Makinde’s In-Absentia Coronation of Ibadan Chiefs Triggers Legal Dispute
The decision by Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, to crown three Ibadan high chiefs as Obas in absentia has sparked fresh legal controversy, with experts and traditional authorities questioning the legitimacy of the process.
The affected chiefs Sharafadeen Alli, Akeem Bolaji Adewoyin, and Oyekola Babalola had earlier informed the state government of their inability to attend the scheduled ceremony and requested a postponement. Despite this, the government proceeded with the coronation on Friday and declared them duly installed.
During the ceremony, Alli was conferred with the title of Ekaarun Balogun of Ibadanland, while Adewoyin and Babalola were installed as Ekeerin Balogun and Ekaarun Olubadan, respectively.
The development has since generated widespread debate among legal practitioners, academics, and traditional leaders, particularly over whether a valid coronation can take place without the physical presence of the appointees.
In a detailed legal opinion, constitutional lawyer Adebisi Adeyemo described the process as fundamentally flawed. “A coronation conducted in absentia has no basis in either law or established customary practice,” he said.
While acknowledging that the 1999 Constitution grants executive powers to state governors, Adeyemo stressed that such powers are not absolute and must operate within constitutional limits.
“Government cannot create legitimacy where the law does not recognise it,” he noted.
He distinguished between the approval of a chieftaincy appointment and the actual installation, explaining that while a governor may approve or recognise an appointment, installation remains a separate process governed by tradition and custom.
According to him, installation requires the personal participation of the appointee, including acceptance of insignia and oath-taking—elements he described as central to the legitimacy of traditional authority.
Adeyemo further cited judicial precedents to support his position, noting that the courts have consistently upheld strict compliance with prescribed procedures in chieftaincy matters. He warned that any deviation from established legal and customary requirements could render such processes invalid.
He also raised constitutional concerns over the decision to proceed despite the chiefs’ request for postponement, arguing that actions affecting an individual’s legal status in their absence may infringe on the right to fair hearing.
“Where no law permits coronation in absentia, and customary law requires personal participation, such an exercise is ultra vires and void,” he said.
The controversy has also drawn scrutiny over the use of public funds for the ceremony, with critics questioning the legitimacy of spending on a process whose legal basis is being challenged.
Adeyemo cautioned that bypassing due process in chieftaincy matters risks undermining both legal certainty and cultural integrity.
As reactions continue to trail the development, stakeholders warn that the situation could set a troubling precedent if not addressed, insisting that legitimacy in traditional institutions must be grounded in strict adherence to law and established customs.
