IBADAN OBASHIP: Lawyer Affirms Constitutional Rights Over Chieftaincy Expectations
•By OYENIYI AWOJOODU
IBADAN — A constitutional lawyer, Adebisi Adeyemo, has asserted that no Nigerian citizen can be barred from participating in elective politics on the basis of chieftaincy expectations or eligibility for a traditional stool.
Adeyemo’s position comes amid rising concerns over alleged administrative and customary efforts to restrict the political ambitions of certain high-ranking chiefs in Oyo State, including High Chief Akeem Bolaji Adewoyin, High Chief Sarafadeen Abiodun Ali, and High Chief Kola Babalola.
Speaking on the matter, the legal practitioner described such attempts as unconstitutional, emphasizing that the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria remains the supreme legal authority governing political participation.
Citing Section 1 of the Constitution, Adeyemo noted that its provisions override all other authorities and persons, rendering any inconsistent action null and void.
He further referenced Sections 65 and 106, which guarantee the rights of qualified citizens to contest elective offices, while pointing out that Sections 66 and 107 clearly outline the only grounds for disqualification none of which include chieftaincy status or expectations.
“Any attempt to introduce additional disqualification criteria outside the Constitution is legally untenable,” he said.
Adeyemo also addressed the role of the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters, stating that it lacks the constitutional authority to restrict political rights or enforce customary expectations as binding legal obligations.
According to him, any such action would be ultra vires, constitutionally invalid, and subject to judicial review.
Drawing a distinction between eligibility and obligation, the lawyer explained that being considered for a traditional stool does not automatically impose legal restrictions.
“Individuals who are merely eligible or nominated for a throne retain full political rights. Only those formally installed as traditional rulers may be subject to expectations of political neutrality,” he clarified.
He supported his argument with historical precedents, noting that traditional status has coexisted with political participation in Nigeria.
He cited the late Ooni of Ife, Oba Adesoji Aderemi, who served as Governor of the Western Region between 1960 and 1962 while retaining his traditional position.
Adeyemo also referenced the late Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, who held multiple chieftaincy titles and contested the 1993 presidential election, widely believed to have been won by him.
Similarly, he mentioned Nnamdi Azikiwe, Nigeria’s first President, who held several traditional titles without constitutional hindrance.
He further cited Oba Adedotun Aremu Gbadebo as an example of personal choice, noting that the monarch voluntarily ascended the throne after a distinguished public service career.
Applying these principles, Adeyemo maintained that the affected high chiefs in Oyo State retain their full constitutional rights to contest elections, participate in governance, and engage in political activities.
He described any attempt to restrict these rights on the basis of chieftaincy expectations as legally unfounded, administratively improper, and constitutionally void.
The lawyer urged stakeholders in the state to respect constitutional provisions and avoid actions capable of generating unnecessary tension.
“Political disagreements must remain within lawful bounds, and misinterpretation of the law must not be used as a tool for conflict,” he cautioned.
Adeyemo concluded that the Constitution leaves no ambiguity on the issue.
“Chieftaincy expectation cannot be imposed as a legal obligation. Political participation is a fundamental constitutional right, and any attempt to curtail it outside constitutional provisions is null and void,” he said.
Quoting former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, he added: “Elections belong to the people. It is their decision.”
He reiterated that the rights of the affected high chiefs remain fully protected under the law and called for strict adherence to constitutional principles in the interest of peace, stability, and democratic progress.