By Adebola Alade, Iyin Ekiti
For everyone who has followed the rapid progress and community development witnessed individually and by the collectives of the people of Iyin Ekiti since Oba Adeola Ajakaiye has been enthrone, one would wonder and begin to ask if the recent narratives coming from the palace were actually true or sponsored to tarnish the image of the cool headed and handsome king. Kabiesi has shown himself as one of the finest Obas in Ekiti, well reserved, well composed and visionary.
However, one should not be swayed by the dangerous tendencies in our society where questionable conducts and characters hide behind the sacred language of tradition. Once an action is attributed to a traditional ruler, many people become afraid to ask the most basic and reasonable questions, as though wearing a crown automatically places the occupant of a traditional stool beyond scrutiny.
That culture of silence is precisely what must end in the unfolding controversy involving the Oluyin of Iyin Ekiti, Oba Adeniyi Adeola Ajakaiye. Kabiesi should not let the people tell the story, he should tell it by himself and clear the air. Some of us, the princes and princess of Iyin Ekiti who genuinely love and respect our father are deeply concerned.
It is appearing that this is no longer simply about a chair, nor can it reasonably be reduced to a disagreement between a palace and an Anglican church. It is increasingly becoming a question about the judgment, political conduct, institutional responsibility and leadership style of a traditional ruler whose actions, taken together, are generating growing suspicion and tension around Iyin Ekiti.
The most disturbing episode remains the palace’s demand for the particular chair on which Governor Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji reportedly sat during the thanksgiving service at Babamuboni Memorial Anglican Church on May 31, 2026. The Governor had attended the event at the invitation of Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele, an indigene of Iyin Ekiti and one of the most influential political figures produced by the town. The palace subsequently requested that the specific chair used by the Governor be taken to the palace for “royal custody and appropriate traditional rites.”
This is precisely where the matter ceases to be an ordinary disagreement over church protocol. When a traditional institution identifies a specific object because it has been used by the sitting Governor and subsequently seeks custody of that object for unexplained traditional purposes, the public is entitled to ask questions. It is not political persecution to seek an explanation. It is not an attack on traditional institutions. It is simply the natural response of a responsible society confronted with an unusual demand involving the sitting Governor of a state.
What exactly was the purpose of those rites? Why was that particular chair required? Why the chair on which the sitting Governor had personally sat? Why was the request considered so important that the palace reportedly continued to pursue it after the church had refused? These are legitimate questions that cannot be wished away with appeals to tradition.
The Oluyin Palace has reportedly not publicly explained the precise nature of the “appropriate traditional rites” referred to in its correspondence. That silence leaves an uncomfortable vacuum, and whenever responsible authorities fail to provide adequate explanations, speculation naturally fills the space.
Spin doctors and public relations officers trying to redeem the image of the palace after the secret had been exposed should not insult the intelligence of the people of Iyin Ekiti and the entire populace of Ekiti by pretending that the request was ordinary. If the purpose was purely cultural, the palace should have no difficulty explaining the cultural basis of the request. If it was a traditional practice recognised by the people of Iyin, then the relevant tradition should be explained.
If it was simply a matter of royal protocol, that too should be made clear. A traditional institution cannot simultaneously demand reverence and reject accountability.
What makes the chair controversy even more troubling is that it does not exist in complete isolation. There is another reported episode allegedly involving the Oluyin’s wife and the security arrangements surrounding Governor Oyebanji during the inauguration of an elderly care facility built through the efforts of Senator Bamidele in Iyin.
According to an account, the Oluyin’s wife allegedly breached and beat the Governor’s security protocol, and perhaps noticing a foul play, one of the smart security personnel prevented her from reentering the complex and subsequently ensued a confrontation between members of the security apparatus and the Olori who was attempting to force her way back into the premises. The matter was later reportedly brought to the free minded and unsuspecting Governor, who, in his characteristic humble and conciliatory manner, dowsed the tension.
That incident deserves careful consideration because security protocol surrounding a Governor is not a matter of personal preference, social status or traditional entitlement. A Governor is not simply another guest at a social gathering. The security architecture surrounding the office exists because the state has a responsibility to protect the occupant of that office.
Nobody, not even the spouse of the Governor let alone the spouse of a traditional ruler, should regard such protocol as an insult to personal status or an invitation to challenge security personnel. If the reported confrontation occurred as described, it raises serious questions about the attitude of the palace towards institutional boundaries and the extent to which those boundaries are respected. That the well trained and tutored Governor Oyebanji continues displayed humility and respect for all and sundry does not give Oluyin’s palace the audacity to shatter the boundaries.
This is where the public must begin to look beyond isolated incidents. One controversial episode can be dismissed as a misunderstanding. Two may be described as unfortunate coincidence. But when a series of incidents repeatedly produces tension around the same institution, responsible citizens are entitled to ask whether there is a deeper problem of judgment and leadership.
Many monarchs in history have had their characters questioned and faced the consequences. The people of Iyin should not be expected to wait until a preventable confrontation becomes a major security or political crisis before asking questions. Leadership is not merely about possessing authority. It is also about understanding the consequences of one’s actions and knowing when restraint is necessary.
There is also a political dimension to this matter which cannot be ignored. The Oluyin is entitled to personal political preferences. His wife is equally entitled to hers. Nobody should criminalise the political choice of a traditional ruler or his family. But the palace is not supposed to become a political campaign office, an opposition command centre or a platform for settling political scores.
The traditional ruler is expected to be the father of the entire community, and that responsibility requires a clear distinction between personal political preferences and the institutional position of the traditional stool.
There are allegations that the Oluyin and his wife strongly supported Engineer Kayode Ojo during the APC governorship primary process and became unhappy after political fortunes remained with Governor Oyebanji. If individuals within the palace support Kayode Ojo politically, that is their right. But the question becomes fundamentally different when political preference appears to influence the conduct of a traditional institution.
A monarch cannot operate as an opposition political actor while simultaneously presenting himself as the father of a community whose people belong to different political tendencies. If the palace has chosen to work politically for Kayode Ojo, let that choice be made openly. If it opposes Governor Oyebanji, let it state its grievances openly.
If it has a problem with Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele, let those concerns be articulated openly. What is unacceptable is the appearance of using traditional authority to wage political battles and sabotaging the effort and political future of Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele through indirect means of which MOB has not done anything to deserve such a motive of the palace.
This is particularly important because of the position occupied by Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele in the political history and current political architecture of Ekiti. MOB invited Governor Oyebanji to Iyin. The Governor was there as the guest of an illustrious son of the town. He did not arrive in secret, nor was he attending a clandestine political meeting. He was present at a public thanksgiving service celebrating the birthday of MOB’s younger brother.
MOB has, over the years, built an important political bridge between Iyin Ekiti and the wider political establishment in Ekiti and Abuja. His relationship with Governor Oyebanji has helped create political access for Iyin and has contributed to keeping the community firmly positioned within the political architecture of the state.
Governor Oyebanji has described MOB as a burden bearer who, despite having had the opportunity to exercise considerable influence because of his closeness to President Bola Tinubu, chose not to hijack the government but instead advocated for Ekiti and the Governor in Abuja.
MOB had previously nursed a governorship ambition and contested the 2022 APC primary in which Oyebanji emerged, yet in 2026 he helped make the primary process easier for the Governor by initiating the consensus process. His subsequent performance at the National Assembly has also strengthened his standing among many people who now see him as a major political force and potentially one of the strongest contenders for the governorship in 2030.
It is against this background that the chair episode becomes politically sensitive. MOB invited the Governor into his hometown, hosted him as his political brother and placed his relationship with the Governor in the public space. The palace then reportedly sought the very chair on which the Governor had sat. One must ask what possible consequences such an act could have created for MOB if the church had surrendered the chair and something subsequently happened to the Governor.
Would questions not have been asked about why the Governor was invited to Iyin and why the specific chair on which he sat was taken away to the palace for traditional rites? Would MOB not have been dragged into the matter? Would Oyebanji ever trusted MOB or anyone ever again in his life? Would Iyin not have been placed under suspicion? These are not frivolous questions that Lieutenant Colonel Francis Adekunle Fajuyi did not want to Answer On 29 July 1966, when Aguiyi Ironsi paid him a visit and the coup plotters .
This is why it is necessary to ask who benefits from a confrontation between Governor Oyebanji and Iyin, and particularly from any deterioration in the relationship between Oyebanji and MOB. Who benefits if the Governor begins to view Iyin through the lens of political hostility? Who benefits if the relationship between Oyebanji and MOB is weakened? Who benefits if Iyin becomes associated with palace confrontation, political intrigue and security concerns? Certainly not ordinary Iyin people.
Governor Oyebanji will eventually leave office. MOB will eventually leave the Senate. Political alliances will change. Governments will change. Kayode Ojo may or may not return to the political battlefield. Otunba Niyi Adebayo will eventually retire from active politics. But Iyin Ekiti will remain. The ordinary people of Iyin will remain the ones seeking government appointments, infrastructure, educational opportunities, roads, investment, political access and state support. It is therefore irresponsible for anyone to create unnecessary tension between the community and the government because of personal political grievances.
This is where the Oluyin must be challenged directly and without fear. A traditional palace is not supposed to function like a political war room. It should not be a place where political enemies are identified, political loyalties are enforced and political scores are settled. The traditional ruler is supposed to be the father of all. That means the Oluyin must be able to sit with Governor Oyebanji today and Kayode Ojo tomorrow without allowing personal political preferences to compromise the neutrality and dignity of the stool. Planning harm for the Governor is hostility taken too far.
That was not how the Late Oluyin Oba Ademola Ajakaiye ruled. Despite Iyin Ekiti being the APC headquarters in Ekiti, the Late Oba Ajakaiye was a friend to all, the reason the PDP government of Governor Ayo Fayose could build the State High Court in the Monarch’s name to immortalize him.
If the palace is genuinely working against Governor Oyebanji while supporting the political interests of Kayode Ojo, the people of Iyin deserve to know. Not through rumours. Not through coded actions. Not through mysterious demands. Not through palace manoeuvring. But openly. A monarch who wants to play partisan politics must understand that partisan politics carries political consequences. He cannot demand the immunity and reverence of a traditional ruler while enjoying the freedom and manoeuvring of a political operator.
There is another matter that makes the present controversy impossible to dismiss as a mere palace and church disagreement. It is the controversy surrounding the proposed expansion of the Oluyin Palace. The Ekiti State Government reportedly issued a formal warning to the Oluyin over allegations of unlawful land acquisition connected with the proposed expansion of the palace. The government referred to complaints from Iyin indigenes and affected families and cited the Land Use Act as well as the Ekiti State Property Protection Anti Land Grabbing Law. It directed that allegedly unlawfully acquired lands be returned to their original owners and instructed that future transactions comply with the law.
Again, allegations are not convictions, and the Oluyin is entitled to defend himself. But the matter cannot simply be dismissed because the person involved wears a crown. If land is required for palace expansion, there are lawful procedures. If families must surrender property for traditional or developmental purposes, there must be consultation. If compensation is required, it should be addressed. If there is a dispute, the courts and appropriate government institutions exist to resolve it. What cannot be accepted in a modern state is the suggestion that traditional authority automatically overrides property rights and statutory law.
The proposed expansion of the palace may be desirable. Indeed, the improvement of a traditional palace can be an important investment in the history, culture and identity of Iyin Ekiti. But development cannot become a justification for arbitrary acquisition. A palace can be expanded without trampling on the rights of ordinary citizens. Traditional prestige cannot be built on the alleged dispossession of the very people whom the traditional institution is supposed to protect.
This is why the public should stop looking at the incidents separately. Look at the alleged confrontation involving the Governor’s security protocol. Look at the alleged political alignment with Kayode Ojo. Look at the apparent tension with Governor Oyebanji. Look at the unusual demand for the specific chair used by the Governor. Look at the reference to “appropriate traditional rites.” Look at the reported DSS questioning. Look at the allegations concerning land acquisition for palace expansion. None of these, standing alone, is sufficient to convict anybody of wrongdoing. But taken together, they form a pattern that deserves scrutiny.
And public scrutiny is not an attack on the traditional institution. It is a defence of the institution.
History has repeatedly demonstrated the danger of allowing rulers to become convinced that their authority is beyond question. The tragedy of King Lear in Shakespearean literature offers one of the clearest illustrations of what can happen when authority becomes consumed by pride, suspicion and personal grievance. African political history also contains numerous examples of traditional institutions losing influence when they become disconnected from the interests and aspirations of the people they are expected to represent.
Traditional institutions survive not merely because people fear the crown, but because people believe the crown represents justice, wisdom, dignity and collective identity.
A traditional ruler loses moral authority when the people begin to fear the consequences of questioning him. He loses legitimacy when personal interest becomes confused with community interest. He loses relevance when the palace becomes identified with political intrigue. And he damages the stool when his actions repeatedly place the community in unnecessary confrontation with other institutions.
The Oluyin must therefore understand that the crown is not merely an ornament of power. It is a burden of responsibility. It carries obligations to the people, to the history of the community and to future generations. A monarch who truly understands the weight of the stool should be the first person to avoid conduct capable of creating insecurity, suspicion or political instability around his community.
Calling for the public to place the Oluyin under serious watch does not mean calling for hatred against him. It means demanding accountability. It means watching how palace authority is exercised. It means demanding transparency over controversial decisions. It means insisting that political disagreements do not become community policy. It means protecting the rights of families affected by palace expansion. It means demanding clarity whenever the palace makes unusual requests involving public officials. It means ensuring that traditional authority does not become a shield against lawful investigation.
Most importantly, it means protecting Iyin itself.
The greatest danger is not necessarily that Governor Oyebanji will be offended. The greater danger is that Iyin Ekiti could gradually acquire a reputation for palace driven political confrontation. That would be disastrous for a community that has historically produced people of considerable political, intellectual and professional influence.
The Oluyin deserves respect. But respect is not submission. Tradition deserves protection. But tradition is not a licence for secrecy. The palace deserves dignity. But dignity does not mean immunity. Governor Oyebanji deserves fairness. MOB deserves protection from political sabotage. The Anglican Church deserves the right to control its property. Iyin families deserve protection of their lawful property rights. And the people of Iyin deserve a traditional institution that unites rather than divides them.
The Oluyin cannot demand all the privileges of leadership while refusing the responsibilities of leadership. If he wants to be the father of Iyin, then he must behave like the father of Iyin. A father does not deliberately set his children against one another. A father does not turn his home into a political battlefield. A father does not place his children in danger because of personal grievances. And a father does not make his people choose between the palace and the government.
The chair controversy may eventually disappear. The political quarrels will eventually change. Governor Oyebanji will leave office. MOB will eventually leave the Senate. Kayode Ojo may or may not return to the political battlefield. Political alliances will rise and fall, and people who are enemies today may become allies tomorrow. But the Oluyin stool will remain. Iyin Ekiti will remain. The people will remain. And that is precisely why the conduct of the occupant of that stool must be subjected to greater scrutiny, not less.
The people should not hate the Oluyin. They should watch him. They should ask questions. They should demand explanations. They should insist on lawful conduct. They should reject every attempt to hide political manoeuvring behind the sacred language of tradition. They should also insist that whoever occupies the Oluyin stool understands that his first responsibility is not to a political faction, a personal interest or a private grievance, but to the peace, dignity, unity and future of Iyin Ekiti.
No crown is powerful enough to place the peace, security, political stability and future of Iyin Ekiti at risk.
The palace belongs to the people. The crown belongs to history. The law belongs to everyone. And the future of Iyin belongs to all of us.
