Connect with us

Opinion

The founder’s war: Oba of Benin, ancestors and Lagos

Published

on

 

By Lasisi Olagunju

 

 

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.” Imagine this George Orwel dystopian quote in his ‘1984’ applying directly to where you come from.

That is why I sympathise with both sides in the controversy that has followed Oba of Benin’s claim of Lagos as his ancestors’ creation. Between the two sides, who is telling the truth? I have a friend who thinks that more serious existential issues should provoke Nigerians’ outcries and not this antique matter of who founded where. But I told that person to read John Hope Franklin’s 1944 piece ‘History- Weapon of War and Peace’, and the author’s thesis that one of the intangible weapons of war is history.

 

Did Plato not say “those who tell the stories rule society”? An oba who rarely goes out of his domain goes out. And while out, he says publicly that “I do not want to say this” because of the certain controversy that will follow, but he proceeds immediately to say that very thing.

He has not made a mistake; he had his reason for saying what he said where he said it. So, do not blame the people doing a pushback against the king’s claim; blame not the original owners of Lagos for replying the oba. Remember that slogan of the Party in Orwel’s 1984: ‘Who controls the past controls the future…’

 

The Oba of Benin, Ewuare II, said during his recent visit to Lagos that his ancestors founded Lagos. He spoke at the Lagos State House, Marina, where he was received by the state governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu. Addressing the audience, the monarch said, “I don’t want to say something that will now drag me into the controversy of Benin and Lagos. But I cannot help but say that it is in history books that Benin founded Lagos. But when some people hear it now, they (will) go haywire that ‘what is the Oba saying there again?’ But it is true. Go and check the records. Maybe not all of Lagos as we know it now, but certain areas in Lagos – maybe, the nucleus of Lagos was founded by my ancestors. The Oba of Lagos will say so. Everyone knows it, (that) the source of Lagos is Benin whether the Ooni of Ife likes it or not.”

 

The good thing about Yoruba people is that their history is long documented. There is hardly a town without at least a book or pamphlet containing its ancient and modern history. My very small community, Eripa, in Osun State has a compendium that contains the family tree of every lineage in every compound in the community. Our next-door neighbour, Otan Ayegbaju, has a similar text; the next town on that line, Ila Orangun (where I had my primary and secondary school education), has a number of books on its history, one of them ‘The Orangun Dynasty,’ written by the town’s very first university graduate, Prince Isaac Adebayo, and published in 1996, qualifies as a history book on the Igbomina-Yoruba people worldwide.

Lillian Trager’s Ijesa-focused ‘Yoruba Hometowns’ (2001) with Foreword written by Justice Kayode Eso, and Sarah S. Berry’s various works, including ‘Fathers Work for Their Sons’ (1985) tell the deep attachment the Yoruba have for their hometowns even when they no longer live there or “may never have lived there.” The Yoruba do not think any amount is too heavy to contribute and spend in defence of their homeland and its history. In wartime, they buy guns and send them home; in peacetime, they write and publish books on their home.

Emeritus Professor of the History of Africa at the University of Stirling, United Kingdom, Robin Law, in his ‘Early Yoruba Historiography’ (published in ‘History in Africa, 1976, Vol. 3, page 69-89), wrote that “the Yoruba have been exceptionally prolific among West African peoples in the production of historical literature.” Law said it was “exceedingly difficult to trace (all) the works of Yoruba local historians”. But he tried and got quite a number: There was Iwe Itan Eko by John B. Ogunjinmi Losi (1913) with its English translation ‘History of Lagos’ (1914). There were Iwe Itan Abeokuta (1917) and its translation, History of Abeokuta (1923).

See also  Black Christmas Day: Plateau attack death toll rises to 115

 

There was another ‘History of Abeokuta’ (1916) by Emmanuel Olympus O. Moore (better known as Ajayi Kolawole Ajisafe). The Yoruba also had Iwe Itan Ibadan (1912) by Isaac Babalola Akinyele who later became Olubadan. There were Iwe Itan Ajase (Porto Novo) by Akindele Akinsowon (1914); Iwe Itan Oyo Ile ati Oyo Isisiyi abi Ago d’Oyo by M. C. Adeyemi (1916); History of Ondo by the Rev. J.A. Leigh (1917) and A History of Ketu (in Benin Republic) by Abbe Thomas Moulro (1926). There were also ‘Iwe Itan Ijesa-Obokun’ by J.D.E. Abiola, J.A. Babafemi and S.O.S. Ataiyero (1932); Iwe Itan Ogbomoso by N.D. Oyerinde (1934); Iwe Ikekuru ti Itan Ijebu by M.D. Okubote (1937); Iwe Itan Saki by Samuel Ojo Bada (1937) and Iwe Itan Ondo by Samuel Ojo Bada (1940). There were several others.

 

The Yoruba’s pocket of well documented history is deep. Lagos has several such books. One of them is ‘Iwe Itan Eko’ and its translation, ‘History of Lagos’, by John Losi. There are more recent ones that include ‘A History of Lagos, Nigeria: The Shaping of an African City’ by Takiu Folami, published in 1982 and described as “most authoritative” in its Foreword by the late Oba of Lagos, Adeyinka Oyekan.

A knowledge-driven people with this kind of background will always be difficult to defeat in a battle of records. So, when the Oba of Benin, Ewuare II, was shown in Lagos some days ago flashing history and declaring that his ancestors founded Lagos and that his kingdom was the source and the fountain head of Lagos, it was not a surprise to see the Yoruba elite, especially the Awori-Yoruba, up and asking which ‘history’ the Benin monarch was talking about. The Yoruba say they have enough documentary evidence to prove that the claim from Benin palace was not based on facts of history.

 

Lagos started from Isheri and “the first man that built Isheri and settled there…was a hunter, named Ogunfunminire, meaning ‘the god of iron has given me success.’ He was of the royal family of Ile-Ife…” John B. Losi, school headmaster and pioneer Lagos historian wrote the above in his book, Iwe Itan Eko published in 1913. It was twenty years after that book was published that the first book on Benin history, Jacob Egharevba’s ‘Ekhere vb Itan Edo’ (Short History of Benin) was published in 1933.

 

The fact of the Benin-Lagos history is that the Awori inhabited a land they called Oko under their leader, Olófin. Their Oko includes today’s Iddo and the general Lagos Island area. In 1603, the more powerful kingdom of Benin came on an armada of war boats, overran them, turned their Oko to a war camp (Eko), gave them a king and started collecting tributes from them.

War historians will describe what happened as seizure by conquest. That is a relationship that does not align with Oba of Benin’s claim of founding Lagos and of Benin being its source. You don’t wage a war against a non-existent people. The fact of Lagos’s existence provoked the attack and subjugation from Benin forces. And, did you notice that the Oba of Benin said the Oba of Lagos would say exactly what he said about Benin being the founder and source of Lagos?

 

He was right about the Oba of Lagos. The palace in Lagos, today, sees itself as an extension of the Benin palace. It won’t remember that there had been points in the past when the Lagos underling was weaned of his slavery. Robert Smith in his ‘The Lagos Consulate, 1851–1861’ published in 1978 cites an instance in 1860 when the Oba of Benin asked Oba Dosumu to allow exiled ex-King Kosoko return to Lagos. Oba Dosunmu turned down the request from the Benin palace declaring that things were “not as in former times when Lagos was under the King of Benin to whom annually a tribute was paid”.

See also  Lagos makes U-turn, won’t seal schools for not complying with resumption directive – Official

 

Could the source of the current controversy be the Benin oba’s choice of words? He said his ancestors ‘founded’ Lagos. He used that word ‘founded’ twice, which means it wasn’t a slip. ‘Founded’ is the past tense and past participle of ‘found’ which means “establish or originate” (Oxford English Dictionary); “to bring something into existence” (Cambridge English Dictionary). So, how could the ancestors of the Oba of Benin have been the ones who brought into existence a settlement that they waged war against in 1603 but which received the Portuguese explorer, Rui de Sequeira, in 1472?

The Oba also said “the source of Lagos is Benin”. ‘Source’, in this context, means the place where something (e.g. a river or stream) starts (Oxford English Dictionary). If he had said his ancestors took Lagos by conquest and imposed a dynasty of kings on it, he would have been right. But he chose the more solid markers of original possession: “found” and “source”. With profound respect, I say the Oba’s claims are historically not correct. I read G.A. Akinola’s ‘The Origin of the Eweka Dynasty of Benin: A Study in the Use and Abuse of Oral Traditions (1976)’. In April, 1973, the researcher was in the palace of the Oba of Benin, Akenzua II, on an interview appointment but the Oba changed his mind when he arrived. The Oba refused to speak with the man while he “wondered why a Yoruba should be interested in Benin history.” The researcher reported that his session with the king ended “with the Oba and his courtiers reminiscing about how Eko (that is Lagos) in fact belongs to Benin by right of conquest long ago.” I see a divergence here between the position of the current Oba of Benin and that of his ancestor, Akenzua II. The ancestor claimed Lagos as a war booty; the incumbent claims Lagos as a creation of his ancestors.

 

I have read the seminal ‘Benin Imperialism and the Transformation of Idejo Chieftaincy Institution in Lagos, 1603-1850’ written by Bashir Animasahun of Lagos State University, and published in the Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria (2016). I have read the author’s argument that the conquest of Lagos by the Benin Kingdom led to a change of the Lagos political system from a confederacy to a monarchy in the period 1603 to 1850. I have read his point that the imposition of Benin monarchy in Lagos made the Idejo chiefs who had ruled Lagos between 1500 and 1603 get incorporated into the new monarchy as white cap chiefs but that they retained control over land rights. From the fine lines of his work, I could deduce that Benin could claim a dynasty of Lagos obas, but it has little control (if any) over the land there.

 

Lagos has had more than its fair share of socio-political changes imposed from outside. None of the outsiders should ever claim to be its creator, although they serially gave it names. The Awori ‘Oko’ became ‘Eko’ when it was invaded and conquered by the Benin in about 1603. When the Portuguese came, the toponym was Curamo, then a transition began. According to Liora Bigon (2011), “Curamo, was used in parallel to another Portuguese name, ‘Onim’, which became more dominant towards the end of the eighteenth century and the early nineteenth. Among the other variations of Onim in contemporary sources, especially Portuguese and French, were Aunis, Ahoni, or Onis. These names, as explained by Law, were probably derived from Awori, the Yoruba sub-group to which the first residents of Oko belonged…The name Lagos itself — from the Portuguese lago or lagõa (‘Lake’ or ‘lagoon’) — permanently replaced all the other names only when Portuguese influence started to fade and gave way to the British.” (see Liora Bigon’s ‘The Former Names of Lagos (Nigeria) in Historical Perspective’ published in Names, Vol. 59 No. 4, December, 2011, 229–40).

See also  FG sets admission age at 16

 

Oba Ewuare II laid his claim to Lagos and added the clause, “whether the Ooni likes it or not”. With that broadside, the Oba was claiming more than Lagos. It didn’t start today. There is an age-long war of histories between the royalty of Benin and the House of Oduduwa in Ile Ife. Oba Ewuare II’s father and predecessor was in the ring with the predecessor of the incumbent Ooni of Ife on more than one occasion. On November 11, 1982, the Oba of Benin was a guest of Oba Okunade Sijuwade Olubuse II. Oba Sijuwade, at that occasion, told the Benin king: “As we have mentioned briefly during our historic visit to your domain not too long ago, we said we were there to pat you on the back for a job well done…Your present visit…we regard as a short home-coming where you will have an opportunity to commune with those deities you left behind… Now, my son and brother, long may you reign.” The Oba of Benin replied that address of welcome with “If the Ooni of Ife calls the Oba of Benin his son and the Oba of Benin calls the Ooni of Ife his son, they are both right” (see Edun Akenzua’s Ekaladerhan, 2008: Pages Xi -Xii).

 

But you and I know that they cannot both be right. The Benin-Ife story started not with the present Oranmiyan dynasty but with the earlier pre-Benin Ogiso dynasty. Is it true that Obagodo or Ogiso, the man who started Igodomigodo, the pre-Benin entity, came there from Ile Ife? I have read Dmitri M. Bondarenko’s ‘Ancient Benin: Where did the first monarchs come from?’ (2001). I have read ‘A reconsideration of the Ife-Benin relationship’ by A. F. C. Ryder (1965) published in the Journal of African History. I have read ‘The Scholarship of Jacob Egharevba of Benin’ by Uyilawa Usuanlele and Toyin Falola published in History in Africa, 1994. I have read some more on Ife and Benin archaeology. But I note, specifically that Jacob Egharevba wrote ‘Ekhere Vb ‘Itan Edo’ (Short History of Benin’) and published it after reading the manuscript to Oba Eweka II in 1933 with the crown prince who would later become Akenzua II in attendance. The reading-and-listening exercise made the book the official/palace history of Benin. Now, what does the first edition (even the second edition) of that ‘Short History’ say about Benin and Ile-Ife and their origins?

 

Back to Lagos. A story is like a rope; no matter how long, it must have a beginning and an end. I end this piece with some words of knowledge from first class historian, Professor Ayodeji Olukoju, in his 2017 seminal piece entitled ‘Which Lagos, Whose (Hi)story?’: “We may conclude that Awori-Yoruba communities in Lagos, as we now know them, played host to, and absorbed, a series of newcomers. Among these were military invaders and settlers from Benin of Edo State; fugitives, refugees and adventurers from the hinterland Yoruba kingdoms, ranging from those displaced by nineteenth-century Yoruba inter-state wars and the Ifole in Abeokuta (13 October, 1867); retainers of chiefly families of Nupe origins; returnees and deportees from the Atlantic and West African diaspora; descendants of British colonial-era ‘Hausa’ constabulary and Royal West African Frontier Force (RWAFF) personnel; and individuals who were absorbed as retainers and guests of notable Lagos ruling families.” The takeaway from the foregoing is that Lagos takes not just the waters of the hinterland; it takes (and cares for) the people too – from everywhere.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Beyond Protocol: The Tuggar Effect on Nigeria’s Global Standing

Published

on

By

Adebayo Adeoye

Less than three years after stepping into office as Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yusuf Maitama Tuggar has steadily carved a distinct imprint on the nation’s diplomatic landscape.

In a world increasingly defined by shifting alliances, economic realignments and delicate geopolitical balances, he has proven himself, beyond rhetoric, to be a round peg in a round hole.

From the very beginning, Ambassador Tuggar approached the ministry not merely as an administrative responsibility, but as a strategic command centre for Nigeria’s global engagement. With an intellect sharpened by experience and a temperament grounded in composure, he has brought clarity and coherence to Nigeria’s foreign policy direction. His style is not loud, yet it resonates. It is measured, yet firm. It is thoughtful, yet decisive.

In multilateral corridors and bilateral negotiations alike, Tuggar has showcased the fine balance between diplomacy and national interest. He speaks with precision, listens with intent, and negotiates with foresight. Under his watch, Nigeria’s voice has not only been heard — it has been respected.

See also  Commuters groan as fuel queues resurface in Lagos, marketers blame depots

From strengthening regional partnerships within Africa to redefining economic diplomacy as a core pillar of engagement, he has demonstrated that foreign policy is not an abstract exercise; it is a tool for national development.

Economic diplomacy, in particular, has gained renewed momentum. Tuggar has consistently advanced conversations that align Nigeria’s external relations with internal growth objectives — trade expansion, investment attraction, diaspora collaboration and strategic partnerships.

His understanding of global power dynamics has allowed Nigeria to navigate complex international waters without losing sight of sovereign priorities.

Beyond policy frameworks and diplomatic communiqués, what distinguishes Ambassador Tuggar is his grasp of nuance. He understands that diplomacy in the 21st century demands adaptability, cultural intelligence and strategic patience. In moments of global uncertainty, his calm articulation of Nigeria’s position has reinforced confidence both at home and abroad.

Ambassador Tuggar stands as more than a minister occupying an office. He represents a refined blend of intellect and pragmatism — a diplomat who truly knows his onions and continues to position Nigeria not merely as a participant in global affairs, but as a consequential voice shaping them.

See also  Black Christmas Day: Plateau attack death toll rises to 115

His diplomatic philosophy reflects both scholarship and experience. Soft-spoken but firm, analytical yet accessible, he understands that modern diplomacy demands more than ceremonial presence. It requires strategic thinking, cultural intelligence and the ability to translate global conversations into domestic gains. In high-level meetings and multilateral forums, he has projected Nigeria not as a peripheral player, but as a nation with agency, voice and influence.

Under his stewardship, Nigeria’s foreign policy architecture has taken on sharper definition. Economic diplomacy has moved from being a slogan to becoming a structured pursuit.

Trade partnerships, investment dialogues and diaspora engagement have gained renewed emphasis, reflecting his belief that diplomacy must ultimately serve the economic aspirations of the Nigerian people. For Tuggar, embassies are not mere outposts; they are gateways for opportunity.

Regionally, his role in strengthening West African cooperation has been marked by balance and foresight. In moments of political strain across the sub-region, Nigeria’s responses have carried both firmness and restraint — a testament to his appreciation of diplomacy as a stabilizing force. Globally, he has continued to articulate Nigeria’s positions on security, development, climate and economic equity with clarity and conviction.

See also  ICPC allegedly recovers N1.85 billion from Gen. Buratai's Abuja home, office

What distinguishes Ambassador Tuggar most, perhaps, is his grasp of nuance. He listens before he speaks. He studies before he acts. He recognises that diplomacy is often about timing as much as it is about language. This deliberate approach has earned him respect among peers and renewed confidence within Nigeria’s diplomatic corps.

Two years on, his tenure reflects a steady recalibration of Nigeria’s external engagements — less reactive, more strategic; less performative, more purposeful.

Ambassador Yusuf Maitama Tuggar has not merely occupied the office of foreign minister; he has grown into it, shaping it with intellect, composure and a forward-looking vision that continues to position Nigeria as a consequential voice in an evolving global order.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Monday Lines 1| Ibadan Is Oyo | Lasisi Olagunju

Published

on

By

On Monday, 25 March, 1946, Chief I. B. Akinyele, Chief James Ladejo Ogunsola, Messrs D. T. Akinbiyi and E. A. Sanda, the very cream of the Ibadan educated elite, met behind closed doors with Oyo town delegates at the secretariat in Ibadan. One of them got home that day and wrote in his diary that they “could reach no agreement because we (Ibadan) flatly refused to pay one penny towards the Alaafin’s salary.”

Yet, some 84 years earlier (1862), the same Ibadan went to war against friends, family, and acquaintances in support of Alaafin. Ibadan destroyed Ijaiye because its ruler, Kurunmi, was rude and unruly to the Alaafin. He had to die because he refused to recognise the king whose father made him Aare, and who made Oluyole Basorun of Ibadan.

Ibadan of 1862 served Oyo and its Alaafin; that of 1946 damned them. Between the first stance and the second, what changed or what caused the change? The tongue. The body. Disposition. Reciprocal respect. My Christian friend pointed at a verse in the Bible: “And the king answered the people roughly. In a blustering manner, gave them hard words and severe menaces…” Then it was “To your tent, O Israel!”

On Sunday, 3 February, 2008, twelve out of the then seventeen members of Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs visited the Alaafin in Oyo. They said they were there “to solidarise and pay traditional respect to our permanent chairman.” From that visit came a ten-point resolution which was published as an advertorial on page 27 of the Nigerian Tribune of 5 February, 2008. The title of that advert is: ‘Oyo obas back Alaafin for permanent chairmanship of Council of Obas and Chiefs.’ The fifth of the resolutions is the shortest and most categorical: The obas declared that in Oyo State, “remove the Alaafin, and all other obas are equal.”

The obas who signed that statement were the Eleruwa of Eruwa, Olugbon of Orile Igbon, Okere of Saki, Aseyin of Iseyin, Iba of Kisi, Onpetu of Ijeru, Onjo of Okeho, Sabi Ganna of Iganna, Aresaadu of Iresaadu, Onilalupon of Lalupon, Onijaye of Ijaye and Olu of Igboora.

Now, read that list again – and this is where I am going: In the Saturday Tribune of January 17, 2026 (two days ago), an advert celebrating the reconstitution of the obas’ council with the Olubadan as rotational chairman was signed by six of those who signed the 2008 advert which celebrated Alaafin’s permanent chairmanship. These are: Eleruwa of Eruwa, Olu of Igboora, Olugbon of Orile-Igbon, Onpetu of Ijeru, Okere of Saki and Aseyin of Iseyin.

Yesterday’s “permanence” becomes today’s “rotation,” each wrapped in the rhetoric of unity, justice, and tradition. We see obas who were with Oyo in 2008 shifting allegiance to Ibadan in 2026. What this suggests is not moral collapse but the old, unembarrassed truth about power: it obeys seasons. Our obas, like politicians, have read too much of Geoffrey Chaucer. They move in steps that suggest that time, when it shifts, rearranges loyalties as effortlessly as it rearranges hierarchies.

See also  Commuters groan as fuel queues resurface in Lagos, marketers blame depots

Friendship and politics define statuses and hierarchies. Governor Rashidi Ladoja in 2004 decentralised the council of obas into zones and directed each paramount oba to preside over their area. His decision was based on the fact and logic that there was no throne of Oyo State for the kings to fight over. I agree with that reasoning, and, in fact I do not think any council anywhere is necessary as conclave of obas. However, last week, Oba Rashidi Ladoja assumed office as chairman of an undecentralised council of obas. What has changed?

Ladoja’s successor, Governor Adebayo Alao-Akala in 2007, made Alaafin permanent chairman. The Olubadan and Soun of Ogbomoso kicked and would have nothing to do with that arrangement. The governor ignored them. He said he was following the law. But the same Alao-Akala, on his way out of government in May 2011, used the House of Assembly to reverse that decision. Because his friendship with the Alaafin had expired, he made the position rotational in the following order: 1. Olubadan; 2. Soun of Ogbomoso; 3. Alaafin of Oyo. Check the Nigerian Tribune of 3 May, 2011, page 4.

Were all these about history, or about that fluid thing called change? What was obviously at play there was (and is) politics; and in politics, nothing is constant; not truth, not friendship. What exists is interest. “There is no fellowship inviolate, No faith is kept, when kingship is concerned,” says Second Century BC Roman poet, Ennius. Obas, institutions and palaces that took a position in 2008, are this year taking a directly opposing stand. What changed? Is it about the person of the last Alaafin and the persona of the incumbent?

In his caustic response to last week’s inauguration of Oyo State Council of Obas, Alaafin Akeem Owoade referred to himself as “superior head of Yorubaland.” Did he have to write that? And, what does it mean? Whatever that claim was meant to achieve has attracted negative vibes from every corner of Yorubaland. I read resentment and resistance even when its author knows it is a plastic claim. In the old understanding of the world, the ancients spoke of two ruling forces: Love, which binds; and Strife, which sunders. The palace, no less than the cosmos, is governed by this uneasy pair. The oba in Yorubaland reigns within the contradiction. The crown draws devotion even as it breeds resentment. It commands reverence when it is humble and just in its royalty; it invites resistance when haughty and proud.

Shakespeare, in Richard III, speaks about kings’ “outward honour” and “inward toil.” In Hamlet, he says “The king is a thing…Of nothing.” In Henry V, he says the “king is but a man, as I am” and therefore prone to errors courtiers make. No two kings are the same; no two reigns score the same marks. There are definitely differences in engagement between the last Alaafin and this new one. Alaafin Adeyemi III went out to make quality friends and read good books; his successor, so far, appears distant and aloof. I am interested in who, among obas and commoners, are his friends. I am eager to know the books he reads. His handlers should help him to succeed by telling him to look more forward than backwards. A lot of 19th century data which he romanticises are no longer valid. For instance, Ibadan of the past saw itself as part of Oyo; today’s Ibadan sees Oyo as part of its inheritance. Read Professor Bolanle Awe in her ‘The Ajele System: A Study of Ibadan Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century’ (1964). Mama reminds everyone who argues with history that “the direct heirs of the Old Oyo empire…regrouped themselves in three main centres at Oyo, Ijaye and Ibadan.” So, Ibadan is Oyo while today’s Oyo is not necessarily Ibadan.

See also  ICPC allegedly recovers N1.85 billion from Gen. Buratai's Abuja home, office

People who understand the dynamics of power and history would insist that Ibadan’s defiance in 1946 and its earlier zeal in 1862 are not contradictions so much as timestamps. We see and feel Ibadan challenging Oyo, even feeling insulted by suggestions of being subjects of Alaafin. Authority once defended as sacred becomes, under a new alignment of interests, negotiable. This Oyo has everything a father has, except age. It has a history of leadership. But has Oyo provided the right leadership in the last one year? You remember what King Sunny Ade sings should be done to Egungun that dances for twenty years and remains in poverty? You throw away its mask and costume and promote Gelede. That is why institutions today act selectively; and actors remember the past strategically. What appears as amnesia or inconsistency is cold calculation. The past is not denied; it is merely edited.

Every Alaafin since 1830 has had to contend with the Ibadan factor. Ibadan is pro-Oyo but it won’t accept suggestions of Alaafin and Oyo overlordship. And that is because the founders of Ibadan were shareholders of Oyo, both the old and the new. In particular, they see in Oyo and its monarchy partners, not lords. Indeed, Ibadan never believed/believes there was (is) a king anywhere for them to worship. Professors I. A. Akinjogbin and E. A. Ayandele say the early Ibadan “prided themselves as a group who had nothing but contempt for the crowns.” Indeed, in July 1936 when the city wanted its Baale to become known and called ‘Olubadan’, its leaders made it clear that what they wanted was the change in title; they did not want an oba who would rob them of their republican freedom. Is that not the reason for its very unique lack of royal or ruling houses? Read Toyin Falola’s ‘Ibadan’, pages 681 and 682.

See also  Nigerian Okeke Anselm Arinze bags 10-year jail term over $520K heroin in India

The new Alaafin has no excuse for making cheap and expensive mistakes. His heritage is goodly and his court is not lacking in quality men and women. When he was made oba a year ago (January 2025), Professor Toyin Falola, easily Africa’s preeminent historian and Yoruba patriot, wrote a long piece of advice for the man chosen as our Alaafin. The title of that piece is: ‘Alaafin Owoade and Yorùbá Renaissance.’ It was primarily written for the new king to read. If he read it, I am not sure many of today’s challenges would spring and hang on his nascent reign. Every paragraph of the essay is gold, every line golden. If he read it last year, he should read it again and make it his operations manual. Take these: “He must learn history. I can reveal to the new Alaafin that his immediate predecessor took time to understand history. Alaafin Adeyemi’s power of retentive memory was second to none. He had a memory arsenal covering almost 500 years…

“Alaafin Owoade must know history…The new Alaafin must not engage in historical revisionism as his counterparts now do. Rewriting history is dangerous, as in saying the Benin Empire owes little to Ile-Ife and Oranmiyan. Conflating Ugbo with Igbo is a wrong-footed interpretation of the past. He needs not to dabble into issues of superiority around who the superior king was in the past. Oyo and Ile-Ife are constant in the people’s history because they represented the seats of economic and political power and the spiritual rallying point of the Yorùbá people. Let him explore the consensus around historical prestige: the foundation of prominent Yorùbá ancestors and the creation of a glorious history.”

So far, it would appear that Alaafin Owoade has not benefited from the nuggets in the Falola advice. He should go back to it. He should also go out to make quality friends among his brother obas. He needs them. If there are people he needs to beg, he should beg them. Nothing is damaged (yet) beyond repairs. Like flights of planes, every reign has tough beginnings. In tension and turbulence, the expertise of the pilot makes a lot of difference. If the Alaafin refuses to spread his eyes first, no guest will sit on the mat he spreads, no matter how beautiful.

He also needs to know (or remember) that power attracts, but it also repels. This is why allegiance cannot be ordered into existence; it must be patiently won. It is also why sovereignty carries its own burden, captured in the timeless lament of the dramatist: uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. For the Alaafin to remain tall, he must woo Ibadan and other Yoruba towns with friendship; he cannot summon their loyalty by proclamation.

(Published in the Nigerian Tribune on Monday, 19 January, 2026

Continue Reading

Opinion

PDP and the Ekiti Question: A Party at the Crossroads

Published

on

By

 

The judgment of the Federal High Court nullifying the last PDP governorship primary in Ekiti should be more than a legal setback. it should serve as a loud warning.

 

The PDP is on the edge of losing Ekiti, not because it lacks popular support, but because it has failed, repeatedly, to build and deploy an effective internal crisis-resolution mechanism.

 

For a party that prides itself on experience and structure, it is troubling that internal disagreements are allowed to fester until they are settled by the courts. This is not strength; it is institutional weakness.

 

If this trend continues, history will not be kind to those currently entrusted with leadership of the party in the South West. They will be remembered, not for rebuilding the PDP, but for presiding over avoidable damage to its fortunes.

 

The reality is simple. If a fresh primary is conducted and Dr Wole Oluyede emerges again, there is no guarantee that supporters of Funsho Ayeni will fully mobilise for him. The reverse is also true. A divided PDP cannot win a governorship election in Ekiti, no matter how unpopular the ruling party may be.

See also  June 12: Police vow to crush any protest in Lagos

 

This is why the party must think beyond ego and faction. PDP leaders should urgently explore a consensus option that prioritises unity, stability, and electability.

 

The party must resolve to embrace a candidate that has displayed clear examples of restraint, loyalty, and a willingness to sacrifice personal ambition for the survival of the party. The PDP needs a natural unifying force at a time when the PDP needs healing, not further strain.

 

Ekiti is too important to be lost on the altar of unresolved internal conflicts. The PDP must choose unity now, or risk collective regret tomorrow.

Continue Reading

Trending News