Commissioner for Justice
WHY did the Oyo State government carry out a review of the Olubadan chieftaincy declaration without carrying the council along?
It won’t be correct if anybody alleges that there was no consultation, because I am aware that there were consultations and this issue did not start with this administration. It predates this administration and all the parties involved were aware that it predates this administration. Perhaps, it is as far back as 30 years ago. All the settlements, chiefs that were also part of the entire process know that it has been in existence for many decades; it is not as if it just started yesterday. We also need to know that the essence of a commission of inquiry is to ensure that all stakeholders have an input in the final decisions. The essence is to invite memoranda and in this case, they received about 120 memoranda and at that point when they were receiving memoranda, the people that had gone to court were expected to submit their own memoranda to avoid disagreement. It will interest you to know that none of the people that went to court submitted memoranda. But many other people including the council you mentioned submitted memoranda.
With your explanation, don’t you think it was a mistake on the part of the government that it didn’t limit the promotion to the Baales and not High Chiefs?
As I said, the essence of the commission is to take suggestions from all the stakeholders through memoranda. In many of those memoranda submitted, different positions were canvassed and justified. Part of the memoranda was from the Olubadan-in-council, various High Chiefs and other institutions with respect to the elevation of the Olubadan-in-council. Even this one predates this administration. These are the issues that have been on ground for long and we need to recognise some of the issues at hand. When change begins, there is always some measure of resistance. Let’s look at it this way, the baales of the towns that infringe Ibadan are subjects of Ibadan but in the justice of claims they made to the commission of inquiry, they were titled to become crown-wearing obas. Indeed, in several parts of the state like Ibarapa and Ogbomoso there were similar situations in which government had elevated some traditional rulers to crown-wearing obas. But in making them crown-wearing obas, a challenge is thrown up when a Baale who is now a crown-wearing oba sits as a member of a traditional council headed by one of the High Chiefs who is not an Oba. Can you see the aberration that will be created? That means someone who is an oba has been put under a high chief. You can see that elevating the High Chiefs to crown-wearing obas is a way of balancing history and keeping the trend, peace and hierarchy in the chieftaincy institution. The government is trying to balance things. It had no issue with anyone; the move was purely calculated to clean up the historical problems that different generations keep passing on, because nobody could boldly take a decision this administration has taken.
At a point, the option of settlement out of court was available to both parties. With this appeal, is that option still available?
At any point in time even at the Supreme Court; in fact, the Supreme Court is proposing a practice direction, though it has not yet passed, that even parties who have won or lost at the Appeal Court could go to the Supreme Court and explore out of court settlement. I think at any point in time, mediation, negotiation and settlement can always be available and I think on this case, it is not different.
and then