…says controversy should not be used to vilify Ondo Govt
An indigene of Oke-Irun, Irun-Akoko, Mr Olajide Olutuyi, has called for strict adherence to the judicial process in the lingering controversy over the creation of the Owa Adimula of Oke-Oro stool, maintaining that the dispute remains before a competent court and should not be used to cast aspersions on the Ondo State Government.
Olutuyi, who reacted in his personal capacity, stressed that his intervention was not intended as an attack on Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa’s administration but a call for constitutionalism, respect for customary institutions and preservation of communal peace.
According to him, the controversy began on April 15, 2026, when the Ondo State Executive Council approved the creation of several new chieftaincy titles, including the Owa Adimula of Oke-Oro, which he said was carved out of the ancient Oke-Irun community in Irun-Akoko.
He noted that the matter became more contentious on May 27, 2026, when Governor Aiyedatiwa presented the Staff of Office to the new traditional ruler despite pending litigation over the identity and territorial structure of Oke-Irun, alleging that the historic community was subsequently renamed Oke-Oro administratively.
Olutuyi argued that the issues surrounding the creation of the stool, the installation of the traditional ruler and the alleged renaming of Oke-Irun raise constitutional, legal and customary questions which should be determined by the court.
“This is not written to attack government. Rather, it is written from the conviction that democratic leadership must remain subordinate to law, tradition and communal peace. Traditional institutions in Yorubaland are not political inventions. They are repositories of ancestry, identity, territorial and historical legitimacy built over centuries,” he said.
While acknowledging that the Chiefs Law of Ondo State empowers the Governor to recognise traditional rulers and chieftaincy titles, Olutuyi maintained that such powers must be exercised within the limits prescribed by the law and the Constitution.
Citing Section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution, he said State High Courts have jurisdiction over disputes involving legal rights and communal interests, including chieftaincy matters, adding that the principle was reaffirmed in Mafimisebi v. Governor of Ondo State (2012).
He also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Otitoju v. Governor of Ondo State, which, according to him, held that chieftaincy decisions with significant communal implications must rest on sound customary and legal foundations rather than executive discretion.
“The issue is not whether a Governor may generally create chieftaincy titles. The real question is whether he may carve a new stool out of a recognised first-class monarchy, do so while litigation is pending, proceed despite objections from foundational quarters of the community, and complete the process by presenting a Staff of Office before the courts have spoken. Legally and constitutionally, those actions are highly questionable,” he stated.
Olutuyi maintained that Irun-Akoko is an ancient settlement with a long-established royal history spanning 39 successive reigns over more than six centuries.
He said the Onirun of Irun is a recognised first-class monarch whose authority has historically extended over the entire Irun-Akoko community, including Oke-Irun and Odo-Irun, adding that the position is reflected in gazetted chieftaincy declarations and administrative records.
According to him, the territorial jurisdiction of a recognised first-class monarch is tied to historically established boundaries and should not be altered arbitrarily through executive action.
He further traced the history of the Ogo Quarter, describing Ologo Ogbo, a hunter-warrior from Ile-Ife, as the earliest settler in present-day Oke-Irun who established what later became the Ogo Quarter and allocated land to subsequent settlers.
Olutuyi argued that under Yoruba customary law, original settlement and land ownership are strong indicators of historical seniority and communal authority, insisting that the Ogo people are among the foundational custodians of Oke-Irun rather than subjects of what he described as an artificial Oke-Oro construct.
He also outlined the succession of the Ologo dynasty from Ologo Ogbo through Ologo Osho Atere, Ologo Ajana, Awomada, Onikokoori, Ologo Agbede, Fatoyinbo I, Amu Amejibawonja, Apara/Fatoyinbo II, Osho Emo, Samuel O. Olutuyi/Fatoyinbo III and the current Ologo, Ismaila Olanrewaju, who ascended the throne in August 2023.
“This is not a minor or recently invented institution. It is a dynasty rooted deeply in Yoruba history and identity. For this reason, the Ogo Quarter rejects the attempt to redefine its identity under the newly created Oke-Oro. The same is true of the Imoleji Quarter. They are not Oke-Oro and shall not become Oke-Oro by executive proclamation,” he said.
Olutuyi further argued that Yoruba political organisation remains one of Africa’s most sophisticated traditional governance systems, with established founding lineages, ancestral authority and carefully preserved hierarchies.
He cited the Supreme Court judgment in Momoh v. Olutu (1970), saying the apex court held that chieftaincy declarations must reflect genuine prevailing customs and should not be created for political convenience.
“A stool without communal legitimacy is not truly a throne; it is simply an administrative construct. Across the Akoko region, excessive proliferation of chieftaincy titles has often produced division rather than development, fragmenting once-united communities into factions consumed by litigation and identity conflict,” he added.
On the presentation of the Staff of Office, Olutuyi argued that Nigerian law requires parties to maintain the status quo while litigation is pending, warning that actions capable of prejudicing issues before the court could eventually be invalidated.
He noted that although Section 308 of the Constitution grants immunity to a serving governor from personal civil proceedings, it does not validate unconstitutional actions, adding that government actions contrary to due process may still be declared null and void by the courts.
Olutuyi also challenged the alleged administrative renaming of Oke-Irun as Oke-Oro, arguing that no constitutional provision empowers a governor to unilaterally alter the historical identity of an ancient community.
He cited Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State (2002), contending that executive actions undertaken without constitutional or statutory authority amount to a nullity.
According to him, the Chiefs Law does not authorise a governor to rename an existing town merely because a new chieftaincy title has been created.
Olutuyi further alleged that on May 28, 2026, youths and other persons sympathetic to the Oke-Oro stool entered the Ogo and Imoleji quarters and replaced signposts bearing the name “Oke-Irun” with “Oke-Oro.”
He described the action as unlawful self-help over a dispute that remains before the court.
“Nigerian law does not permit a party to a dispute, or persons aligned with one side of it, to take direct physical action to enforce an outcome the courts have not yet pronounced upon,” he said, adding that the defacement of signposts could also raise issues of criminal damage under the Criminal Code applicable in Ondo State.
He further argued that communal identity cannot be imposed through executive proclamation or physical alteration of public signs, citing Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association.
“The sustained public opposition of the Ogo and Imoleji Quarters is itself a lawful exercise of that associational freedom. It cannot be erased by repainting a signpost any more than seven centuries of history can be erased by a gazette.
“‘Oke-Irun’ is not a bureaucratic label. It is the inherited identity of a people preserved through generations of history, ritual and communal memory. Ogo Quarter remains Oke-Irun. Imoleji Quarter remains Oke-Irun. No gazette or proclamation changes that reality,” he said.
Olutuyi urged Governor Aiyedatiwa to allow the judicial process to take its course by consulting widely and respecting the ongoing court proceedings.
“Governor Aiyedatiwa still has an opportunity to demonstrate statesmanship by pausing, consulting widely and respecting the judicial process. History will not remember the political pressures that produced the Owa Adimula controversy. It will remember whether constitutional restraint prevailed over executive overreach.
“A town cannot be renamed into legitimacy. A throne cannot be gazetted into history. What seven centuries built cannot be erased in six weeks. Oke-Irun was here before this controversy. It remains here after it. And in the memory of its people, it shall remain Oke-Irun,” he stated.
