BREAKING: Ibadan boils as Ladoja, Balogun drag Ajimobi to court

The next in rank to the stool of Olubadan of
Ibadanland and Otun Olubadan, Sen. Lekan
Balogun, and Osi Olubadan, Sen. Rashidi Ladoja,
who is a former governor of Oyo State, have dragged
Oyo State Government to court over the proposed
plan of the state government to review the 1957
Olubadan chieftaincy declaration, which stipulates
succession order to the throne of Olubadan.
The two prominent members of the Olubadan-in-
Council, listed the state governor, Senator Abiola
Ajimobi, and the seven-member Judicial Commission
of Enquiry inaugurated by the government on Friday
May 19, 2017 to review the system, as defendants
before an Oyo State High Court.
The claimants prayed the court, in the suit number
M/317/2017, to restrain the Judicial Commission
of Enquiry from sitting, accepting any memorandum
or in any way taking any step in furtherance of its
assignment, pending the determination of motion on
notice in respect of the subject.

Ajimobi had at the inauguration of the commission
tasked the judicial panel headed by retired Justice
Akintunde Boade, to review the existing requirement
and qualification for ascendancy to the throne of
Olubadan, and review the selection process of
Olubadan from Otun and Balogun lines that have
been producing Olubadan on rotational basis.
The governor also asked the commission to look into
the possibilities of having more ‘Beaded Crown Obas’
in Ibadanland based on the present size and
population of the city, adding that the commission
should also review the existing 1957 Declaration of
Olubadan of Ibadanland in line with the proposed
change in chieftaincy institution in Ibadanland.
He explained that the setting up of the body was
long overdue, considering the fact that the existing
declaration of the Olubadan of Ibadanland was made
in 1957, adding that the provision of the
declaration was no longer in line with the current
reality of the chieftaincy of equal status in
Yorubaland.
But Ladoja and Balogun, in the suit filed by their
counsel, Michael Lana, on Friday told the court that
the governor lacked the power to change or amend
the customary law relating to the selection of
Olubadan, describing as invalid the judicial
commission, which the governor said was constituted
under Sections 10, 12 and 25 of the Chiefs Law
2000.
According to the claimants, the primary aim of the
Chiefs Law is that traditional institutions must be
guided and operated by the customary rules of each
community, and not in accordance with modern
dictates as argued by the governor, adding that only
the chieftaincy committee, which made the 1957
Olubadan Declaration and which must be peopled by
recognised chiefs and not any judicial commission
could amend the law.
The claimants told the court that only two of the
seven-members panel are natives of Ibadan,
contending that it was improper for non-Ibadans to
determine the fate of Ibadan indigenes on issues
relating to the succession to the throne of the
Olubadan. They said apart from the alleged illegality
of the commission, the Ibadan has issues with the
government over a member of the commission.
An affidavit in support of the claimants’ ex parte
application said, “That Ibadan has issues with Oyo
over the Council of Obas and one of the members of
the commission, Prince Wasiu Gbadegesin, is in line
to the throne of Alaafin of Oyo and will therefore be
biased against the peaceful and rancor-free method
of selecting the Olubadan of Ibadanland.”
They contended that certain situations must exist to
warrant the proposed review, arguing further that such
situations must include insufficient description of
Olubadan selection process. They said: “Before
setting up the commission, the governor never said
that any of the situations happened to the 1957
Olubadan Declaration that has been used seamlessly
without conflict, dispute or rancor to enthrone
successive Olubadans.
“The provision relating to the declaration is mainly
to put the customary law into written instrument in
the custody of the government and not that it gives
the government the right to change the customary
law relating to a chieftaincy to suit its own purpose.”

No Result