Constitutional lawyer faults Oyo govt over coronation of Ibadan Oba's in absentia
…says Makinde goes beyond his legal authority A constitutional lawyer, Adebisi Adeyemo, has criticised Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, and the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs over the
...says Makinde goes beyond his legal authority
- From Segun Showunmi, Ibadan
A constitutional lawyer, Adebisi Adeyemo, has criticised Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, and the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs over the coronation of some Ibadan High Chiefs as Obas in their absence.
Adeyemo argued that, under Nigerian law, it is impossible for a traditional ruler to be validly installed in absentia.
His position follows the legal controversy that trailed the state government’s decision to crown three Ibadan High Chiefs as Obas last Friday, despite requests by the affected chiefs for a postponement of the ceremony.
The government’s move has been widely interpreted as an attempt to limit the political ambitions of certain high-ranking chiefs in the state, including the Senator representing Oyo South, Sharafadeen Alli, High Chief Akeem Bolaji Adewoyin, and High Chief Kola Babalola.
Alli, a former Secretary to the State Government during the administration of ex-governor Rashidi Ladoja, was reportedly backed by the Olubadan as a potential governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2027 elections.
It was gathered that the affected chiefs had earlier notified the state government of their inability to attend the coronation and formally requested a new date.
However, the request was declined, and the government proceeded with the ceremony, declaring them duly installed.
The development has sparked widespread debate among legal practitioners, scholars, and traditional authorities, raising questions about the legality of installing a traditional ruler in absentia under Nigerian law.
Speaking with The Nation, Adeyemo described the government’s action as potentially ultra vires, meaning it may have exceeded its legal authority.
According to him, where no law permits coronation in absentia, and where customary requirements demand personal participation, such an exercise is void and without legal effect.
He noted that although the 1999 Constitution (as amended) vests executive powers in a state governor, such powers are not absolute and remain subject to constitutional supremacy and the rule of law.
Citing constitutional provisions, Adeyemo maintained that government actions must strictly conform to established legal frameworks, stressing that executive authority cannot confer legitimacy where none exists.
While acknowledging that a governor may approve or recognise a chieftaincy appointment under relevant laws, he argued that installation is a distinct process governed by customary law, chieftaincy declarations, and prescribed traditional rites.
“These include personal appearance, acceptance of insignia and, in some cases, oath-taking—acts that are inherently personal and cannot be performed by proxy or in absentia,” he said.
Adeyemo added that his position is supported by established judicial authorities.
"In Adefulu v. Oyesile (1989), the Supreme Court held that strict compliance with prescribed procedures is a condition precedent to the validity of any chieftaincy appointment.
"Similarly, in Oladele v. Aromolaran II (1996), the court reaffirmed that any deviation from laid-down processes renders such appointments invalid.
“These are not mere formalitis, they go to the root of legitimacy.
"Beyond procedural issues, the decision to proceed with the coronation despite the chiefs’ request for postponement has also raised constitutional concerns.
Legal analysts point to the right to a fair hearing, arguing that taking a decision affecting an individual’s legal status in their absence and against their expressed position may fall short of procedural fairness.
The controversy has also drawn attention to the use of public resources.
Coronation ceremonies typically involve significant state expenditure, including security deployment and administrative logistics. Critics argue that if the exercise lacks legal validity, it raises concerns about the propriety of spending public funds on such an undertaking.
Observers warn that the incident could set a troubling precedent if left unchallenged.
Chieftaincy institutions, deeply rooted in tradition and law, are not subject to administrative convenience. Any attempt to bypass established procedures, they argue, risks undermining both legal certainty and cultural integrity.
As the debate continues, one point remains central: legitimacy in chieftaincy matters derives not from executive proclamation but from strict adherence to law and custom.
Whether the Oyo State Government’s action will withstand judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. For now, the absentia coronations stand as a contentious test of the limits of executive power under Nigerian law.
