Eselu’s Suspension: When a Traditional Throne Becomes an Instrument of Partisan Politics
By Dr. Adekunle Odunlami
The suspension of Eselu of Iselu, Oba Akintunde Akinyemi, by the Ogun State Government raises fundamental questions about the responsibilities of traditional rulers, the limits of their involvement in partisan politics and the obligation of government to preserve the dignity and neutrality of traditional institutions.
The central issue is not whether a traditional ruler is entitled to personal political opinions. Rather, it is whether an Oba can repeatedly engage in partisan political activities, associate himself with political organisations, participate in electoral mobilisation and increasingly conduct himself as a political actor while continuing to enjoy the privileges and neutrality associated with traditional leadership.
For some time, the Eselu’s public activities have generated concerns about the extent of his involvement in partisan politics. His frequent political pronouncements, reported participation in political meetings and associations with political groups have contributed to the perception that he has become more active in political affairs than in the traditional responsibilities of his office.
There is a fundamental difference between a royal father offering counsel on matters of public interest and one who actively participates in partisan political activities. Traditional rulers are expected to serve as fathers to all, irrespective of political affiliation. Their authority derives substantially from their ability to maintain the confidence of people across political, religious and social divisions.
An important distinction must also be made between an isolated political indiscretion and a recurring pattern of conduct that raises legitimate concerns about the neutrality and responsibilities of a traditional institution.
While occasional lapses by traditional rulers may be overlooked or attract some caution, repeated violations cannot reasonably be treated with the same degree of leniency. An isolated lapse may involve a single political statement or appearance at a partisan gathering that does not necessarily reflect a deliberate departure from the responsibilities of the throne. Such incidents may reasonably be addressed through guidance or caution, depending on their seriousness.
A pattern of conduct, however, emerges where political involvement becomes frequent, deliberate and sustained, particularly where a traditional ruler repeatedly participates in partisan activities, associates his office with political organisations or continues such activities despite previous warnings.
At that point, the concern extends beyond occasional indiscretions to the possible erosion of the neutrality, dignity and integrity of the traditional institution itself.
This distinction is particularly relevant to the controversy surrounding the Eselu. The concerns about his activities are not limited to a single political statement or isolated public appearance. They involve allegations of repeated participation in political activities, sustained association with political groups and continued involvement in electoral affairs.
It has also been reported that he was cautioned on several occasions against active partisan involvement and even dragged before the Yewa Traditional Council for similar reason but the government had to intervene to persuade the Council not to proceed with the investigation. Eselu himself also filed a lawsuit against the Yewa Traditional Council in order to stop his investigation. Such facts if established, would be relevant to determining whether his conduct represented occasional lapses or a continuing disregard for the responsibilities of his office.
The concerns extend beyond political participation to questions about his commitment to the traditional responsibilities of the kingdom he presides over.
There are claims that the Eselu seldom visits Iselu Kingdom, has established his palace at Obada Oko, near Abeokuta and rarely performs the customary functions expected of a traditional ruler. These matters deserve factual examination because the primary responsibility of an Oba is to his kingdom and its people.
A traditional ruler is expected to preserve customs, promote communal harmony, resolve disputes and provide leadership within his community. The throne is not merely a title to be displayed at political gatherings or deployed in electoral controversies. It is an institution of service and cultural stewardship.
Whatever the circumstances surrounding the elevation of the Eselu stool from a mere Baale to a first class Oba, its occupant is expected to uphold the dignity and responsibilities associated with traditional leadership. The recognition of a traditional institution should strengthen its service to the community rather than encourage its involvement in partisan political competition.
The Ogun State Government has cited alleged overt partisan political activities in announcing the Eselu’s suspension under Section 52(1) of the Ogun State Obas and Chiefs Law, 2021, pending investigation.
The government’s responsibility in such circumstances is to determine whether the conduct complained of amounts to an occasional indiscretion or a sustained pattern of political involvement inconsistent with the obligations of traditional leadership.
While some other traditional rulers may occasionally have crossed the boundaries of political neutrality, isolated incidents do not necessarily present the same institutional concerns as repeated involvement in partisan political activities.
Government may exercise discretion in responding to minor or isolated infractions. However, where credible allegations suggest a continuing pattern of conduct that compromises the neutrality of a traditional institution, the authorities have a responsibility to investigate and take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
The objective should not be to punish occasional expressions of political opinion, but to preserve the dignity, impartiality and public confidence essential to traditional leadership.
What may be excused as an isolated indiscretion should not become an accepted pattern of conduct that gradually undermines the integrity of the throne.
This principle must apply fairly to all traditional rulers, irrespective of their political associations or personal relationships. The law should neither be selectively enforced nor rendered ineffective through repeated tolerance of conduct that may violate its provisions.
His suspension does not constitute a final determination of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the government has a legitimate responsibility to investigate conduct that may compromise the integrity of traditional institutions.
Traditional rulers occupy a unique and respected position in Yoruba society. Their palaces are expected to remain centres of unity, reconciliation and communal leadership. Their subjects belong to different political parties, and every member of the community should feel equally represented by the traditional institution.
When a monarch becomes increasingly identified with partisan political activities, he risks weakening the moral authority that distinguishes the throne from ordinary political leadership.
The fundamental question surrounding the Eselu’s suspension is therefore whether his political engagements have remained incidental to his traditional responsibilities or have become so frequent and sustained that they compromise the neutrality expected of his office.
Ultimately, the dignity of traditional institutions must take precedence over the political preferences of their occupants. A traditional ruler may hold personal political opinions, but the throne itself must not become an instrument of partisan mobilisation.
An occasional political lapse may be overlooked or attract caution. However, repeated violations, where established, cannot be treated as ordinary indiscretions. Government has a responsibility to protect traditional institutions from becoming extensions of partisan political engagements.
