In his “peaceful” manner of talking Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State has stirred a fresh debate over the role of traditional rulers in partisan politics after warning monarchs against openly identifying with political parties or candidates.

Makinde’s remarks, made in Eruwa during the first coronation anniversary of the Eleruwa of Eruwa, Oba Samuel AdegbolaAjobo Olurin I, have since attracted criticism from the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC), with the party accusing the governor of threatening traditional rulers and religious leaders over their interactions with opposition politicians.

Beyond the immediate political reactions, however, Makinde’scomments raise a broader and more fundamental question, Should traditional rulers in a constitutional democracy remain completely above partisan politics, or does political neutrality mean they can engage politicians from all sides without necessarily endorsing them?

The answer may lie somewhere between the two extremes. On the principle of neutrality, Makinde has a strong argument. On the manner and political context of his warning, however, his critics have grounds to ask questions.

Makinde’s central message was that traditional rulers should remain fathers to everyone and should not allow partisan political considerations to determine whom they receive or support. He warned that monarchs who choose to participate actively in partisan politics should be prepared to be treated as politicians.

Reports of the speech also carried a stronger version of the governor’s remarks, in which he warned that traditional rulers who entered partisan politics should expect political criticism, including being “abused” politically.

The distinction between these formulations is important. There is nothing particularly controversial about a governor arguing that traditional rulers should remain politically neutral. However, the language used to communicate that position matters, especially when it comes from a sitting governor addressing monarchs.

A traditional institution commands a different kind of authority from an elected political office. Therefore, even when a governor strongly disagrees with a monarch’s political conduct, there is a reasonable argument that such disagreements should be expressed with restraint.

At the heart of Makinde’s argument is a simple proposition, a traditional ruler should be a father to all. That principle has considerable merit. A monarch is not elected on the platform of a political party. His legitimacy is expected to transcend party affiliation. An APC supporter should be able to enter a palace without feeling that he is entering an APC political office. An APM supporter should equally be able to visit the same palace without feeling unwelcome. The same should apply to supporters of the Labour Party, ADC, PDP or any other political platform.

This is one of the reasons traditional institutions remain relevant in modern Nigerian society. Political parties come and go. Governors leave office. Presidents complete their tenure. Political alliances change. But traditional institutions are expected to endure.

For that reason, allowing the palace to become openly identified with one political camp could damage the very neutrality that gives it influence. Makinde is therefore not wrong simply because he has called for monarchs to stay away from partisan politics.

However, staying away from partisan politics is not necessarily the same thing as staying away from politicians. This is where the debate becomes more complicated. A traditional ruler cannot realistically separate the palace from politics altogether. Traditional rulers interact with governors, presidents, ministers, senators, members of the House of Representatives, local government chairmen, political parties and candidates. They receive government officials. They attend public ceremonies. They commission projects. They advocate for roads, hospitals, schools, security and other development projects.

Sometimes, those projects are initiated by governments controlled by political parties other than the party with which the monarch or his community may be perceived to sympathise. Would it be reasonable to expect the monarch to stay away? Probably not.

There is an important distinction between engagement and endorsement. Receiving a politician is not necessarily supporting that politician. Attending the commissioning of a public project is not necessarily campaigning for the political party in power. Praising a government’s successful intervention in a community is not automatically an endorsement of every candidate on that government’s platform.

However, openly mobilising voters for a candidate is different. Campaigning for a party is different. Using a palace or traditional title to canvass votes is different. The challenge, therefore, is to establish where engagement ends and partisanship begins.

Although Makinde did not name the Olubadan in the reported speech, some political observers have interpreted his comments as being directed at the Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja. That interpretation did not emerge in a vacuum. Oba Ladoja is not an ordinary traditional ruler with no political history. Before ascending the Olubadan throne, he was one of the most prominent politicians in Oyo State. He served as governor and senator and remained an influential political actor for decades.

He was also part of the political coalition that helped produce Makinde as governor in 2019. By the 2023 election, however, the political relationship had changed. Ladoja supported the APC governorship candidate, Teslim Folarin, while Makindesuccessfully sought re-election.

Consequently, virtually every political development involving the two men is now examined through the lens of their complicated political history. That is why Makinde’s warning was always likely to attract speculation about the Olubadan. But speculation should not be presented as fact.

Unless Makinde specifically identifies the Olubadan as his target, it would be “irresponsible” to state categorically that the warning was directed at Oba Ladoja. The more defensible argument is that the Olubadan’s unique political history makes him one of the monarchs most likely to be examined against the governor’s new standard.

The question became particularly relevant after Oba Ladoja’sinteractions with political leaders and his reported comments about President Bola Tinubu. Recent political commentary has questioned whether some of the Olubadan’s public engagements and comments could be interpreted as political alignment.

However, there is another side to the argument. The Olubadan’spalace has maintained that the traditional institution can receive political leaders from different parties without becoming partisan. That position is important. If a traditional ruler is expected to be a father to everyone, then he should be able to receive everyone.

The palace cannot be open only to politicians from the governor’s party. Nor should it be open only to opposition politicians. Neutrality should mean equal access, not isolation. One of the incidents that intensified the debate was the Olubadan’s attendance at the flag-off of the Ibadan-Ijebu-Ode road project.

The controversy partly arose because the Olubadan attended the event while Governor Makinde was absent, despite the project being located in a region over which he exercises political authority as governor. Makinde’s supporters criticised the circumstances and questioned the Olubadan’s involvement. Some argued that the monarch’s participation gave the impression of political alignment with the Federal Government and the APC.

However, supporters of the Olubadan offered a different interpretation. They argued that a major road project affecting Ibadan residents should not become a political hostage. If the Federal Government is executing a project that will benefit the people of Ibadan, why should the city’s traditional ruler refuse to attend because the state governor was absent?

That argument is difficult to dismiss. A traditional ruler’s primary responsibility should include advocating for the welfare of his people. If political neutrality means refusing to interact with governments controlled by another party, traditional rulers could find themselves unable to perform some of their most important community responsibilities.

The APC has seized on the governor’s remarks to accuse him of overreaching. The party’s argument is that Makinde should not threaten or intimidate traditional rulers and religious leaders because they receive APC politicians or engage with opposition leaders. That criticism deserves examination. If a monarch is merely receiving an APC candidate, there is insufficient basis to conclude that the monarch has become an APC partisan. Similarly, if a monarch receives a PDP candidate, that does not automatically make him a PDP supporter.

The same standard must apply to Makinde’s own political engagements with traditional rulers. If the governor visits a palace, receives a traditional title or attends a royal ceremony, nobody should automatically conclude that the monarch has joined the governor’s political camp.

The political class must therefore be careful not to turn ordinary traditional diplomacy into evidence of partisan allegiance. The APC’s criticism of Makinde, however, cannot simply be dismissed because it comes from an opposition party. The party should be allowed to challenge the governor’s language and intentions.

However, if APC leaders genuinely believe traditional rulers should have complete freedom to participate in partisan politics, then they should make that position clear. If they believe monarchs should remain neutral, then the disagreement should be about how Makinde is applying and communicating the principle. This is because calls for political neutrality did not begin with Makinde.

In April 2026, the Balogun of Ibadanland, Oba TajudeenAjibola, reportedly urged the Olubadan to remain above partisan politics and serve as a father to politicians regardless of their political affiliations. That is significant because it demonstrates that the concern about partisan politics and traditional rulers exists independently of Makinde.

The debate is therefore bigger than the governor’s relationship with the Olubadan. There is, however, an unavoidable complication. Makinde is not an apolitical figure. He is a sitting governor and a major political actor with ambitions beyond Oyo State. His political activities ahead of 2027 mean that every statement he makes about political neutrality will naturally be subjected to political scrutiny.

That does not make his argument invalid. A politician can make a correct argument. However, it means the governor must understand why his opponents may question the motive behind the warning. The APC and other opposition figures can reasonably ask whether Makinde would make the same argument if a traditional ruler were openly supporting him. That is an important test.

Political neutrality becomes credible only when the person demanding it is prepared to apply it even when it is politically inconvenient. This may be the most important issue in the controversy. If traditional rulers should stay away from partisan politics, then the rule must apply to everybody.

A monarch should not openly campaign for Tinubu. He should not openly campaign for Makinde. He should not campaign for an APC governorship candidate. He should not campaign for a APM candidate. He should not turn a palace into a campaign headquarters for the ADC, PDP or any other party. The rule must be consistent.

Otherwise, what is being defended is not political neutrality but political convenience. That is where Makinde and every other political actor must be careful. Another important distinction is often missing from this debate. Traditional rulers do not suddenly stop having personal opinions because they ascend a throne.

A monarch may have personal political preferences. He may privately support a candidate. He may have voted for a party. Those personal choices are difficult, and perhaps impossible, to eliminate. The concern should therefore be about whether the monarch uses the authority of the traditional stool to advance that political preference.

There is a difference between saying, “I personally support Candidate A,” and saying, “As your traditional ruler, I am asking everyone in my community to vote for Candidate A.” The first concerns personal political preference. The second potentially transforms the traditional institution into a political instrument. That is the line that should concern policymakers, traditional councils and political parties.

Nigeria’s political class also bears responsibility for this problem. Politicians frequently seek royal endorsements because they understand the influence traditional rulers wield. Candidates visit palaces. They seek prayers. They request endorsements. They confer titles. They make donations. They use photographs with monarchs in campaign materials.

Sometimes the traditional ruler may not even have explicitly endorsed the candidate, but the politician’s use of the photograph creates that impression. This is another area that requires restraint. Politicians should not deliberately drag monarchs into campaign politics and then accuse them of partisanship when they become politically exposed.

Likewise, monarchs should be careful about allowing their platforms or titles to be used for partisan mobilisation. There is also an irony in Makinde’s warning. Makinde delivered his warning at a ceremony at which he himself was honoured with a traditional title. He was installed as the Aare Asoludero of Ibarapaland, while his wife, Tamunominini Makinde, received the title Yeye Asoludero of Ibarapaland.

That does not make his argument hypocritical. Traditional titles and political neutrality are not necessarily contradictory.However, the scene perfectly illustrates how closely Nigerian politics and traditional institutions are intertwined.

Politicians seek the respect and legitimacy associated with traditional institutions. Monarchs, in turn, need government cooperation for development and security. The two cannot be completely separated.

The objective should therefore not be to create an impossible wall between politicians and monarchs. It should be to establish boundaries.

A useful test could be developed around three questions. Is the monarch merely receiving or engaging a political actor? If yes, that should ordinarily be regarded as part of traditional diplomacy. Is the monarch publicly endorsing a party or candidate? If yes, concerns about partisanship become more legitimate.

Is the monarch using the traditional institution, palace machinery or community authority to mobilise votes? If yes, the argument that the monarch has crossed into partisan politics becomes significantly stronger. This framework would be more useful than simply declaring that kings should “stay away from politics.”

Politics is already embedded in governance. A monarch who advocates for roads, schools, hospitals or security is inevitably engaging government. The issue is whether that engagement is transformed into electoral campaigning. The reason this debate matters goes beyond Makinde and Ladoja.

A traditional palace should ideally be one of the few places where political opponents can meet without hostility. A governor should be able to meet an opposition politician at a palace. An APC candidate should be able to visit. A PDP candidate should be able to visit. An ADC candidate should be able to visit.

The monarch should be able to listen to everyone without becoming the campaign agent of anyone. That is where the traditional institution’s strength lies. Once citizens begin to see a palace as belonging to a political party, its ability to mediate community disputes and unite opposing interests becomes weaker.

And once that neutrality is lost, rebuilding it may be difficult. So, is Seyi Makinde wrong?On the principle, no. Makinde is not wrong to argue that traditional rulers should avoid partisan politics. There are strong reasons to preserve the political neutrality of traditional institutions. However, the manner in which the warning was delivered, the timing and the political circumstances surrounding it deserve scrutiny.

The governor should not allow a legitimate principle to become entangled with an apparent political dispute involving the Olubadan. And his critics should equally avoid assuming that every interaction between a monarch and an opposition politician constitutes partisan activity.

The Olubadan should not be declared partisan merely because he receives APC figures. Makinde should not be accused of targeting Ladoja merely because his warning came amid public debate over the Olubadan’s political engagements. Both claims require evidence. Reducing the matter to a personal disagreement between Makinde and Ladoja would therefore be a mistake.

The more important question is what should be the proper role of traditional rulers in Nigeria’s democratic system. Should they be completely apolitical? Should they be allowed to express personal political preferences? Should they receive politicians from all parties? Should they attend government events regardless of the political party in power? Should they be permitted to publicly endorse candidates? Should politicians be allowed to use royal photographs and endorsements during campaigns?

These are questions that deserve answers beyond the current political season. The timing of the controversy cannot also be ignored. Nigeria is moving towards another major election cycle. In Oyo State, political actors are already positioning themselves. The relationship between the Government House, traditional institutions and opposition politicians will therefore continue to attract attention. Every palace visit will potentially be interpreted politically. Every photograph will be analysed. Every statement by a monarch will be examined for hidden political meaning. That makes it even more important for traditional rulers to exercise caution.

It also makes it more important for politicians to resist the temptation to weaponise the traditional institution. Rather than trading accusations, Oyo State could use the controversy to establish a clearer convention.

Traditional rulers should be free to receive politicians from all parties, engage federal, state and local governments, advocate for development projects, attend public functions and promote peace and security. However, they should exercise restraint in endorsing political parties, campaigning for candidates, mobilising votes, allowing palaces to become campaign headquarters, using traditional titles to confer political legitimacy on candidates and allowing their official positions to be presented as endorsements of political parties.

At the same time, political leaders should respect the independence and dignity of traditional institutions. Governors should not expect monarchs to become political allies simply because they control the state machinery. Opposition parties should equally not expect monarchs to become their political surrogates. Governor Seyi Makinde has raised a legitimate question.

Traditional rulers should, as much as possible, remain above partisan politics because their authority is supposed to unite communities rather than divide them. However, political neutrality should not be confused with political isolation.

A king can receive an APC politician without becoming an APC member. A monarch can receive a PDP politician without becoming a PDP supporter. An Olubadan can attend a Federal Government project without automatically becoming an opponent of the Oyo State Government. And a governor can criticise partisan conduct by traditional rulers without necessarily targeting a particular monarch.

The ultimate test should be consistency. If Makinde’s position is that traditional rulers must remain neutral, then that standard should apply whether a monarch supports APC, PDP, ADC, APM or the governor’s own political camp. If the APC’s position is that monarchs should be free to engage politicians, then that freedom should equally protect monarchs who engage Makinde and his allies.

The traditional institution should not become a battlefield for 2027. The election will come. Candidates will win and lose. Political alliances will change. Governors and presidents will eventually leave office. However, the traditional institutions will remain. That is precisely why the palace should be protected from the temporary passions of partisan politics.

Makinde may therefore be right on the principle, but he must prove that the principle is universal rather than politically convenient. His critics must equally distinguish between a monarch receiving politicians and a monarch campaigning for them. That is the line Oyo State should be debating, not simply whether the governor was talking about the Olubadan.

In his “peaceful” manner of talking Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State has stirred a fresh debate over the role of traditional rulers in partisan politics after warning monarchs against openly identifying with political parties or candidates.

Makinde’s remarks, made in Eruwa during the first coronation anniversary of the Eleruwa of Eruwa, Oba Samuel AdegbolaAjobo Olurin I, have since attracted criticism from the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC), with the party accusing the governor of threatening traditional rulers and religious leaders over their interactions with opposition politicians.

Beyond the immediate political reactions, however, Makinde’scomments raise a broader and more fundamental question, Should traditional rulers in a constitutional democracy remain completely above partisan politics, or does political neutrality mean they can engage politicians from all sides without necessarily endorsing them?

The answer may lie somewhere between the two extremes. On the principle of neutrality, Makinde has a strong argument. On the manner and political context of his warning, however, his critics have grounds to ask questions.

Makinde’s central message was that traditional rulers should remain fathers to everyone and should not allow partisan political considerations to determine whom they receive or support. He warned that monarchs who choose to participate actively in partisan politics should be prepared to be treated as politicians.

Reports of the speech also carried a stronger version of the governor’s remarks, in which he warned that traditional rulers who entered partisan politics should expect political criticism, including being “abused” politically.

The distinction between these formulations is important. There is nothing particularly controversial about a governor arguing that traditional rulers should remain politically neutral. However, the language used to communicate that position matters, especially when it comes from a sitting governor addressing monarchs.

A traditional institution commands a different kind of authority from an elected political office. Therefore, even when a governor strongly disagrees with a monarch’s political conduct, there is a reasonable argument that such disagreements should be expressed with restraint.

At the heart of Makinde’s argument is a simple proposition, a traditional ruler should be a father to all. That principle has considerable merit. A monarch is not elected on the platform of a political party. His legitimacy is expected to transcend party affiliation. An APC supporter should be able to enter a palace without feeling that he is entering an APC political office. An APM supporter should equally be able to visit the same palace without feeling unwelcome. The same should apply to supporters of the Labour Party, ADC, PDP or any other political platform.

This is one of the reasons traditional institutions remain relevant in modern Nigerian society. Political parties come and go. Governors leave office. Presidents complete their tenure. Political alliances change. But traditional institutions are expected to endure.

For that reason, allowing the palace to become openly identified with one political camp could damage the very neutrality that gives it influence. Makinde is therefore not wrong simply because he has called for monarchs to stay away from partisan politics.

However, staying away from partisan politics is not necessarily the same thing as staying away from politicians. This is where the debate becomes more complicated. A traditional ruler cannot realistically separate the palace from politics altogether. Traditional rulers interact with governors, presidents, ministers, senators, members of the House of Representatives, local government chairmen, political parties and candidates. They receive government officials. They attend public ceremonies. They commission projects. They advocate for roads, hospitals, schools, security and other development projects.

Sometimes, those projects are initiated by governments controlled by political parties other than the party with which the monarch or his community may be perceived to sympathise. Would it be reasonable to expect the monarch to stay away? Probably not.

There is an important distinction between engagement and endorsement. Receiving a politician is not necessarily supporting that politician. Attending the commissioning of a public project is not necessarily campaigning for the political party in power. Praising a government’s successful intervention in a community is not automatically an endorsement of every candidate on that government’s platform.

However, openly mobilising voters for a candidate is different. Campaigning for a party is different. Using a palace or traditional title to canvass votes is different. The challenge, therefore, is to establish where engagement ends and partisanship begins.

Although Makinde did not name the Olubadan in the reported speech, some political observers have interpreted his comments as being directed at the Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja. That interpretation did not emerge in a vacuum. Oba Ladoja is not an ordinary traditional ruler with no political history. Before ascending the Olubadan throne, he was one of the most prominent politicians in Oyo State. He served as governor and senator and remained an influential political actor for decades.

He was also part of the political coalition that helped produce Makinde as governor in 2019. By the 2023 election, however, the political relationship had changed. Ladoja supported the APC governorship candidate, Teslim Folarin, while Makindesuccessfully sought re-election.

Consequently, virtually every political development involving the two men is now examined through the lens of their complicated political history. That is why Makinde’s warning was always likely to attract speculation about the Olubadan. But speculation should not be presented as fact.

Unless Makinde specifically identifies the Olubadan as his target, it would be “irresponsible” to state categorically that the warning was directed at Oba Ladoja. The more defensible argument is that the Olubadan’s unique political history makes him one of the monarchs most likely to be examined against the governor’s new standard.

The question became particularly relevant after Oba Ladoja’sinteractions with political leaders and his reported comments about President Bola Tinubu. Recent political commentary has questioned whether some of the Olubadan’s public engagements and comments could be interpreted as political alignment.

However, there is another side to the argument. The Olubadan’spalace has maintained that the traditional institution can receive political leaders from different parties without becoming partisan. That position is important. If a traditional ruler is expected to be a father to everyone, then he should be able to receive everyone.

The palace cannot be open only to politicians from the governor’s party. Nor should it be open only to opposition politicians. Neutrality should mean equal access, not isolation. One of the incidents that intensified the debate was the Olubadan’s attendance at the flag-off of the Ibadan-Ijebu-Ode road project.

The controversy partly arose because the Olubadan attended the event while Governor Makinde was absent, despite the project being located in a region over which he exercises political authority as governor. Makinde’s supporters criticised the circumstances and questioned the Olubadan’s involvement. Some argued that the monarch’s participation gave the impression of political alignment with the Federal Government and the APC.

However, supporters of the Olubadan offered a different interpretation. They argued that a major road project affecting Ibadan residents should not become a political hostage. If the Federal Government is executing a project that will benefit the people of Ibadan, why should the city’s traditional ruler refuse to attend because the state governor was absent?

That argument is difficult to dismiss. A traditional ruler’s primary responsibility should include advocating for the welfare of his people. If political neutrality means refusing to interact with governments controlled by another party, traditional rulers could find themselves unable to perform some of their most important community responsibilities.

The APC has seized on the governor’s remarks to accuse him of overreaching. The party’s argument is that Makinde should not threaten or intimidate traditional rulers and religious leaders because they receive APC politicians or engage with opposition leaders. That criticism deserves examination. If a monarch is merely receiving an APC candidate, there is insufficient basis to conclude that the monarch has become an APC partisan. Similarly, if a monarch receives a PDP candidate, that does not automatically make him a PDP supporter.

The same standard must apply to Makinde’s own political engagements with traditional rulers. If the governor visits a palace, receives a traditional title or attends a royal ceremony, nobody should automatically conclude that the monarch has joined the governor’s political camp.

The political class must therefore be careful not to turn ordinary traditional diplomacy into evidence of partisan allegiance. The APC’s criticism of Makinde, however, cannot simply be dismissed because it comes from an opposition party. The party should be allowed to challenge the governor’s language and intentions.

However, if APC leaders genuinely believe traditional rulers should have complete freedom to participate in partisan politics, then they should make that position clear. If they believe monarchs should remain neutral, then the disagreement should be about how Makinde is applying and communicating the principle. This is because calls for political neutrality did not begin with Makinde.

In April 2026, the Balogun of Ibadanland, Oba TajudeenAjibola, reportedly urged the Olubadan to remain above partisan politics and serve as a father to politicians regardless of their political affiliations. That is significant because it demonstrates that the concern about partisan politics and traditional rulers exists independently of Makinde.

The debate is therefore bigger than the governor’s relationship with the Olubadan. There is, however, an unavoidable complication. Makinde is not an apolitical figure. He is a sitting governor and a major political actor with ambitions beyond Oyo State. His political activities ahead of 2027 mean that every statement he makes about political neutrality will naturally be subjected to political scrutiny.

That does not make his argument invalid. A politician can make a correct argument. However, it means the governor must understand why his opponents may question the motive behind the warning. The APC and other opposition figures can reasonably ask whether Makinde would make the same argument if a traditional ruler were openly supporting him. That is an important test.

Political neutrality becomes credible only when the person demanding it is prepared to apply it even when it is politically inconvenient. This may be the most important issue in the controversy. If traditional rulers should stay away from partisan politics, then the rule must apply to everybody.

A monarch should not openly campaign for Tinubu. He should not openly campaign for Makinde. He should not campaign for an APC governorship candidate. He should not campaign for a APM candidate. He should not turn a palace into a campaign headquarters for the ADC, PDP or any other party. The rule must be consistent.

Otherwise, what is being defended is not political neutrality but political convenience. That is where Makinde and every other political actor must be careful. Another important distinction is often missing from this debate. Traditional rulers do not suddenly stop having personal opinions because they ascend a throne.

A monarch may have personal political preferences. He may privately support a candidate. He may have voted for a party. Those personal choices are difficult, and perhaps impossible, to eliminate. The concern should therefore be about whether the monarch uses the authority of the traditional stool to advance that political preference.

There is a difference between saying, “I personally support Candidate A,” and saying, “As your traditional ruler, I am asking everyone in my community to vote for Candidate A.” The first concerns personal political preference. The second potentially transforms the traditional institution into a political instrument. That is the line that should concern policymakers, traditional councils and political parties.

Nigeria’s political class also bears responsibility for this problem. Politicians frequently seek royal endorsements because they understand the influence traditional rulers wield. Candidates visit palaces. They seek prayers. They request endorsements. They confer titles. They make donations. They use photographs with monarchs in campaign materials.

Sometimes the traditional ruler may not even have explicitly endorsed the candidate, but the politician’s use of the photograph creates that impression. This is another area that requires restraint. Politicians should not deliberately drag monarchs into campaign politics and then accuse them of partisanship when they become politically exposed.

Likewise, monarchs should be careful about allowing their platforms or titles to be used for partisan mobilisation. There is also an irony in Makinde’s warning. Makinde delivered his warning at a ceremony at which he himself was honoured with a traditional title. He was installed as the Aare Asoludero of Ibarapaland, while his wife, Tamunominini Makinde, received the title Yeye Asoludero of Ibarapaland.

That does not make his argument hypocritical. Traditional titles and political neutrality are not necessarily contradictory.However, the scene perfectly illustrates how closely Nigerian politics and traditional institutions are intertwined.

Politicians seek the respect and legitimacy associated with traditional institutions. Monarchs, in turn, need government cooperation for development and security. The two cannot be completely separated.

The objective should therefore not be to create an impossible wall between politicians and monarchs. It should be to establish boundaries.

A useful test could be developed around three questions. Is the monarch merely receiving or engaging a political actor? If yes, that should ordinarily be regarded as part of traditional diplomacy. Is the monarch publicly endorsing a party or candidate? If yes, concerns about partisanship become more legitimate.

Is the monarch using the traditional institution, palace machinery or community authority to mobilise votes? If yes, the argument that the monarch has crossed into partisan politics becomes significantly stronger. This framework would be more useful than simply declaring that kings should “stay away from politics.”

Politics is already embedded in governance. A monarch who advocates for roads, schools, hospitals or security is inevitably engaging government. The issue is whether that engagement is transformed into electoral campaigning. The reason this debate matters goes beyond Makinde and Ladoja.

A traditional palace should ideally be one of the few places where political opponents can meet without hostility. A governor should be able to meet an opposition politician at a palace. An APC candidate should be able to visit. A PDP candidate should be able to visit. An ADC candidate should be able to visit.

The monarch should be able to listen to everyone without becoming the campaign agent of anyone. That is where the traditional institution’s strength lies. Once citizens begin to see a palace as belonging to a political party, its ability to mediate community disputes and unite opposing interests becomes weaker.

And once that neutrality is lost, rebuilding it may be difficult. So, is Seyi Makinde wrong?On the principle, no. Makinde is not wrong to argue that traditional rulers should avoid partisan politics. There are strong reasons to preserve the political neutrality of traditional institutions. However, the manner in which the warning was delivered, the timing and the political circumstances surrounding it deserve scrutiny.

The governor should not allow a legitimate principle to become entangled with an apparent political dispute involving the Olubadan. And his critics should equally avoid assuming that every interaction between a monarch and an opposition politician constitutes partisan activity.

The Olubadan should not be declared partisan merely because he receives APC figures. Makinde should not be accused of targeting Ladoja merely because his warning came amid public debate over the Olubadan’s political engagements. Both claims require evidence. Reducing the matter to a personal disagreement between Makinde and Ladoja would therefore be a mistake.

The more important question is what should be the proper role of traditional rulers in Nigeria’s democratic system. Should they be completely apolitical? Should they be allowed to express personal political preferences? Should they receive politicians from all parties? Should they attend government events regardless of the political party in power? Should they be permitted to publicly endorse candidates? Should politicians be allowed to use royal photographs and endorsements during campaigns?

These are questions that deserve answers beyond the current political season. The timing of the controversy cannot also be ignored. Nigeria is moving towards another major election cycle. In Oyo State, political actors are already positioning themselves. The relationship between the Government House, traditional institutions and opposition politicians will therefore continue to attract attention. Every palace visit will potentially be interpreted politically. Every photograph will be analysed. Every statement by a monarch will be examined for hidden political meaning. That makes it even more important for traditional rulers to exercise caution.

It also makes it more important for politicians to resist the temptation to weaponise the traditional institution. Rather than trading accusations, Oyo State could use the controversy to establish a clearer convention.

Traditional rulers should be free to receive politicians from all parties, engage federal, state and local governments, advocate for development projects, attend public functions and promote peace and security. However, they should exercise restraint in endorsing political parties, campaigning for candidates, mobilising votes, allowing palaces to become campaign headquarters, using traditional titles to confer political legitimacy on candidates and allowing their official positions to be presented as endorsements of political parties.

At the same time, political leaders should respect the independence and dignity of traditional institutions. Governors should not expect monarchs to become political allies simply because they control the state machinery. Opposition parties should equally not expect monarchs to become their political surrogates. Governor Seyi Makinde has raised a legitimate question.

Traditional rulers should, as much as possible, remain above partisan politics because their authority is supposed to unite communities rather than divide them. However, political neutrality should not be confused with political isolation.

A king can receive an APC politician without becoming an APC member. A monarch can receive a PDP politician without becoming a PDP supporter. An Olubadan can attend a Federal Government project without automatically becoming an opponent of the Oyo State Government. And a governor can criticise partisan conduct by traditional rulers without necessarily targeting a particular monarch.

The ultimate test should be consistency. If Makinde’s position is that traditional rulers must remain neutral, then that standard should apply whether a monarch supports APC, PDP, ADC, APM or the governor’s own political camp. If the APC’s position is that monarchs should be free to engage politicians, then that freedom should equally protect monarchs who engage Makinde and his allies.

The traditional institution should not become a battlefield for 2027. The election will come. Candidates will win and lose. Political alliances will change. Governors and presidents will eventually leave office. However, the traditional institutions will remain. That is precisely why the palace should be protected from the temporary passions of partisan politics.

Makinde may therefore be right on the principle, but he must prove that the principle is universal rather than politically convenient. His critics must equally distinguish between a monarch receiving politicians and a monarch campaigning for them. That is the line Oyo State should be debating, not simply whether the governor was talking about the Olubadan.