Lawyers have begun rounds of arguments over whether the amended Section 28 (Subsection 1) of the Oyo Chiefs Law that empowers the Governor to solely specify and approve who wears a beaded crown without consulting traditional institutions can stop any traditional chieftaincy holder from contesting for political office. Circumstances like this put the public in more confusion. But as a layman in law and a journalist who could only read and interpret provisions of law on the surface, I am of the opinion that the stated law may not stop any traditional chieftaincy holder from seeking political office through election.
It is a known fact that if there’s a conflict between Nigerian Constitution and state laws, gazettes, and chieftaincy related enactments, the Constitution overrides them all. The situation is more nuanced on chieftaincy matters.
Section 1 (Subsections 1 & 3) confirms that 1999 Nigerian Constitution is supreme over other laws, including state laws, gazettes, or customary regulations.
Chieftaincy matters are not under Exclusive List. They fall under residual matters handled by state governments. Each state enacts its own chieftaincy law, and governors often act through gazettes to approve appointments, removals, or recognitions of persons slated for chieftaincy elevation.
Ibadan Chieftaincy Declaration 1957 used to be in tandem with Section 28 (Subsection 1) of Oyo Chiefs Law before it was amended in 2023. Before the current amendment, the Governor could only approve beaded crowns on recommended persons after “due consultation with the Council of Obas and Chiefs”. But the 2023 amendment to the Section under review gives sole discretionary authority to the Governor, meaning that the Governor now has exclusive power to specify and approve who wears a beaded crown without consulting any Council of Obas and Chiefs.
Under Ibadan Chieftaincy Declaration 1957, what remains as provisions are: that Olubadan has sole authority to appoint and approve elevation of chieftaincy holders from Jagun to Abese on both Balogun and Otun Olubadan sides; that Olubadan can only appoint chieftaincy holders due for elevation from Eekarun Balogun or Eekarun Olubadan to Balogun and Otun Olubadan while the approval remains with the Governor. I am not aware as I write that the provisions mentioned above have been amended in the Ibadan Chieftaincy Declaration 1957. Yet, the Section in Oyo Chiefs Law which used to have similar provisions has been amended, rendering Ibadan Chieftaincy Declaration ineffective since Oyo Chiefs Law is an Act of Parliament which overrides a chieftaincy declaration.
Now, the question remains: Can the amended Section of Oyo Chiefs Law prevent Senator Sarafadeen Alli, Eekarun Balogun of Ibadanland, and a governorship aspirant under Oyo APC from contesting?
It’s the constitutional and statutory right of Senator Sarafadeen Alli as enshrined in Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution to contest for governorship election regardless of his status as a high ranking traditional chief of Ibadan, now a member of Olubadan-in-Council. The Section guarantees his right to assemble freely and associate with others, including forming or belonging to a political party. This right forms the foundation for political participation, which includes contesting elections.
The amendment to Section 28 Subsection 1 of the Oyo Chiefs Law may not stop Sarafadeen Alli from contesting. The amendment itself can be challenged in court though the success of the challenge depends on how the amendment is challenged. The amendment may stand struck out if there’s a proof of constitutional violation, especially if there are solid proofs of abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, bad faith or political motives.
Another failed encounter that the amended Section 28 of the Oyo Chiefs Law may face in court is if it is in conflict with customary law. As we know, chieftaincy is deeply rooted in customary law; Ibadan Chieftaincy Declaration 1957 in this case. If it’s established that the governor’s decision ignores established tradition, the said amendment can be challenged as inconsistent with recognised customary practices.
Though chieftaincy is known to the Constitution indirectly since it’s placed on residual list, the same Constitution does not include chieftaincy in constitutional and statutory requirements for contesting or not contesting elections.
Senator Sarafadeen Alli knows the legal options open to him in respect of the current imbroglio about his status as a member of Olubadan-in-Council entitled to wear a beaded crown and his governorship aspiration, being a lawyer himself.
Maroof Asudemade, a journalist, writes from Isale-Ijebu, Ibadan
