The emergence of the Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja, as chairman of the Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs has placed him at the centre of one of the most delicate traditional questions in Yorubaland, how to manage power, history and pride among monarchs whose relationships have been shaped by centuries of rivalry, migration, war, colonial restructuring and modern politics. The crisis of unity among Yoruba kings in Oyo State did not begin today; it is rooted in the collapse of the Old Oyo Empire in the early 19th century, the rise of Ibadan and Ogbomoso as military and political powers, and the later attempts by colonial and post-colonial governments to codify hierarchy through laws. Any meaningful reconciliation effort by the Olubadan must therefore start from a deep appreciation of history, not mere administrative authority.

Historically, the Alaafin of Oyo occupied a central position as the political and spiritual head of the Oyo Empire, exercising authority over vast territories and subordinate towns. This historical supremacy was later reflected in modern chieftaincy laws that made the Alaafin the permanent chairman of the Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs. However, this arrangement consistently generated resistance, particularly from Ibadan and Ogbomoso, whose rise came after the fall of Old Oyo. Ibadan, founded by warlords and refugees, evolved into the dominant military power of the 19th century, while Ogbomoso, under strong leadership, became a major regional force. Their monarchs the Olubadan and the Soun of Ogbomosoland have long argued that permanent chairmanship for the Alaafin ignores historical shifts and the realities of modern Oyo State. This disagreement hardened into open political and legal battles, with Ibadan and Ogbomoso elites repeatedly rejecting any attempt to restore permanent leadership to Oyo, seeing it as symbolic subjugation rather than tradition.

The recent adoption of a rotational chairmanship system by the Oyo State House of Assembly was meant to resolve this long-standing impasse, but instead it has exposed deeper fractures. The Alaafin’s rejection of the process, including his public denial that he consented to rotation and his absence at the inauguration, signals that reconciliation cannot be achieved by legislation alone. Added to this is the often-overlooked tension involving other powerful monarchs, especially the Olugbon of Orile-Igbon, whose historical rivalry with Ogbomoso and uneasy relationship with the Soun has lingered for decades. These conflicts are not merely personal; they are rooted in boundary disputes, claims of seniority, war histories, and perceived marginalisation within the traditional council structure.

Now, for the Olubadan, a former Governor of the state to succeed as chairman, he must first position himself not as a victor of the rotational arrangement but as a neutral custodian of collective Yoruba heritage. His first critical task is to deliberately and publicly recognise the historical weight of the Alaafin’s throne. Reconciliation cannot thrive where one party feels its legacy is being erased. The Olubadan must repeatedly affirm, in words and actions, that the Alaafin remains the symbolic heir of the Old Oyo Empire, even if modern governance now requires shared leadership. This acknowledgment is essential to reducing the perception that rotation is an attempt to dethrone Oyo culturally, rather than an effort to balance authority in a modern state.

Beyond symbolism, the Olubadan must initiate structured, face-to-face dialogue among all first-class monarchs, not limited to the Alaafin, Soun and Olugbon. These engagements should go beyond ceremonial meetings and confront hard issues: chairmanship, meeting protocols, order of precedence, representation on committees, and how disputes are resolved within the council. Yoruba traditional politics thrives on consultation (ìmọ̀ràn) and consensus (àjọṣe), and without these, the council risks becoming a battlefield of silent resentment. The Olubadan’s strength here lies in Ibadan’s historical role as a mediator, a city that absorbed diverse groups and thrived on negotiation rather than inherited supremacy.

Equally important is the need to institutionalise fairness, not just promise it. Rotation must be reflected in practical governance: where meetings are held, who controls the council’s secretariat, how decisions are communicated, and how often each monarch’s domain hosts council activities. If rotation exists only in name while power remains concentrated, suspicion will persist. By ensuring that Ibadan, Oyo, Ogbomoso, Orile-Igbon and other traditional centres visibly share responsibility, the Olubadan can transform the council from a symbol of rivalry into an instrument of collective leadership.

Even more, the Olubadan must also be conscious of the role of politics and government interference in fuelling traditional conflicts. Many of the recent disputes among Yoruba kings have been exacerbated by state actors who exploit divisions for political convenience. As chairman, the Olubadan must maintain a careful balance, working with the governor and legislature while defending the autonomy and dignity of the traditional institution. This includes insisting that future amendments to chieftaincy laws involve broad consultation with monarchs, so reforms are not seen as impositions from outside.

Finally, reconciliation must extend beyond palace walls. The Olubadan should champion joint cultural and developmental initiatives that force cooperation rather than competition. When monarchs jointly endorse cultural festivals, youth programmes, peace initiatives or heritage preservation projects, unity becomes visible and meaningful to the people. Over time, shared achievements can soften entrenched rivalries far more effectively than declarations or laws.

In the end, the Olubadan’s greatest challenge and opportunity lies in transforming the chairmanship from a contested seat into a moral authority. If he leads with humility, historical sensitivity and deliberate inclusiveness, he can gradually de-escalate decades of mistrust among Yoruba kings in Oyo State. 

However, if reconciliation is treated as a political win rather than a cultural duty, the rotational system may only deepen divisions. The future of traditional unity in Oyo State now rests on whether the Olubadan chooses to rule as a chairman or as a bridge.

Ogungbile Emmanuel Oludotun

The emergence of the Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja, as chairman of the Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs has placed him at the centre of one of the most delicate traditional questions in Yorubaland, how to manage power, history and pride among monarchs whose relationships have been shaped by centuries of rivalry, migration, war, colonial restructuring and modern politics. The crisis of unity among Yoruba kings in Oyo State did not begin today; it is rooted in the collapse of the Old Oyo Empire in the early 19th century, the rise of Ibadan and Ogbomoso as military and political powers, and the later attempts by colonial and post-colonial governments to codify hierarchy through laws. Any meaningful reconciliation effort by the Olubadan must therefore start from a deep appreciation of history, not mere administrative authority.

Historically, the Alaafin of Oyo occupied a central position as the political and spiritual head of the Oyo Empire, exercising authority over vast territories and subordinate towns. This historical supremacy was later reflected in modern chieftaincy laws that made the Alaafin the permanent chairman of the Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs. However, this arrangement consistently generated resistance, particularly from Ibadan and Ogbomoso, whose rise came after the fall of Old Oyo. Ibadan, founded by warlords and refugees, evolved into the dominant military power of the 19th century, while Ogbomoso, under strong leadership, became a major regional force. Their monarchs the Olubadan and the Soun of Ogbomosoland have long argued that permanent chairmanship for the Alaafin ignores historical shifts and the realities of modern Oyo State. This disagreement hardened into open political and legal battles, with Ibadan and Ogbomoso elites repeatedly rejecting any attempt to restore permanent leadership to Oyo, seeing it as symbolic subjugation rather than tradition.

The recent adoption of a rotational chairmanship system by the Oyo State House of Assembly was meant to resolve this long-standing impasse, but instead it has exposed deeper fractures. The Alaafin’s rejection of the process, including his public denial that he consented to rotation and his absence at the inauguration, signals that reconciliation cannot be achieved by legislation alone. Added to this is the often-overlooked tension involving other powerful monarchs, especially the Olugbon of Orile-Igbon, whose historical rivalry with Ogbomoso and uneasy relationship with the Soun has lingered for decades. These conflicts are not merely personal; they are rooted in boundary disputes, claims of seniority, war histories, and perceived marginalisation within the traditional council structure.

Now, for the Olubadan, a former Governor of the state to succeed as chairman, he must first position himself not as a victor of the rotational arrangement but as a neutral custodian of collective Yoruba heritage. His first critical task is to deliberately and publicly recognise the historical weight of the Alaafin’s throne. Reconciliation cannot thrive where one party feels its legacy is being erased. The Olubadan must repeatedly affirm, in words and actions, that the Alaafin remains the symbolic heir of the Old Oyo Empire, even if modern governance now requires shared leadership. This acknowledgment is essential to reducing the perception that rotation is an attempt to dethrone Oyo culturally, rather than an effort to balance authority in a modern state.

Beyond symbolism, the Olubadan must initiate structured, face-to-face dialogue among all first-class monarchs, not limited to the Alaafin, Soun and Olugbon. These engagements should go beyond ceremonial meetings and confront hard issues: chairmanship, meeting protocols, order of precedence, representation on committees, and how disputes are resolved within the council. Yoruba traditional politics thrives on consultation (ìmọ̀ràn) and consensus (àjọṣe), and without these, the council risks becoming a battlefield of silent resentment. The Olubadan’s strength here lies in Ibadan’s historical role as a mediator, a city that absorbed diverse groups and thrived on negotiation rather than inherited supremacy.

Equally important is the need to institutionalise fairness, not just promise it. Rotation must be reflected in practical governance: where meetings are held, who controls the council’s secretariat, how decisions are communicated, and how often each monarch’s domain hosts council activities. If rotation exists only in name while power remains concentrated, suspicion will persist. By ensuring that Ibadan, Oyo, Ogbomoso, Orile-Igbon and other traditional centres visibly share responsibility, the Olubadan can transform the council from a symbol of rivalry into an instrument of collective leadership.

Even more, the Olubadan must also be conscious of the role of politics and government interference in fuelling traditional conflicts. Many of the recent disputes among Yoruba kings have been exacerbated by state actors who exploit divisions for political convenience. As chairman, the Olubadan must maintain a careful balance, working with the governor and legislature while defending the autonomy and dignity of the traditional institution. This includes insisting that future amendments to chieftaincy laws involve broad consultation with monarchs, so reforms are not seen as impositions from outside.

Finally, reconciliation must extend beyond palace walls. The Olubadan should champion joint cultural and developmental initiatives that force cooperation rather than competition. When monarchs jointly endorse cultural festivals, youth programmes, peace initiatives or heritage preservation projects, unity becomes visible and meaningful to the people. Over time, shared achievements can soften entrenched rivalries far more effectively than declarations or laws.

In the end, the Olubadan’s greatest challenge and opportunity lies in transforming the chairmanship from a contested seat into a moral authority. If he leads with humility, historical sensitivity and deliberate inclusiveness, he can gradually de-escalate decades of mistrust among Yoruba kings in Oyo State. 

However, if reconciliation is treated as a political win rather than a cultural duty, the rotational system may only deepen divisions. The future of traditional unity in Oyo State now rests on whether the Olubadan chooses to rule as a chairman or as a bridge.

Ogungbile Emmanuel Oludotun