The search for the new Owa of Idanre has ignited a fierce debate, with opinions sharply divided over the legitimacy of the selection process. Concerns are mounting regarding the apparent disconnect between the process and key stakeholders, particularly the Ugha Chiefs. Their extensive historical knowledge of the interested princes has seemingly been disregarded.
A distinguished Ugha High Chief, who prefers to remain anonymous, expressed his mixed feelings about the unfolding situation, insisting that the process is becoming “highly political and ridiculing.” He emphasized that both young and old should have a voice in selecting a new king, noting that Ugha Chiefs are critical stakeholders whose insights should influence the votes of the “area” and “Upepe” heads—the actual kingmakers.
Unfortunately, recent developments have seen the Regent, Chief Oluwole Christopher Akindolire, centralizing power. His actions have not only stripped Ugha Chiefs of their access but have also led to the appointment of four non-chiefs as replacements for deceased kingmakers.
In a previous report, The Legal Observer revealed that the Idanre Kingmakers required a mandatory fee of ten million Naira from applicants for the vacant Obaship stool. They defended this decision by stating it was part of their procedural approach, drawing parallels to the hefty fees associated with political nominations, such as President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s hundred million Naira.
Speaking on the sidelining of the Ugha, the Chief remarked: “They said we don’t have a role to play. They also believe we do not have relevance despite the fact that both young and old are entitled to have a say while the kingmakers also exercise their powers to pull votes. The process should be built on wide consultations far and wide before they could proceed to make decisions. We heard the kingmakers also obtained 10 Million Naira from each of the aspirants, what do they want to do with it? They are insisting on someone who is wealthy, does it even matter any longer whether the person stole the money? That is my bone of contention.”
He further alleged: “They are trying to politicise the traditional Obaship process which is not right. Picking a new king is the prerogative of the community, tradition and the people. It is not what we hand over to the government. When we are done, we can hand over the preferred person to the government. In this case, it appears they are willing to shoot us out, believing we have a duty to agree to whatever they do.”
The Chief continued, saying: “I do not know the role the government wants to play. The Chief’s Law they are quoting, I want to see it. They are insisting the N10 Million Naira is not refundable. Is that reasonable? They also hinged the huge amount to the renovation of Oke Idanre that UNESCO is already working on, is it their responsibility to do all that? We relocated from Oke Idanre since 1973, the first batch left Oke Idanre since 1928. We have been picking kings and appointing Chiefs since these periods. Are we going back to the Idanre Hills? Is it our responsibility to renovate the Palace atop the hills? They are only trying to ridicule themselves.”
He concluded by addressing the issue of who qualifies as kingmakers: “Ugha Chiefs are not kingmakers. It is only Area Heads (Olori Adugbo) and ‘Upepe’ Heads that are kingmakers. Some of the ‘Upepe’ Heads are dead; only 8 of the 12 kingmakers are still alive. These 8 individuals will still form quorum in the absence of the remaining 4. It is, however, sad that the Regent will proceed to appoint 4 non-Chiefs to operate in the capacity of the deceased 4 to make 12. This is a total wrong. The whole thing is fishy. We are the ones in the palace but we have been sidelined. Non-Chiefs have gotten the pride of place and we are forced to speak out. People are banking on Regency, trying to arrogate paramount powers to it.”
An independent research conducted by The Legal Observer, referencing the Chiefs Law of Ondo State from 2006, revealed that a king or an individual acting in that capacity cannot appoint anyone to a chieftaincy position without the explicit permission of the government.
Section 22(1) of the law states:
“Any person who installs or purports to install a person as a minor chief in contravention of the provisions of this Law shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of two years or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.”
The law further mandates:
“No person shall be installed or recognized as a minor chief unless the approval of the governor has first been obtained in writing.”
A “minor chief” according to the Collins Dictionary is the “head, leader, or most important individual in a group or body of people”. In the same vein, the Blacks Law Dictionary describes a minor chief as “Principal, leading, head, eminent in power or importance, the most important or valuable of several.”
The fact remains that the kingmakers as codified in the Chieftaincy Declaration (a product of the unanimous agreement of the community) are “area” and “Upepe” heads. The Controversy now stems from the fact that the Regent cannot proceed to employ his discretion in appointing individuals who have never been Chiefs to be part of this sacred arrangement without the government’s approval. In the event that the appointment of the four kingmakers were made with the imprimatur of the government, one is forced to question the credibility of the process, looking at how it renders it vulnerable to the whims and caprices of the State as well as its political influence.
As the debate continues, the future of the Obaship stool hangs in the balance, with demands for greater inclusion and adherence to tradition resonating throughout the community.
