For too long, the group known as Ifelodun ọmọ Igboho has sown seeds of discord in our beloved town, manipulating local dynamics in Oorelope Local Government under the guise of patriotism. Since its inception, this group has consistently aligned itself with one king—Alepata—for reasons visibly tied to personal and collective gain, not truth, justice, or historical accuracy.
They boldly assert that Alepata is the “prescribed authority” over Igboho. But we ask: Prescribed by whom? Over which territory? Under what law or declaration? These are not rhetorical questions—they demand answers backed by documentary evidence. Ifelodun must rise beyond social media declarations and make such documents public, allowing all of Igboho’s sons and daughters—home and abroad—to examine the facts.
If indeed Alepata has won a court case against Ọna Onibode as they claim, why then is Alepata still in court today? Why has he refused to appear in court for Ọna Onibode to present his side of the story? This selective silence weakens their claim and suggests a fear of public scrutiny.
Let us not be deceived by revisionist history. Ifelodun’s assertion that Alepata has been king of Igboho since the post-colonial era suggests a denial of Igboho’s existence in the pre-colonial and colonial periods. This is both historically inaccurate and deeply insulting to our ancestors and their legacy.
Alepata’s own inconsistency concerning his roots should raise eyebrows. One moment he identifies as Baruba (Ibariba), and the next as Ìjèsà. Which is it? A true monarch knows his lineage; confusion on this front is a red flag.
Let us also return to the chronicles of respected historian Rev. Samuel Johnson. When Alaafin returned to Oyo Ile (later Oyo Ọrọ), he was aided by a cadre of brave hunters. Alepata was not among the first three, nor was he listed among the top ranks of that heroic return. His current royal claims are built not on historical stature but on opportunism—acquired through influence and the strategic support of a faction we now call Ifelodun.
It is thus no surprise that this same group parades itself as a neutral body while only practicing eye service—appearing to support all while secretly working to undermine others.
Now, to the Evidence:
As promised, I present below colonial documents from the British administration that directly contradict the claims of Alepata’s supremacy:
In 1930, the District Officer (D.O.) officially documented the death of Ọna Onibode Jayeola—clearly identified as the “Head of Igboho Village.”
His successor, Òkè, was installed and assigned an annual salary of 12 pounds—an indication of state recognition under colonial governance.
In contrast, when Alepata Mustafa was installed in 1932, no such recognition was made in the colonial records.
The record simply notes the installation, with no reference to him being “head of village,” “chief of Igboho,” or having a salary.
What does this mean?
It means that Ọna Onibode was officially recognized by the colonial government as the administrative head of Igboho, while Alepata was not. If supremacy or prescribed authority is to be discussed, it must be based on who held formal recognition—not on propaganda.
This is no longer a matter of opinion or sentiment. It is a matter of recorded, documented history. Let the people of Igboho judge for themselves—based not on social media noise, but on the truths our ancestors and colonial records have left behind.
To Ifelodun and Alepata, we say again: If you are so confident in your claims, make all your documents public. We have done our part. Let history, law, and the truth lead us forward—not factional loyalty or distortion.
Ridwan Obafemi Jayeola
Igboho
Email: [email protected]
Add Comment