Oyo Chieftaincy Crisis: Governor Makinde’s Controversial Coronations Amid Supreme Court Battle

Editor’s Note: This article provides a detailed, fact-based examination of the legal and traditional conflict in Oyo State, Nigeria, following the state government’s decision to coronate 14 chiefs as Obas despite an active Supreme Court motion seeking to halt the process. It integrates verified legal documents, constitutional provisions, and historical context to ensure accuracy and depth.

Introduction: A Clash of Executive Authority and Judicial Process

On February 13, 2026, Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State, Nigeria, proceeded with a significant traditional ceremony: the elevation and coronation of 14 prominent chiefs and Baales to the status of crown-wearing Obas (kings). The event, held at Olivet Heights, Oyo, was a vibrant affirmation of the state’s cultural heritage. However, this ceremonial act unfolded against the stark backdrop of a pending interlocutory motion at the Nigerian Supreme Court. The motion, originally filed by the late Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Adeyemi III, sought injunctions to prevent precisely this outcome. This situation creates a profound constitutional and traditional standoff, pitting the executive arm of government’s authority over local chieftaincy matters against the binding nature of court processes and subsisting judgments from lower courts. This article dissects the event, its legal antecedents, the constitutional dimensions, and its potential ramifications for governance, traditional institutions, and the rule of law in Oyo State.

Key Points: The Core Facts of the Controversy

To understand the gravity of the situation, the following chronological and factual points are essential:

• The Ceremony: Governor Makinde, through his deputy, Bayo Lawal, conducted the coronation rites for 14 individuals, including Alhaji Ganiyu Busari (elevated as Alago-Oja of Ago-Oja Land), presenting them with staffs of office and certificates.
• The Pending Supreme Court Motion: A motion dated January 30, 2026 (Appeal No. SC/404/2018) is pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria. It was filed under Order 2 Rule 28(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 2014 and Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution.
• The Applicant: The motion was initiated by the late Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Adeyemi III, and is being pursued by his legal representatives.
• The Reliefs Sought: The motion requests the Supreme Court to issue interlocutory and mandatory injunctions restraining:
  • The Oyo State Governor and Attorney-General from creating or re-establishing the Baale of Ago-Oja chieftaincy stool.
  • The state from recognizing or further recognizing Alhaji Ganiyu Busari in that capacity.
  • The elevation of the stool from Part III (Minor Chief) to Part II (Recognised Chief) in the state’s chieftaincy declaration.
  • The installation or coronation of Busari as Oloja of Ago-Oja.
• The Gazette Targeted: The motion also asks the court to set aside Oyo State Gazette No. 01, Vol. 50 of January 17, 2025, specifically regarding the elevation of the Baale of Ago-Oja stool.
• Legal History: The core of the Alaafin’s argument rests on a July 31, 2007, judgment of the Oyo State High Court (Suit No. HOY/46/2006), which declared the “Baale of Ago-Oja” chieftaincy stool non-existent in Atiba Local Government Area. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, on December 8, 2017 (Appeal No. CA/I/90/2008).
• State Government’s Stance: Governor Makinde defended the coronations as part of his administration’s commitment to strengthening traditional institutions, promoting peace, and leveraging grassroots leaders for development and security.

Background: The Legal and Traditional Labyrinth

To grasp the current impasse, one must navigate the complex interplay of Nigeria’s legal system, state chieftaincy laws, and Yoruba traditional hierarchy.

The Hierarchy of Yoruba Traditional Rulers

In the traditional structure of Yorubaland, particularly in Oyo, the title “Oba” (meaning “king” or “ruler”) is generally reserved for first-class, crowned monarchs who govern defined territories with significant autonomy and historical precedence. The title “Baale” often denotes a high-ranking chief, sometimes a regent or a ruler of a subordinate town, typically considered a second-class or minor chief under many state chieftaincy classifications. The elevation from “Baale” to “Oba” is not merely ceremonial; it signifies a change in legal status, recognition, and often, the associated stipends and authority from the state government. The controversy centers on whether the state governor has the unilateral power to effect such an elevation for a stool that courts have previously declared non-existent.

The 2007 High Court Judgment and Its Aftermath

The foundational legal document in this dispute is the 2007 judgment of the Oyo State High Court. In Suit No. HOY/46/2006, the court delivered a decisive ruling: the chieftaincy stool of “Baale of Ago-Oja” did not legally exist within the administrative structure of Atiba Local Government Area. Consequently, the court issued an injunction restraining the state executive branch from recognizing or dealing with Alhaji Ganiyu Busari in that capacity. This judgment was not an academic exercise; it was a binding order from a court of competent jurisdiction.

Alhaji Busari appealed this decision. However, the Court of Appeal, in a thorough review, dismissed the appeal on December 8, 2017. The appellate court’s affirmation solidified the High Court’s position, making the declaration of the stool’s non-existence a subsisting, enforceable legal fact. All actions taken by the state government regarding this stool after this date were, in the view of the Alaafin’s legal team, conducted in the face of clear judicial pronouncements.

The Path to the Supreme Court

With the Court of Appeal’s decision standing, the next legal avenue was the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the apex court. The case was appealed (Appeal No. SC/404/2018). While the main appeal on the merits of the chieftaincy’s existence awaited hearing, the late Alaafin’s legal team filed the interlocutory motion in January 2026. This motion was a strategic move to preserve the status quo ante (the previous state of affairs) and prevent what they argued would be irreversible damage—the coronation of an individual to a stool that had been judicially declared non-existent—before the Supreme Court could deliver its final judgment. The filing of this motion is a critical legal step, as it notifies the court of an urgent need to intervene and signals to the opposing party (the state government) that the matter is under active judicial consideration.

Analysis: Unpacking the Legal and Political Dimensions

The coronation event, therefore, is not merely a cultural celebration but a direct confrontation between two arms of government and a test of constitutional obedience.

1. The Constitutional Question: Executive Power vs. Contempt of Court

The Nigerian 1999 Constitution (as amended) vests significant powers in state governors regarding the “recognition” of traditional rulers (See the Exclusive Legislative List, item 34, and the Concurrent Legislative List). However, these powers are not absolute. Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution, cited in the Supreme Court motion, empowers courts to determine whether any person or authority has acted appropriately. The central legal argument is this: Can a state governor legally proceed with an act (coronation) that is the precise subject of a pending interlocutory injunction motion before the Supreme Court, especially when lower courts have already issued judgments against the very existence of the stool?

Legal experts note that while a motion is not yet a granted order, proceeding with an act that is the subject of a pending motion can be interpreted as an act of bad faith or an attempt to render the court’s potential ruling moot. The counsel to the Alaafin, Adeola Omotunde (SAN), explicitly warned that the coronation would constitute “illegality and contempt of court.” The principle of sub judice (under judgment) suggests that parties should refrain from actions that could prejudice a pending case or show disrespect for the judicial process. The state government’s defense appears to rest on the distinction that the Supreme Court has not yet granted an injunction, therefore, the governor retains his constitutional duties. This is a high-stakes legal gamble.

2. The Political Calculus: Strengthening Institutions or Defying the Law?

Governor Makinde’s public statement frames the coronations as a policy decision to “strengthen traditional institutions” and utilize traditional rulers as “partners in governance” for security and development. This aligns with a common political narrative in Nigeria where governors engage in “creating” or “upgrading” traditional stools to reward loyalists, expand their political influence at the grassroots, and project an image of cultural activism. From this perspective, the governor is exercising his executive mandate to reorganize the state’s traditional architecture for perceived public good.

Critics, however, see a different calculus. They argue that this is a deliberate provocation aimed at undermining the authority of the Alaafin, a revered traditional sovereign, and his legal team. By moving forward despite explicit warnings and a pending motion, the state government risks being held in contempt if the Supreme Court later grants the injunction. It also raises questions about the rule of law: whether political expediency can override clear judicial pronouncements from the High Court and Court of Appeal. The timing, with the motion filed in January and the coronation in February, suggests a conscious decision to act before the Supreme Court could rule on the motion.

3. The Implications for the Newly Crowned Obas

The legal cloud immediately hangs over the legitimacy of the 14 newly installed monarchs. For them, their new status is potentially precarious. If the Supreme Court ultimately sides with the Alaafin and invalidates the January 2025 Gazette and all actions flowing from it, their coronations could be declared null and void. They would legally revert to their previous statuses (likely as Baales or chiefs). This creates immense personal and political uncertainty. Furthermore, their ability to exercise traditional authority, receive state recognition, or access statutory allocations may be legally challenged and suspended pending the final court decision. They have been placed in a vulnerable position by the state’s action.

4. The Broader Impact on Oyo’s Traditional Landscape

This incident exacerbates long-standing tensions within Oyo’s traditional council. The Alaafin, as the paramount traditional ruler of the Oyo Empire, has historically held a preeminent position. The state government’s unilateral action to elevate chiefs within the empire’s historical sphere, over the Alaafin’s objections and contrary to court rulings, is seen by many traditionalists as an erosion of the Alaafin’s authority and a fragmentation of the traditional hierarchy. It sets a precedent where the governor’s discretion can override both judicial decisions and the traditional hierarchy, potentially leading to more disputes and a proliferation of contested “Obas” in the future, thereby weakening the overall institution of traditional rule rather than strengthening it.

Practical Advice: Navigating the Crisis

For various stakeholders, the following considerations are paramount:

For the Oyo State Government:

• Seek Expedited Judicial Clarity: The most prudent step is to promptly file a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court, vigorously defending the legality of the Gazette and the coronations, and urging the court to dismiss the interlocutory motion. The government should also request an early hearing date for the main appeal to resolve the substantive issue once and for all.
• Document the Public Interest: The state should meticulously document the “grassroots development” and “security” roles played by the newly crowned Obas since their elevation, to build a factual record supporting its policy justification. However, this must be done without further violating the spirit of the pending motion.
• Engage in Dialogue: While legal proceedings continue, behind-the-scenes dialogue with the Alaafin’s palace and other respected traditional leaders could help de-escalate tensions and explore a face-saving, consensual resolution that respects both the law and tradition.

For the Alaafin’s Legal Team and Traditional Stakeholders:

• Pursue the Motion Aggressively: The motion for interlocutory injunction must be pressed with urgency. The legal team should prepare to argue the clear risk of irreparable damage to the traditional institution and the futility of a later court victory if the coronations are allowed to stand.
• Clarify the Legal Position to the Public: There is a need for clear, simplified communication to the public explaining that the dispute is not about “denying development” but about “respecting court judgments” and “preserving the constitutional hierarchy of traditional stools.” This counters the narrative that