BTvNEWS

Eight critical questions expose the legal, customary and institutional fault lines behind the prolonged battle for the Awujale throne

By AbdulHakeem Mutiu Adejumo-Ajeseku, Abuja-Nigeria

BTvNEWS: Who has the lawful authority to choose the next Awujale of Ijebuland?

That seemingly straightforward question has become the centre of an increasingly complicated succession crisis involving competing ruling-house claims, traditional kingmakers, government authority, internal disagreements and judicial intervention.

The throne became vacant on 13 July 2025, following the death of Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona, who reigned for an historic 65 years.

More than a year after his transition, however, Ijebuland is yet to have a legally established Awujale-elect.

Instead, the succession process has become entangled in competing claims involving the Fusengbuwa Ruling House, Fidipote, the Awujale kingmakers, the Ogun State Government and factions within the Fusengbuwa Ruling House.

The latest development could prove particularly significant.

On 21 August 2026, the Fusengbuwa Ruling House instituted Suit No. HCJ/149/2026 at the Ogun State High Court, Ijebu-Ode, seeking, among other reliefs, to revive and complete the succession process.

The suit also raises issues concerning alleged government intervention in the use and closure of the Awujale Palace.

But beyond the latest court action lies a much bigger question: what exactly does the law and recognised customary practice say about who has the power to produce Ijebuland’s next monarch?

1. WAS FUSENGEBUWA ENTITLED TO START THE PROCESS?

At the heart of the controversy is whether the Fusengbuwa Ruling House was legally and customarily entitled to initiate the succession process.

If the answer is yes, the next question becomes whether the steps subsequently taken by the ruling house were conducted in accordance with the applicable legal and customary framework.

If the answer is no, then the foundation upon which subsequent nominations and selections may have been built could itself come under serious legal scrutiny.

2. WAS THE NOMINATION OF A CANDIDATE VALID?

Being entitled to nominate does not necessarily mean that every nomination made is automatically valid.

The eligibility of the candidate, the procedure adopted by the ruling house and compliance with applicable laws and customary requirements could all determine whether the nomination can survive a legal challenge.

This is particularly important because any defect at the nomination stage could potentially affect the credibility of the entire succession exercise.

3. DID THE KINGMAKERS ACT WITHIN THEIR AUTHORITY?

The Awujale kingmakers occupy a critical position in the traditional succession structure.

But who exactly are the recognised kingmakers?

Were they properly constituted?

Did they act collectively?

And did they exercise their authority in accordance with the law and recognised customs governing the selection of the Awujale?

These questions are not merely procedural. They could ultimately determine whether any selection made by the kingmakers is legally sustainable.

4. WHERE DOES GOVERNMENT SUPERVISION END?

Another major fault line concerns the role of the Ogun State Government.

The government has denied allegations that it selected or “anointed” a preferred candidate for the throne.

Yet competing interests have alleged interference and procedural irregularities.

Those allegations remain allegations and should not be treated as established facts without credible evidence or judicial determination.

The real issue is therefore more precise:

What powers does the government lawfully possess over the Awujale succession, and at what point could governmental supervision become an interference with traditional authority?

A clear judicial interpretation could be crucial in resolving this question.

5. WHO SPEAKS FOR FUSENGBUWA?

Perhaps one of the most difficult questions is an internal one.

Who legitimately represents the Fusengbuwa Ruling House?

Where rival factions claim authority within the same ruling house, determining which faction possesses the lawful and customary mandate to nominate or participate in the succession becomes indispensable.

Without resolving that question, actions taken in the name of the ruling house could remain susceptible to competing challenges.

6. CAN THE COURT END THE DISPUTE?

The courts can determine legal rights, interpret applicable laws and pronounce on whether particular procedures or actions are lawful.

But can a court judgment, by itself, guarantee traditional acceptance?

Not necessarily.

The Awujale institution carries legal, cultural, historical and communal significance. A judicial victory for one faction may settle a legal question without immediately eliminating every traditional or communal disagreement.

That is why the ultimate solution must go beyond simply asking who wins in court.

7. WHAT WOULD MAKE THE NEXT AWUJALE LEGITIMATE?

Speed should not become more important than legitimacy.

Ijebuland does not merely need the vacancy filled. It needs a process that is sufficiently transparent, lawful and credible to command respect across the principal traditional institutions and stakeholders.

That requires clarity on the applicable succession rules, recognised ruling houses, legitimate kingmakers, candidate eligibility and the lawful role of government.

Every stage of the process should be capable of being explained, verified and defended.

8. WHAT IS THE CREDIBLE WAY FORWARD?

The current crisis appears to revolve around at least five fundamental issues:

Which ruling house is entitled to act?

Was the Fusengbuwa nomination legally valid?

Did the kingmakers exercise their authority properly and collectively?

Did the Ogun State Government remain within its lawful supervisory powers?

And who legitimately speaks for the Fusengbuwa Ruling House?

These questions cannot effectively be answered through accusations, counter-accusations or political pronouncements alone.

A credible resolution would require judicial clarification of the disputed legal questions; publication and verification of the applicable succession rules; confirmation of the recognised kingmakers; resolution of the internal representation dispute within Fusengbuwa; transparent eligibility checks; and a properly documented selection process.

THE BIGGER QUESTION

The struggle over the Awujale throne is bigger than the identity of the individual who eventually occupies it.

It is a test of the strength of Ijebuland’s traditional institution, the clarity of its succession framework and the ability of relevant authorities to reconcile customary authority with modern legal and administrative structures.

The ultimate objective should not simply be to produce an Awujale.

It should be to produce an Awujale through a process whose legality, customary validity, institutional credibility and legitimacy can withstand scrutiny.

Because when the next Awujale finally emerges, the most important question may not be:

“Who was chosen?”

It may be:

“Was he chosen through a process that Ijebuland can collectively recognise as lawful, legitimate and worthy of the ancient throne?”

That is the question the ongoing legal battle may ultimately be called upon to answer.