The Stool and What Seyi Makinde Should Learn from Bode Thomas (1919–1953) | By Timilehin Kolade

History sometimes speaks through the fate of individuals, but its deeper purpose is to instruct institutions. Few episodes in Yoruba political history illustrate this better than the confrontation between Chief Bode Thomas and the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Adeniran Adeyemi II, in 1953. Thomas was a brilliant lawyer, nationalist and prominent political figure of the Action Group who became chairman of the Oyo Divisional Council. The constitutional changes of the period had transferred considerable administrative authority from traditional rulers to emerging political institutions, creating the unusual situation in which the Alaafin served on a council chaired by a much younger political actor. Yet constitutional authority did not erase historical authority.

On 22 November 1953, Thomas appeared before the Oyo Divisional Council. When members stood in deference to him, the Alaafin remained seated. Thomas reportedly took offence and demanded that the monarch show him respect.

The confrontation became one of the most enduring stories in Yoruba political history. Thomas died the following day, 23 November 1953. While subsequent accounts attached spiritual interpretations to his death, those interpretations belong to the folklore surrounding the episode rather than established historical causation. The more defensible lesson is institutional: political power is transient, while institutions can outlive the politicians who temporarily exercise it.

This history carries a contemporary lesson for Governor Seyi Makinde. A governor possesses constitutional and statutory authority; a traditional ruler possesses a different form of authority—historical, cultural, customary and symbolic. These are not competing forms of sovereignty. The governor administers the modern state, while the traditional institution embodies a historical continuity that predates the Nigerian republic. Therefore, a governor does not have to agree with a monarch politically, endorse his preferences or interpret his political sympathies favourably before according the stool institutional respect. Indeed, the maturity of political leadership is demonstrated by the ability to respect an institution even when the occupant of that institution is perceived to be politically inconvenient.

This distinction is particularly important in Oyo, where the Alaafin institution has recently been surrounded by controversies over succession, the role of the Oyomesi and the authority of the state government. Governor Makinde’s administration eventually presented the staff of office to Oba Abimbola Owoade as Alaafin amid disagreements from some kingmakers and continuing legal and institutional contestations.

Whatever position one takes on the controversy, the larger principle should remain clear: politics must not become the basis for determining the dignity accorded to a traditional institution.

If politics should not determine the selection or legitimacy of a monarch, politics should equally not determine the treatment of the monarch after his emergence. The state may disagree with a traditional ruler. It may defend its legal position in court, challenge an institutional claim or insist on the supremacy of the Constitution. But disagreement should never become institutional humiliation. The dignity of the stool should remain separate from the political preferences—real or perceived—of its occupant.

The Stool and What Seyi Makinde Should Learn from Bode Thomas (1919–1953)

Timilehin Kolade

History sometimes speaks through the fate of individuals, but its deeper purpose is to instruct institutions. Few episodes in Yoruba political history illustrate this better than the confrontation between Chief Bode Thomas (1919–1953) and the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Adeniran Adeyemi II, in 1953. Thomas was a brilliant lawyer, nationalist and prominent Action Group politician who became chairman of the Oyo Divisional Council. Constitutional changes of the period had transferred considerable administrative authority from traditional rulers to emerging political institutions, creating the unusual situation in which the Alaafin served on a council chaired by a much younger political actor. Yet constitutional authority did not erase historical authority.

On 22 November 1953, Thomas appeared before the Oyo Divisional Council. When members stood in deference to him, the Alaafin remained seated. Thomas reportedly took offence and demanded that the monarch show him respect. Thomas died the following day, 23 November 1953. The folklore surrounding his death subsequently acquired supernatural interpretations, but the historical fact is simpler and more instructive: the episode has endured because it captures the tension between transient political authority and the enduring dignity of traditional institutions. The lesson is therefore not about superstition; it is about institutional humility. Political power is transient, while institutions can outlive the politicians who temporarily exercise it.

This history carries a contemporary lesson for Governor Seyi Makinde. A governor possesses constitutional and statutory authority; a traditional ruler possesses a different form of authority—historical, cultural, customary and symbolic. These are not competing sovereignties. The governor administers the modern state, while the traditional institution embodies a historical continuity that predates the Nigerian republic. A governor therefore does not have to agree politically with a monarch, endorse his preferences or share his political worldview before according the stool the respect it deserves.

This distinction is particularly relevant to the relationship between Governor Makinde and His Imperial Majesty, Oba Rashidi Ladoja, the Olubadan of Ibadanland. Oba Ladoja’s long public career and political experience are part of Ibadan’s contemporary history, but his elevation to the Olubadan stool places him in a different institutional category. Whatever differences may exist between the governor and the Olubadan, and whatever political interpretations may be attached to the monarch’s public positions, those differences should never be allowed to diminish the dignity of the stool. The occupant may have a political history; the stool has an institutional history. The two must be distinguished.

This principle is important because traditional rulers inevitably exist within a political environment. They are citizens with opinions, relationships and histories, but the stool they occupy carries a dignity beyond partisan politics. A monarch who holds a different political opinion from the government remains a monarch. A monarch who criticises government policy remains a monarch. A monarch who previously participated actively in partisan politics does not lose the dignity of the stool because of that history. Political parties change, governments change and alliances change. Traditional institutions endure.

This does not mean that the governor should surrender governmental authority to the traditional institution. The Constitution and the laws of Oyo State remain the foundation of governance. Government has every right to disagree with a traditional ruler, defend its policies and insist upon the limits of customary authority. But disagreement should be conducted with civility and institutional respect. The dignity accorded to a monarch should not fluctuate according to whether the government of the day considers the monarch politically friendly.

The Olubadan institution is particularly significant because of Ibadan’s distinctive political history. The city developed a unique chieftaincy system shaped by its military, political and administrative evolution. The Olubadan stool consequently represents much more than the individual who occupies it. It is a living institution through which generations of Ibadan history connect with the present. To denigrate the occupant because of perceived political disagreement risks diminishing an institution that belongs not to a political party or an administration, but to the people of Ibadan.

This is where the Bode Thomas episode becomes instructive. Thomas possessed legitimate administrative authority as chairman of the Divisional Council, but the Alaafin represented a historical institution whose significance could not be reduced to the legal powers assigned to the monarch by the colonial administration. The episode illustrates what can happen when political authority becomes overly conscious of its immediate power and insufficiently conscious of institutional history. Contemporary Oyo should not reproduce that collision through a new vocabulary of partisan alignment.

Governor Makinde therefore has an opportunity to demonstrate a higher form of political maturity in his relationship with Oba Rashidi Ladoja. Respect for the Olubadan should not be interpreted as political submission, just as disagreement with the Olubadan should not become institutional hostility. The governor can remain firm on matters of government while being generous in his treatment of the traditional institution. There is greater strength in disagreeing respectfully than in using political power to demonstrate dominance.

There is also a larger lesson for Nigerian democracy. Traditional institutions should neither be romanticised as infallible nor reduced to political instruments. They should be respected as repositories of history and culture while remaining subject to the Constitution and applicable laws. Likewise, elected officials should neither be treated as sovereigns nor regarded as enemies whenever they exercise statutory authority. Democracy requires a delicate balance: constitutional supremacy without cultural arrogance; political authority without institutional disdain.

The lesson of Bode Thomas is therefore not that governors should fear traditional rulers. It is that those who temporarily exercise political power must understand the limits of that power. Thomas was influential, educated and politically powerful, but his political office was temporary. The stool he confronted was older than his political career and survived him.

Governor Makinde will eventually leave Agodi Government House, as every governor before him has done. Oba Rashidi Ladoja will eventually leave the Olubadan stool, as every occupant before him has done. But the Olubadan institution will remain. That is the enduring lesson: individuals pass through institutions, but institutions carry the memory of generations.

The wise political leader therefore does not allow perceived political misalignment to become a reason for denigrating the stool. He respects the institution even when he disagrees with the occupant, and he treats the occupant with the dignity that the office commands.

The stool is bigger than the man who sits on it, just as the office of governor is bigger than the individual who occupies it. Respecting the stool does not diminish the governor; it elevates the office of governor itself.

Makinde should therefore resist the temptation, common to politicians everywhere, to evaluate traditional rulers primarily through the prism of political loyalty. A monarch who supports the opposition is still a monarch. A monarch who criticises government policy is still a monarch. A monarch who refuses to participate in the political theatre of the ruling party is still entitled to the dignity of his stool. Political parties come and go; administrations change; governors leave office. The stool remains. The wise political leader therefore distinguishes between the individual occupying the stool and the institution represented by the stool.

The Bode Thomas episode should not be interpreted as an argument against political authority. It is a warning against institutional arrogance. Thomas had legitimate administrative authority as chairman of the Divisional Council, but authority in one sphere did not automatically confer supremacy in another. His confrontation with the Alaafin reflected the tensions between an emerging modern political order and an ancient institution. Contemporary Oyo should not reproduce that mistake in a different constitutional setting. The governor should exercise his authority firmly, but with institutional humility; the traditional ruler should exercise his dignity, but within constitutional boundaries.

There is a larger lesson here for Nigerian democracy. Traditional institutions should neither be romanticised as infallible nor reduced to political instruments. They should be respected as repositories of history and culture while remaining subject to the Constitution and applicable laws. Likewise, elected officials should neither be treated as sovereigns nor regarded as enemies whenever they exercise statutory authority. Democracy requires a delicate balance: constitutional supremacy without cultural arrogance; political authority without institutional disdain.

Governor Makinde has an opportunity to leave behind a legacy beyond the resolution of individual chieftaincy disputes. He can demonstrate that a governor can disagree with a monarch without diminishing the stool; that government can enforce the law without humiliating tradition; and that political disagreement does not have to become institutional warfare. The lesson of Bode Thomas is not that governors should fear traditional rulers. It is that those who temporarily occupy political office should understand the difference between possessing power and inheriting history.

The stool is bigger than the man who sits on it, just as the office of governor is bigger than the individual who occupies Agodi Government House. Makinde will eventually leave office, as every governor before him has done. The Alaafin stool, however, will remain. The wise politician understands this asymmetry. He does not have to surrender his constitutional authority to the stool; he simply recognises that respecting the stool does not diminish the governor—it elevates the office of governor itself.