A legal controversy has erupted in Oyo State following the government’s decision to crown three Ibadan High Chiefs as Obas in absentia last Friday, despite their prior request for a postponement.
The affected chiefs had reportedly informed the state government of their inability to attend the coronation ceremony and formally sought a new date. The request was declined, and the government proceeded with the event, declaring the chiefs duly installed.
The development has since triggered widespread debate among legal practitioners, scholars, and traditional authorities, raising a critical question: Can a traditional ruler be validly installed in absentia under Nigerian law?
In a detailed legal opinion, Adebisi Adeyemo, Esq., argues that the answer is unequivocally NO.
According to him, while the 1999 Constitution (as amended) vests executive powers in a state governor, such powers are neither absolute nor self-defining. They remain subject to constitutional supremacy and the rule of law.
Citing constitutional provisions, he emphasizes that government actions must conform strictly to established legal frameworks. Executive authority, he notes, cannot create legitimacy where none exists.
Central to the dispute is the distinction between approval and installation.
While a governor may approve or recognize a chieftaincy appointment under relevant laws, Adeyemo argues that installation is a fundamentally different process, one governed by customary law, chieftaincy declarations, and prescribed traditional rites.
These include personal appearance, acceptance of insignia, and, in some cases, oath-taking, acts that are inherently individual and cannot be performed by proxy or in absentia.
Adeyemo further relies on established judicial authorities to support his position.
In Adefulu v. Oyesile (1989), the Supreme Court held that strict compliance with prescribed procedures is a condition precedent to the validity of any chieftaincy appointment.
Similarly, in Oladele v. Aromolaran II (1996), the court reaffirmed that any deviation from laid-down processes renders such appointments invalid.
“These are not mere formalities,” Adeyemo notes. “They go to the root of legitimacy.”
Beyond procedural issues, the decision to proceed with the coronation despite the chiefs’ request for postponement has also raised constitutional concerns.
Legal analysts point to the right to a fair hearing, arguing that taking a decision affecting an individual’s legal status in their absence and against their expressed position may fall short of procedural fairness.
Based on these arguments, Adeyemo concludes that the government’s action may be deemed “ultra vires” that is, beyond its legal authority.
Where no law permits coronation in absentia, and where customary requirements demand personal participation, any such exercise, he argues, is void and without legal effect.
The controversy has also drawn attention to the use of public resources.
Coronation ceremonies typically involve significant state expenditure, including security deployment and administrative logistics. Critics argue that if the exercise lacks legal validity, it raises concerns about the propriety of spending public funds on such an undertaking.
Observers warn that the incident could set a troubling precedent if left unchallenged.
Chieftaincy institutions, deeply rooted in tradition and law, are not subject to administrative convenience. Any attempt to bypass established procedures, they argue, risks undermining both legal certainty and cultural integrity.
As the debate continues, one point remains central: legitimacy in chieftaincy matters derives not from executive proclamation but from strict adherence to law and custom.
Whether the Oyo State Government’s action will withstand judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. For now, the absentia coronations stand as a contentious test of the limits of executive power under Nigerian law.
