In recent days, conversations surrounding the Olubadan stool, the Oyo State Government, and political actors like Governor Seyi Makinde and Senator Sarafadeen Alli have intensified. Much of this discourse, however, has been driven less by verified facts and more by speculation, assumptions, and politically tinted interpretations.
At the center of the debate is the controversial installation of some Ibadan High Chiefs as beaded crown-wearing Obas, an event that proceeded despite their reported absence and request for postponement. This development has naturally generated reactions, particularly given the perceived political interest tied to emerging power dynamics within the state. Yet, even within this tension, one fact remains clear, there is no credible or official statement indicating that the Olubadan has endorsed or is rooting for any political aspirant.
What we are witnessing instead is the dangerous rise of narrative-building, where long-standing relationships are conveniently recast as political alliances, and silence is interpreted as consent. In Yoruba culture and indeed within the Ibadan traditional system, relationships between political leaders and traditional institutions are neither new nor unusual. They are part of a long history of coexistence, consultation, and mutual recognition.
The Olubadan institution itself is not a fleeting creation; it is a deeply structured and time-honoured system, built on a unique succession process that emphasizes order, patience, and continuity. To drag such an institution into the turbulence of partisan politics, especially without evidence, is not only careless, it is disrespectful.
Equally concerning is the growing tendency for individuals to hide behind the phrase “Kabiyesi so pe” (the king has said), even when no such statement exists. This culture of attributing unverified positions to the throne risks eroding public trust and undermining the dignity of the institution itself.
As observers, commentators, and stakeholders in the Ibadan project, there is a responsibility to engage with restraint and clarity. Not every development must be politicized, and not every silence should be filled with assumptions.
The Olubadan throne must remain what it has always represented, a symbol of unity, continuity, and cultural authority. It should not be reduced to a tool within political chess games or dragged into narratives that compromise its neutrality.
As sons and daughters of Ibadanland, the duty is clear, to protect the dignity of the throne, to reject misinformation, and to ensure that in moments of tension, respect is not sacrificed at the altar of speculation.
