- Controversy Trails Alleged Threats Against Traditional Rulers Who Refuse to Support Yayi
A fresh controversy has emerged over allegations that Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola, popularly known as Yayi, influenced the suspension of the Eselu of Iselu and allegedly threatened other prominent traditional rulers, including the Alake of Egbaland and the Akarigbo of Remoland, with dethronement if elected.
According to the allegations, any traditional ruler who refuses to support his political ambition could face removal from the throne.
These claims raise serious questions about the relationship between political ambition, traditional institutions, and the independence of royal authorities in Ogun State.
Traditional rulers occupy important cultural and community leadership positions. While their conduct is subject to applicable laws and regulations governing their offices, they should not be subjected to political intimidation or retaliation for their lawful choices.
The circumstances surrounding the reported suspension of the Eselu, as well as the alleged threats against other monarchs, therefore, warrant serious need for worries.
Can a traditional ruler be punished simply for exercising a lawful political choice?
Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees freedom of association under Section 40, subject to applicable constitutional limitations. This protection raises an important question about the extent to which traditional rulers can exercise their lawful rights without fear of political consequences.
However, the application of these protections to traditional rulers must be considered alongside the laws and regulations governing their positions. The specific circumstances and legal grounds for any suspension or disciplinary action must be established before conclusions are drawn.
Ogun State’s traditional institutions should remain symbols of cultural heritage, community unity, and public trust, not instruments of political coercion.
The people of Ogun State deserve transparency, while their traditional rulers deserve fair treatment in accordance with the law.
The central issue remains: Were the reported actions taken on legitimate legal grounds, or were they connected to political considerations? Why would a part candidate allegedly be using government Machineries to attack the royal stool of any one perceived to be in contrast with his mission?