This post has already been read at least 1193 times!

Introduction:

At a time togetherness is the need of the Yoruba Nation division seems to be rearing its head. Tradition, rather than tidy Yoruba hegemony is tearing us apart. The entitlement mentality to which our hospitable spirit of our forebears is lost to Strangers particularly in Lagos is now playing out where it shouldn’t, among our front line throne. We are once again confronted with the question we parley on the Lagos is no man saga. Within a truly federating structure; Nigeria is our reality and Yoruba land our shadow. We can’t dwell in the territory of our imaginary old past while criticising the edifice before us for what our past was like!

The recent public spat between the Alaafin of Oyo and the Ooni of Ife over the authority to confer “pan-Yoruba” chieftaincy titles is more than a quarrel between two thrones. It reveals the persistence of a dangerous political culture—the philosophy of Emilokan (“it is my turn”). This entitlement-driven worldview, now normalized in Nigerian politics, has crept into traditional rulership, threatening the dignity of Yoruba kingship.

The need for Okanlomo of Yoruba land, truly stares us in the face. Rather address the need of it from a unifying point of view. At issue is the Ooni’s decision to bestow the title of Okanlomo of Yorubaland on businessman Dotun Sanusi, an act which drew a fiery rebuttal from the Alaafin’s palace. The Alaafin, citing history and a purported Supreme Court recognition, issued a 48-hour ultimatum for the revocation of the title, insisting that such prerogative belongs exclusively to his stool.

Yet, beneath the thunderous rhetoric lies a constitutional reality: Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution recognizes no entity called “Yorubaland.” The South West is a federal creation composed of states. Within this framework, the Alaafin reigns in Oyo State, the Ooni in Osun State. Any claim to pan-Yoruba jurisdiction is legally void.

This paper interrogates the dispute through historical, constitutional, and comparative lenses. It argues that:

1. The Alaafin–Ooni drag is an expression of Emilokan entitlement politics in cultural dress.
2. Such entitlement undermines both divine prerogative and constitutional order.
3. Nigeria’s failure to properly define the role of traditional rulers creates fertile ground for such disputes.
4. A return to the federal logic of the 1963 Constitution could provide a framework for re-situating traditional rulers constructively within Nigeria’s governance architecture.

Historical Context: Alaafin and Ooni in Yoruba Civilization

The Alaafin’s Imperial Memory

Between 1650 and 1750, the Oyo Empire was the largest political formation in West Africa, covering approximately 150,000 km² across modern-day Nigeria, Benin, and Togo. The Alaafin ruled through tributary chiefs, a powerful cavalry, and an elaborate administrative system. The ilari emissaries extended Oyo’s influence far beyond its core.

Yet Oyo’s system was not absolutist. The Oyo Mesi, led by the Bashorun, checked the Alaafin’s power, even possessing the authority to compel his ritual suicide by presenting the parrot’s egg. Despite these limits, the Alaafin’s throne symbolized political supremacy across Yorubaland.

The Ooni’s Spiritual Primacy

By contrast, the Ooni of Ife did not command armies or tributaries. Ife’s authority was rooted in mythology—as the cradle of Yoruba civilization, the site of creation, and the fountain of ritual legitimacy. The Ooni was revered as “father of kings,” yet his power was spiritual rather than territorial.

Collapse of Oyo Supremacy

From the mid-18th century, Oyo’s supremacy declined under Bashorun Gaa’s tyranny, provincial revolts, and the Fulani jihad which engulfed Ilorin. By 1836, Oyo-Ile was abandoned. The Alaafin retreated to “New Oyo,” diminished in power. Meanwhile, autonomous polities like Ibadan and Abeokuta rose, rejecting Oyo’s claims of overlordship.

Thus, history grants the Alaafin imperial memory, but denies him enduring jurisdiction over Yorubaland. The Ooni retained spiritual primacy, but never held political sovereignty.

The Current Dispute: A Clash of Entitlements

The Ooni’s conferment of the “Okanlomo of Yorubaland” title on Sanusi was symbolic, drawing on Ife’s spiritual gravitas. The Alaafin’s furious response—branding it an illegal usurpation and issuing an ultimatum—was equally symbolic, grounded in nostalgia for Oyo’s imperial legacy.

But what both claims share is the logic of entitlement. The Ooni assumes spiritual primacy extends to symbolic jurisdiction. The Alaafin assumes imperial memory entitles him to pan-Yoruba supremacy. Both are wrong in law, and both diminish their thrones by wrestling over shadows.

The Philosophy of Emilokan

Emilokan, popularized in Nigeria’s recent presidential politics, embodies the belief that office belongs by right of history, struggle, or succession. It is an entitlement doctrine, incompatible with democracy and disrespectful of God’s sovereignty.

Applied to kingship, Emilokan corrupts tradition. Yoruba cosmology emphasizes divine sanction in leadership selection—oba kii je pe eniyan ni o yan, o daju pe Olodumare ni o fi yan (“a king is not chosen by men alone, but ultimately by God”). Entitlement usurps this principle, turning thrones into trophies.

Thus, when monarchs argue, “it is my right to confer titles” or “it is my turn to rule Yorubaland,” they mimic the same entitlement politics corroding Nigeria’s democratic culture.

Constitutional Realities

The 1999 Constitution

The Nigerian Constitution does not recognize “Yorubaland” as a political entity. The South West exists only as a federal geopolitical zone, not a sovereign region. Traditional rulers are recognized under state laws as cultural custodians.

The Alaafin’s authority is confined to Oyo State.

The Ooni’s authority is confined to Osun State.

No monarch has cross-state jurisdiction. Even where Nigerian courts uphold customary law, such recognition is bounded by statutory frameworks. Thus, any Supreme Court ruling in the Alaafin’s favor can be symbolic, but not enforceable across state boundaries.

The Void in Constitutional Design

Nigeria’s constitutional order deliberately sidelines traditional rulers, confining them to ceremonial roles. Yet their cultural and historical weight makes them politically relevant. The lack of clarity produces recurring conflicts—within the North (e.g., Kano Emirate crisis), the East (Eze disputes), and the South (Benin–Itsekiri frictions).

Comparative Cases

Within Nigeria

Emir of Kano: Despite prestige and historical reach, his authority is constitutionally limited to Kano State, as the dethronement of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi in 2020 showed.

Oba of Benin: Custodian of deep tradition, but legally confined to Edo State.

Shehu of Borno: Historic prestige as a Kanem-Borno ruler, but jurisdiction limited by law.

Across Africa

Asantehene (Ghana): Once supreme over the Akan, now a cultural leader without political sovereignty.

Kabaka of Buganda (Uganda): Revered by millions, but constitutionally symbolic.

Zulu King (South Africa): Receives state funding and recognition, but no sovereign authority.

Globally

United Kingdom: The monarchy is ceremonial, with sovereignty residing in Parliament.

Japan: The Emperor is “symbol of the state and unity of the people,” stripped of power post-WWII.

Saudi Arabia (contrast): Here monarchy retains political sovereignty, but this is the exception, not the rule.

These examples show a clear trend: in modern states, traditional rulers survive by embracing cultural authority, not political entitlement.

The Way Forward: Constitutional Reform

Revisiting the 1963 Constitution

Nigeria’s 1963 Constitution provided a federal structure aligned with ethnic and regional realities. Traditional rulers had defined roles within this framework. A return to this model, adapted for contemporary democracy, could:

1. Define the functions of traditional rulers as cultural and moral custodians.
2. Recognize ethnic boundaries within federalism to reduce conflicts of authority.
3. Institutionalize traditional roles in nation-building—youth mobilization, conflict resolution, cultural preservation—without reviving obsolete imperial claims.

Redefining the Role of Traditional Rulers

Instead of fighting over pan-ethnic titles, Yoruba monarchs should unite around:

Advocating constitutional reform that clarifies their place.

Acting as moral voices for unity, justice, and development.

Preserving culture in ways that inspire younger generations.

Conclusion

The drag between the Alaafin and the Ooni is not a debate over law or tradition—it is a quarrel born of entitlement. Both stools, though historically revered, now stand within a constitutional order that limits their reach.

Emilokan politics—whether on the throne or in the presidency—insults God’s sovereignty, disregards the Constitution, and fractures society. For monarchs, as for politicians, the future lies not in entitlement claims but in service and unity.

The way forward is constitutional clarity and cultural wisdom. The Alaafin and the Ooni must rise above petty rivalry and embody the dignity of their thrones. Only then can Yoruba kingship remain a source of pride, not a spectacle of entitlement.

This post has already been read at least 1193 times!