From Uche Usim
A long-standing historical dispute over the hierarchy of Nigeria’s traditional rulers has resurfaced as the Oyo Alaafin in Diaspora (OAD), a pan-Yoruba organisation based in the United Kingdom, called for the immediate withdrawal or fundamental redrafting of a Senate bill seeking to establish a National Council of Traditional Rulers.
In a statement by OAD Secretary, Afolabi Paul, the body noted that the bill designates the Sultan of Sokoto and the Ooni of Ife as permanent co-chairmen of the proposed council, a provision the group has described as “ethnically biased, historically misleading, and constitutionally indefensible.”
OAD accused the bill of elevating “two monarchs from specific ethnic groups (Fulani and Yoruba) while marginalising other major Nigerian civilisations such as the Hausa, Igbo, Kanuri, Tiv, and others.” The group argued that the proposed legislation “does not promote unity in a federal system of governance” and risks entrenching ethnic divisions rather than fostering national cohesion.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1718806029429-0’); });
Central to the OAD’s objection is its assertion that the Ooni of Ife cannot legitimately represent the Yoruba people over the Alaafin of Oyo, who it says has long been regarded as the historical and political head of Yorubaland.
“The present bill is not only exclusionary of other major ethnic nationalities but also distorts the historical hierarchy within Yorubaland itself.
“Any national traditional leadership framework must be grounded in documented historical legitimacy, ethnic equity, federal character, and inclusive dialogue, not political favouritism or social media prominence,” Paul said.
The OAD’s position is anchored in an extensive collection of colonial records, treaties, government gazettes, and scholarly works which, it claims, overwhelmingly affirm the Alaafin’s supremacy over Yoruba affairs. The group pointed to Lord Frederick Lugard’s 1917 Political Memoranda, which explicitly designates the Alaafin as “Head of Yoruba Kings,” and cited prominent historians, including Professors Toyin Falola and Banji Akintoye, who have described Lugard’s research and classifications as authoritative.
OAD also highlighted treaties signed between 1881 and 1893 in which the Alaafin was the exclusive signatory representing “Yoruba Land” in agreements with the British Crown. “The 1881 treaty specifically names Alaafin Adeyemi I as King of Yoruba Land,” the group stated, noting the Ooni of Ife’s absence from these foundational documents. The group further cited a declassified 1897 Colonial Intelligence Report by Captain R.L. Bower which declared: “The Alaafin remains the supreme political authority over all Yoruba kingdoms, with the Ooni serving primarily spiritual functions.”
To reinforce its claims, OAD presented a 1938 colonial memo detailing the annual salaries of Yoruba rulers, which it argued was a clear indication of the hierarchy recognised by the British. According to the group, the Alaafin received £4,200, the highest among Yoruba rulers and comparable to a prominent northern emir, while the Ooni was paid £1,440, a figure equivalent to district heads such as the Baale of Ibadan.
The organisation also recalled a 1991 legal precedent when Alaafin Lamidi Adeyemi III challenged an attempt by Ooni Olubuse II to confer the title “Akinrogun of Yorubaland” on Chief Tom Ikimi. The Oyo State Military Government sided with the Alaafin, ruling that the power to confer pan-Yoruba titles was the “exclusive traditional jurisdiction” of the Alaafin. “Citing the legal principle Nemo dat quod non habet (you cannot give what you do not have), colonial treaties, and ordinances, the government affirmed that the Alaafin alone possessed this authority,” OAD explained.
The group also noted that Alaafin Siyanbola Ladigbolu II chaired the Western State Council of Obas between 1960 and 1965, with the Ooni of Ife serving as a member, and that the arrangement was reinstated in 1976 without protest. OAD attributed later shifts in this established hierarchy to “political interventions” in the 1950s, including the deposition and death of Alaafin Adeyemi II after a confrontation with Chief Bode Thomas, as well as Ooni Aderemi’s political prominence as governor of the Western Region.
The group went further to reference royal correspondence from the British Crown, including Queen Elizabeth II’s 1953 birthday message, which addressed Alaafin Ladigbolu I as “Alaafin of Oyo, King and Head of Yoruba Land,” a formulation consistently used throughout the colonial period. Historian David Pratten, it added, has documented that the Oyo Empire maintained a formidable standing army, in contrast to Ife’s reliance as a vassal state to Oyo.
Invoking the late Alaafin Adeyemi III’s warning that “History cannot be rewritten to suit temporary conveniences… We must distinguish between temporary political arrangements and enduring historical truths,” the OAD called for the Senate to rescind the bill or radically revise it. “We call for a process guided by principles of ethnic equity, historical legitimacy based on verifiable records, treaties, gazettes, colonial documentation, and true federal character,” the group concluded. “No single monarch can or should claim to represent entire regions or the diversity of religions in Nigeria. The framework must be inclusive and reflect the documented historical truths of Nigeria’s diverse civilisations.”
The group’s challenge injects complex historical scholarship into an already sensitive political debate, underscoring the enduring influence of traditional institutions in Nigeria and the contested narratives surrounding the country’s past. The Senate has yet to formally respond.
The post Yoruba diaspora group opposes Rulers’ Council Bill appeared first on The Sun Nigeria.
