obas.
But these places you mentioned use the ruling house system, which Ibadan does not use. Ibadan’s system is widely praised as being uniquely rancour-free and republican in nature.
You may say these places have peculiar history and tradition. But in Ife, it was Oba [Okunade] Sijuwade, who made the heads of quarters that ab initio were chiefs beaded crown Obas. The second-in-command to the Ooni, that is, the Obalufon used to be an ordinary chief until the time of the last Ooni, who made him a beaded crown Oba and is addressed as an oba. The head of Iremo quarters in Ile Ife used to be one of the kingmakers in the Ooni-in-Council. But today, he is a beaded crown oba. These are within Ife towns and we are not even talking about suburbs now. What is the population of the people in Asipa, Iyan Foworogi, Aye Oba, Aisegba? All these places now have beaded crown obas.
Coming back to Ibadan, we are saying nothing stops us from giving the people in places like Apete, Ejioku, Egbeda, Moniya, Akinyele, Ijaye, Iddo, Aba Nla beaded crowns by allowing their baales to wear such crowns? Among the people that appeared before the panel to argue for a beaded crown were the people from Oju Oro which is within a town in Ibadan. Having beaded crown Obas makes the job of the Olubadan easier. These are some of the things that the panel is looking at. Besides, some of these places already have part-two, recognised chieftaincy titles, which, before it can be done, has to be approved by the governor, though the Olubadan will have to give his consent. These are state recognised chieftaincy titles. Nothing is bad in upgrading these people to enhance the title and status of the Olubadan.
In the example of Ile Ife that you cited, you said it was the Ooni that made those who were hitherto chiefs Obas. But in the case of the current review being done in Oyo State, it is the governor that is doing it through the panel and this is why those who oppose it are saying the governor or the government can’t dash out crowns, that it is the Olubadan-in-Council that can do such.
Don’t let us miss it together. Although it is the Oba that can say he is giving out crowns, the law that regulates these things is a state government law. Without the law, what can the Olubadan or the Olubadan-in-Council do? So, it is not just about government wanting to do something out of what it has jurisdiction on. That is why the Olubadan-in-Council went before the panel and submitted its own memorandum, defended same and the panel is now considering it.
Have you seen and read the Olubadan Declaration being sought to be reviewed?
Yes, of course. I have seen and read. If I were in my office, I would have given you a copy.
Ibadan District Council, in its wisdom, found the then Olubadan, Oba Akinyele appropriate to head the Chieftaincy Committee that reviewed the earlier Declaration and came up with the 1959 Declaration. Why is the government using a judicial panel when the law stipulates that a Chieftaincy Committee, headed by the Olubadan and peopled by recognised chiefs should handle any review of the Declaration? The law stipulates that the Declaration should only be registered with government and not for government to review it.
Let’s go and look at this law specifically. You said it was the Ibadan District Council, which was not the Olubadan-in-Council. That was the government in place that time. The government in place that time found the then Olubadan suitable to chair the committee. So, don’t let us make the mistake of saying it was done by the then Olubadan. The government then only considered the Olubadan necessary to chair the committee.
Are you now saying Governor Ajimobi had a choice between asking Oba Saliu Adetunji to chair a chieftaincy committee to do the review and setting up a judicial panel?
That is it! Thank you that you are getting the interpretation.
Is that the process in the state Chiefs Law?
That is the process in the Chiefs Law, because it is the government that can review its own laws. It is the state Chiefs Law 2000. So, how could a traditional institution that could not make law now be the one to say it wants to review same? If an individual wants to make law, such person should go through his or her elected representative in the state House of Assembly.
The argument from those who oppose the review is that the Western Region government of that time reckoned that matters relating to chieftaincy and traditional titles are better handled by the custodians of tradition and customs, which was why Oba Akinyele chaired the committee.
That was the decision of the government at that time. I think what we may be looking at is that now that we consider it necessary to review it, why are we opting for a judicial commission of enquiry? We believe this is something that concerns law. You said the government found it necessary to use the then Olubadan in 1957, did you know that in 1976, this same Declaration was reviewed and the government of that time used the Justice Adenekan-led judicial panel to carry out the review? In 1993, during the governorship of Chief Kolapo Ishola, who happened to be an Ibadan person, constituted a panel known as the Oloko Inquiry for the same purpose. Even the administration of Senator Rashidi Ladoja, in 2003, found it necessary to use the Adio Commission for the purpose of reviewing the same Declaration.