A constitutional lawyer, Adebisi Adeyemo, has argued that no Nigerian can be prevented from taking part in elective politics due to chieftaincy considerations or eligibility for a traditional throne.
His remarks follow concerns about alleged administrative and customary efforts to limit the political aspirations of some high chiefs in Oyo State, including Bolaji Adewoyin, Sarafadeen Alli, and Kola Babalola.
Meanwhile, Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, is expected to officially present the staff of office to the three men as newly elevated crown-wearing Obas in Ibadanland. However, the Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Rashidi Ladoja, disclosed on Thursday that the trio had indicated they would not attend the planned coronation ceremony.
So This Happened (EP 384) reviews: PDP convention sparks division as some states boycott0:00 / 1:01
In a statement issued on Friday, Adeyemo emphasised that the 1999 Constitution remains the highest legal authority regarding political participation, regardless of chieftaincy status.
Referencing Section 1, he noted that the Constitution supersedes all other authorities, making any conflicting action invalid. He also cited Sections 65 and 106, which guarantee eligible citizens the right to contest elections, while pointing out that Sections 66 and 107 clearly list the only disqualification criteria—none of which relate to chieftaincy status or expectations.
“Any attempt to introduce additional disqualification criteria outside the Constitution is legally untenable,” Adeyemo stated.
He further addressed the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters, asserting that it does not have the constitutional power to limit political rights or enforce customary expectations as binding legal rules. According to him, any such action would be ultra vires, unconstitutional, and open to judicial challenge.
Drawing a distinction, Adeyemo explained that being eligible for a traditional stool does not amount to a legal obligation.
“Individuals who are merely eligible or nominated for a throne retain full political rights. Only those who have been formally installed as traditional rulers may be subject to expectations of political neutrality,” he clarified.
To support his position, he cited historical examples where traditional status coexisted with political participation.
He referenced Oba Adesoji Aderemi, the Ooni of Ife, who served as Governor of the Western Region from 1960 to 1962 while retaining his traditional role, demonstrating that traditional authority does not prevent political involvement.
He also mentioned MKO Abiola, who held several chieftaincy titles yet contested and is widely believed to have won the 1993 presidential election.
Similarly, Nnamdi Azikiwe, he noted, held multiple traditional titles and still became Nigeria’s first President without constitutional hindrance.
In addition, Oba Adedotun Aremu Gbadebo was cited as an example of personal choice, having willingly accepted traditional rulership after a notable public service career.
Applying these arguments, Adeyemo maintained that Adewoyin, Alli, and Babalola still possess full constitutional rights to contest elections, engage in governance, and participate in political activities.
He described any effort to restrict these rights based on chieftaincy expectations as legally baseless, administratively improper, and unconstitutional.
The lawyer urged stakeholders in Oyo State to uphold constitutional provisions and avoid actions that could create unnecessary tension.
“Political disagreements must remain within lawful bounds, and misinterpretation of the law must not be used as a tool for conflict,” he warned.
Adeyemo concluded that the Constitution is clear on the matter.
“Chieftaincy expectations cannot be imposed as legal obligations. Political participation is a fundamental constitutional right, and any attempt to curtail it outside the provisions of the Constitution is null and void,” he said.
Quoting former United States 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 development.