Makinde’s Caution to Traditional Rulers: Preserving Neutrality Without Diminishing The Throne | By Aderogba Taofik, mni
During the chieftaincy installation of his wife in Eruwa, Governor Seyi Makinde declared that his administration would not hesitate to take decisive measures against any traditional ruler who engages in partisan politics. Although the statement was framed in general terms, the political context in which it was made led many observers to read it as an indirect reference to the Olubadan of Ibadanland, His Imperial Majesty Oba Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja.
This development is not a trivial matter of rhetoric. It strikes at the delicate interface between democratic governance and the traditional institution, two pillars that have historically coexisted in a symbiotic, albeit occasionally fractious, relationship in Oyo State.
The central issue is therefore not whether traditional rulers should remain above partisan politics, but how elected authorities should defend that principle without diminishing the dignity of institutions that command deep communal loyalty.
The Rationale: Preserving the Apolitical Character of the Throne
The governor’s concern is institutionally and morally defensible. In Nigeria’s constitutional order and under the relevant chieftaincy framework in Oyo State, traditional rulers function principally as custodians of custom, arbiters of communal peace, and symbolic fathers to citizens across political divides. When a royal stool is drawn into partisan advocacy, it risks compromising the neutrality on which much of its legitimacy and influence depend.
From an administrative standpoint, it is therefore incumbent upon the governor, as the chief executive, to uphold institutional order. A warning against the politicization of the palace is consistent with the responsibility to prevent the erosion of cultural authority for electoral or partisan gain.
That principle, however, does not end the matter. In a state where traditional authority carries historical, cultural, and emotional weight, the enforcement of institutional boundaries must itself be guided by restraint, process, and respect. The real issue is that the Olubadan has not been found wanton in his role as the custodian of traditions, culture, customs of Ibadanland; he has remained neutral, open and act as a father to all political comers irrespective of their politcal parties and affiliations, hence Makindes utterances are unneccessary.
The Method: The Perils of Public Confrontation
Although the underlying principle is valid, the manner of its expression raises serious questions of tact, timing, and institutional decorum. Delivering what was widely perceived as a stern admonition at a personal family event, in language that could reasonably be read as referring to the paramount ruler of the state capital, risks blurring the line between governance and personal sentiment.
The Olubadan stool occupies a unique position. It is not merely a chieftaincy title; it is the apex of an ancient, orderly, and respected institution that predates Nigeria’s current democratic arrangement. The office commands the allegiance of many Ibadan people and carries significant moral authority across Oyo State. For that reason, any pronouncement perceived as hostile to the Olubadan can easily be read as a slight on the Ibadan traditional institution itself.
Public confrontation in such matters is counterproductive. It polarizes the citizenry, pressures people to choose sides between government and palace, and risks dragging the throne into the very partisan arena the governor seeks to keep it out of.
The Path of Statesmanship: Private Engagement over Public Censure
In matters of this gravity, statesmanship demands circumspection. The more judicious course would have been recourse to established channels of consultation, such as a private audience or engagement through the Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs. Such avenues permit correction and counsel without diminishing the dignity of either office.
Governance requires both authority and restraint. A governor must be able to guide, and a monarch must retain the latitude to advise. Both, however, must act in ways that preserve the sanctity of their respective institutions. Anything less risks trading long-term stability for short-term messaging.
Conclusion: Toward a Renewed Compact
The health of Oyo State depends on a functional and respectful partnership between the government and the traditional institution. The palace has vigilantly protect its neutrality and avoid utterances that align it with partisan causes. The government, in turn, must exercise restraint and resist the temptation to use the instruments of state to chastise revered institutions in the public domain.
Ultimately, Ibadanland and Oyo State are larger than any individual or tenure of office. What is required now is de-escalation, mutual respect, and a renewed commitment to the historic compact that has allowed political and traditional leadership to thrive in concert.
A democracy is strengthened when institutions check one another with civility; it is weakened when they confront one another with contempt. Oyo State’s stability now depends on both sides choosing de-escalation, mutual respect, and the discipline to preserve the institutions they each represent.
About the Author: Comrade Aderogba Adebayo Taofik, mni, is a unionist in the food, beverage, and tobacco industry, with professional expertise in logistics and supply chains. He is also a policy research and public affairs analyst, an advocate for good governance, and a chieftain of the Oyo APC. He writes from Ward 12, Ibadan North Federal Constituency, Oyo State, Nigeria.