Emotions continue to run high across Oyo State following what many have described as the symbolic erosion of the historical dominance of the Iku Baba Yeye, the Alaafin of Oyo. This shift was orchestrated through the Oyo State House of Assembly’s passage of the Council of Obas and Chiefs (Further Amendments, 2025) Bill.
The Assembly, often seen as a mere extension of the executive, has now positioned itself as an instrument in the hands of revisionists—an act many will remember as a modern-day betrayal of tradition and historical alteration.
The controversial bill, reportedly sponsored by few members appears to serve two purposes: a subtle political message to the newly installed Alaafin and reward to the politically created monarchs in Ibadan. Called it crude loyalty, you won’t be far from the reality.
Although the bill by its long title presents itself as seeking to reaffirm the Alaafin as the permanent Chairman of the Council of Obas and Chiefs, it, in fact now upholds the rotational chairmanship system angrily introduced during the late Governor Alao-Akala’s tenure- a move then intended to weaken the Alaafin’s influence amidst personal rivalries. This amendment, cloaked in legality, seems more like a strategic decoy.
It is disturbing how some emergency social commentators, blindfolded by selfish interest pontificated that Oyo Empire has since expired, but their own expire endures.
Presently, the council’s chairmanship has been made rotational. Yet, curiously, the Oke-Ogun zone has been brazenly excluded. While it was easy for the Assembly to rewrite history and include controversially created stools, it found it convenient to omit long-recommended traditional rulers like the Elero of Ilero, whose name has been submitted as far back as 1970s.
More disturbing, the rotational memberships from local governments were largely limited to Oke-Ogun, including Oorelope, Saki East, Atisbo and Itesiwaju, notwithstanding, stools with historical relevance.
In Kajola, Oyo state House of Assembly may have to tell people of my community why only Onjo was listed to represent the local government, while the stool of Elero is not vacant. Perhaps, the member representing Kajola in the state house of assembly (Action) is robbing it on our faces that self preservation is the first law.
The silence around Oke-Ogun’s exclusion is deafening, and the denial of co-chairmanship to a respected monarch like the Okere of Saki only highlights the fraud. The imbalance in council representation reveals a deliberate skew in favour of a particular zone, enforced with unbridled legislative arrogance.
The position of the Oke-Ogun Development Consultative Forum (ODCF) is instructive. If history can so easily be discarded, then fairness demands a rotational co-chairmanship system that includes all five geo- political zones- particularly Oke-Ogun. The political liberalisation of the council must not entrench discrimination.
Since Mr Governor still enjoys the right to withhold his assent to a controversial and historical heist legislation as the one in question, it beholds on him, to take a moment of pause, to re- examine the merits and demerits before giving it executive approval, lest the animosity that is bound to spring up may eclipse whatever good he has achieved as the governor of the state.
