By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN

THE ESSENCE OF BAIL

The facts of this case have brought to the fore an urgent and a compelling need for holistic reforms in the administration of the criminal justice sector and proper training for all institutions involved in the investigation of crime and criminal prosecution. The enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act in 2015 was supposed to bring some reprieve to prosecutors and defendants alike but this has not been so, due to so many factors ranging from lack of funding, absence of institutional will to enforce the law, and congestion in the courts to absence of functional infrastructure. The view is still valid that prosecuting agencies and prosecutors in our clime deploy the criminal justice system as a tool of punishment and oppression against the defendant at the behest and promotion of the complainant.

There is always a desire by the nominal complainant to have the defendant incarcerated by all means and for long periods of time. There is a particular force that makes the complainant unsatisfied each time he sees the defendant walking around in the street as a free man. The culture of vengeance has crept ominously into the criminal justice system, resulting in persecution and not prosecution. Nigeria eagerly awaits the day when the prosecutor will be the one to apply for bail for the defendant in order to focus more on his due trial and possible conviction rather than secure his temporary remand. That should be the essence of bail pending trial or appeal. The moment a defendant spends one month or two years in custody before fulfilling the conditions imposed for his bail, then the purpose of bail has been defeated.

Even in charges with offences bearing the maximum punishment, bail is still available at the discretion of the court, based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Agreed that each case may present very peculiar facts, but there must be some universal concept or principle agreeable to all stakeholders involved in criminal cases which should be applicable across board. In minor offences amounting to misdemeanour, bail should be a right that is granted automatically. In cases of felonies with some degree of seriousness, bail should be granted with minimal conditions that will guarantee the attendance of the defendant in court for his trial. In cases with capital offences, such as murder, kidnapping, terrorism, treasonable felony, etc., bail should be granted based on the discretion of the court. Except in very exceptional cases, the prosecutor should never oppose bail, as a matter of standing policy.

ENSURING DILIGENT PROSECUTION

What on earth can you do as a prosecutor or defence attorney if the facts of the case are against you, or your witnesses are not available and when they do appear in court after a long period of time, they collapse like a pack of cards in court when put in the witness box? A major factor in criminal law practice and procedure is the efficiency of the prosecution built upon painstaking forensic investigation by the law enforcement agency in charge of the case. The law puts the sacred onus on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence with which the defendant has been charged, in the absence or weakness of which the court will find for the defendant. This case failed mainly because PW2, the investigating police officer, did not appear to conclude his testimony. This ugly scenario is not strange in criminal trials at all. Some defendants, faced with the severity of the charge against them, the weight of evidence and witnesses assembled by the prosecution and the likelihood of a conviction, devise other extrajudicial means to frustrate the trial.

Naturally, some police officers get posted from one location to another as a routine procedure or they may be away on official assignments such as election monitoring, peace-keeping missions abroad, attending training school, writing promotion examinations, etc, but the IPO’s absence can also be manipulated by the defendant. In this case, the IPO had given his evidence in chief but he failed to appear for his cross-examination, the consequence of which was that his evidence was expunged and rendered weightless. It could also be true that the police officers fabricated the charges against the defendant upon his refusal to pay the sum of money demanded to secure the bail of the original suspect and being unable to defend his watery story, he absconded from his cross-examination.

Whichever is true, the gap in this case is that the police failed to work together as a team, or else the absence of a single police officer should not defeat the case of the prosecution, as any other officer in the investigation team is competent to take the witness stand to narrate the story to the court. As is the case with the EFCC and other latter-day prosecuting agencies, the prosecution should front-load as many witnesses as possible since they are not bound to call all the witnesses. It is, at best, a case of surplusage, which hurts no one in the course of trial.

Read Also: David v The people of Lagos State: Simplifying the bail process in criminal prosecution (I)

Whether Retrial Will be Ordered Where Criminal Trial Declared a Nullity:

Where a criminal trial has been declared a nullity, an order of retrial is not automatic. The discretion of the court in deciding whether to order a retrial must be exercised judicially and judiciously after a consideration of the entire facts of the case.

The Burden and Standard of Proof of Crime and How it is Discharged:

The duty of the prosecution in any criminal trial is to establish the guilt or culpability of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. In order to discharge the burden, it is required to establish every ingredient or essential element of the offence charged. This requirement is predicated on the accused person’s presumption of innocence as guaranteed by section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended). In the instant case, the finding of the Court of Appeal that the offences with which the appellant was charged and convicted by the trial court were not proved against him by the respondent was conclusive and the Court of Appeal should have discharged and acquitted him.

Proof of Crime and Resolution of Doubt in Criminal Trial:

Where there is a doubt as to the guilt of an accused person, the doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.

Whether Court Can Convict on Evidence of Single Witness and Effect Where Commission of Crime not Proved:

Where the evidence adduced is credible, a conviction may be based on the evidence of a single witness. On the other hand, where, upon a consideration of the totality of the evidence before it, one of the ingredients of the offence is not proved or the court entertains some doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the doubt must be resolved in his favour as the prosecution would have failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on it. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal found that there was a breach of the appellant’s right to fair hearing arising from the inconclusive cross-examination of PW2, who was the investigating Police Officer from the Federal Special Anti-Robbery Squad; PW2, a key witness for the respondent, had abandoned the case before he was cross-examined by the appellant’s counsel which situation, as rightly found by the Court of Appeal, rendered the entire proceedings before the trial court a nullity. The absence of PW2 was not the fault of the appellant and he should not be made to suffer for the inability of the prosecution to provide witnesses to conclude evidence in proof of its case against the appellant. The Court of Appeal was wrong not to have discharged and acquitted the appellant instead of making an order for a re-trial

Duty on Court Not to Speculate:

Courts of law have a duty not to speculate.

The Effect of Finding of Court not Appealed:

In an appeal, a finding of court not appealed against is deemed accepted as correct and binding on the parties and the court. In this case, the finding by the Court of Appeal that the prosecution did not prove the ingredients of the offence required to secure a conviction was not appealed against by the respondent. The finding was deemed accepted as correct and binding on the respondent and the court.

NOTABLE PRONOUNCEMENT:

Need for Courts Not to be Forum for Oppression but Rather a Temple of Justice:

Per UMAR, J.S.C. at page 113, paras. C-D:

“The courts should not be a forum of oppression, rather a temple of justice and fairness where the individual rights of litigants are protected within the ambit of the law. It will counter the spirit of justice to continue to retry an accused in whom no guile is found for there must be an end to litigation.”

CONCLUSION

The injustice of this and other cases of its kind is that the police officers involved got away with their acts of injustice to the appellant, who spent a gruesome 17 years defending a trumped-up charge of armed robbery simply because he refused to pay the sums of money demanded for the bail of the suspect that he originally stood for as his surety. There will likely be other victims such as the appellant, who may still be in custody or facing trial at the instance of crooked police officers or investigators. The Police Service Commission and the other levels of authority in charge of the police should take this case as the justification for a drastic overhaul of the system to rid it of corrupt elements whose conduct dents the image of the force.

By Suyi Ayodele

A Muslim friend, at the weekend, drew my attention to a 58-second video of how Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) responded to the woman who daily hauled debris at the Prophet whenever he passed by her house.

According to the narrator, the woman, who lived in Mecca during the time of the Great Prophet (PBUH), disliked the Prophet so much that every morning, whenever the Prophet passed by her house, she would throw debris at the man. The Prophet, the narrator said, would silently walk through the debris, saying nothing. That act went on for a long time. 

Then one day, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) walked by the woman’s house and he noticed that nobody threw any debris at him. The Prophet found that unusual and asked about the woman. A neighbour told the Prophet that the woman was sick. There, on the spot, the Prophet entered the woman’s house to inquire about her health.

The woman, upon sighting Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), was said to have broken down in tears and asked: “You came to help me, even after all I did to you?” The Prophet’s response is my key point here: “Yes. Kindness, my way.” The Prophet responded! The video ended. I asked those knowledgeable about Islam what happened thereafter, and I was told that the woman became the most adherent follower of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and his teachings.

Because of the way and manner, the Islamic religion was introduced to my part of the country in the 19th century, the people responded to the new faith with a lot of resentment. They labelled the practitioners of the religion as ìmòle (people of religion of force). Converting many of the people to Islam became a herculean task.

The adherents of the religion, too, did not relent. A lot of efforts were made to disabuse the minds of the people about the religion, its tenets and outlook. One of such efforts resulted in the composition of the following lyrics:

E má pe Mùsùlùmí ló ni ìmòle – Don’t call Muslims as people of religion of force

Èsìn àlááfià kìi se ìmòle – A religion of peace is not a religion of force

Ení bá pe Mùsùlùmí ló ni ìmòle – Whoever calls Muslims as people of religion of force

Kò kéwú, kògbedè aláìmòkan ni – Is he who does not learn Quranic recitation, nor understands Arabic, a complete ignoramus

The above is known as Waka in Yoruba Language. The Islamic-oriented Yoruba music genre was introduced to convince the people then that contrary to the perceived forceful nature that generation of adherents of Islam adopted in selling the new faith to the people, the religion is peaceful after all.

Waka, therefore, became a praise song to sermonise the peaceful nature of the religion, and the fact that whatever negative connotations ascribed to it were fuelled more by ignorance than the reality of the nature of the religion. It is mostly sung during crusades known as Waasi, and other social gatherings where Islamic scholars of yore often quoted relevant verses of the Quran to show that the religion does not allow anyone to kill anybody based on his or her faith.

 In our contemporary time, nothing demonstrates the message contained in the lyrics more than the 2018 episode in Nghar village in Barkin Ladi Local Government Area of Plateau State, where an Islamic leader and Chief Imam of the village, Imam Abdullahi Abubakar, saved the lives of 262 Christians who were on the verge of being killed by some Islamic fundamentalists.

Imam Abdullahi Abubakar, who died on Thursday, January 15, 2026, at the ripe age of 92, was 84 years old when he risked all he had to save the lives of the Christians in his community. The story of Imam Abubakar’s heroic deed went global. Ten communities in the locality were under attack during the June 2018 crisis in Plateau State.

Gunmen who claimed to be Islamic fundamentalists subjected the Christian communities in the area to untold hardship. Many were pursued and killed in brutal manners. The news of the attack spread like wildfire. When it got to Nghar village, Imam Abubakar did what the Holy writ, Quaran, stipulates in Quran 68:8, to wit: Non-Muslims of goodwill and peace should not be targets of war simply due to their faith.

While other people in the village shut their doors against the fleeing Christians who had suddenly become endangered, Imam Abubakar opened not just the doors of his mosque, but those of his home to shield the would-be victims from their attackers.

I have tried to picture the situation in my mind. I have tried to imagine a frail-looking 84-year-old man standing by the door, talking to gun-wielding men and some others carrying other lethal weapons. What was he telling them? How did he summon the courage to hide those 262 Christians? What verse of the Quran did he recite to convince the murderous crowd?

Again, and more importantly, what if the attackers had overpowered him? What would have been the fate of members of his immediate family who were equally holed up in the mosque and the house where the fleeing Christians were quartered? Who takes such a risk Imam Abubakar took when he refused to surrender the victims to their attackers even when he came under direct threat of the assailants?

One account of that incident stated that Imam Abubakar told the assailants that, having sought refuge in his mosque and home, the Christians inside had automatically become Muslims and the Holy Prophet, Mohammed (PBUH), forbade anyone to kill them. He was said to have further argued with the bloodthirsty assailants that the Christians running into the mosque and his home could be likened to the holy flight of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), from Mecca to Medina, adding that Islam supports the concept of asylum. How persuasive could an 84-year-old man be?

Tragically, about 80 other Christians who could not make it to Imam Abubakar’s abode were mercilessly slaughtered by their attackers. If the Islamic cleric had not risked his life for the ones who sought refuge in his house, the casualty figure would have been 342 souls lost to cold hands of death in the hands of those who claimed to be fighting Allah’s battle! What a beautiful soul Imam Abubakar was!

While reflecting on Imam Abdullahi Abubakar’s life and times, two issues defined his heroic deed of June 2018. The first is humanity, and the second is patriotism. On the issue of humanity, especially as preached by many great Islamic scholars,

This narrative is the real definition of humanity. Humanity without a touch of kindness amounts to bestiality. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) says: Yes. Kindness my way”, no matter the circumstance. Only a man with milk of kindness would risk his life for the safety of people of a different faith the way Imam Abdullahi Abubakar did in 2018. There is no record to show that he was lettered. He was simply a man convinced about the tenets of his faith

Today, in the same Nigeria where Imam Abubakar lived and died, we have professors and PhD holders, who, if they found themselves in the position of Imam Abubakar, would have supplied the machetes for the mass slaughtering of the 262 Christians the Imam saved.

And we should get this right: Imam Abubakar did not protect those hundreds of Christians because they were Christians. He protected them because the milk of kindness, which epitomises humanity, runs in his veins. If Imam Abubakar were to hail from my part of this country, his name would have been: Ìwàlèsìn (Character is religion). Only a man of character, not faith, does what the Islamic leader did. Little wonder he lived to a very good ripe age amid his people. Isiah the prophet says: “Tell the righteous it will be well with them, for they will enjoy the fruit of their deeds” (Isaiah 3:10). That prophecy, I submit here, is fulfilled in Imam Abubakar!

And this brings us to the late Imam’s sense of patriotism. Reflecting deeply on that June 2018 heroic deed, I concluded that the late Abdullahi Abubakar’s sense of patriotism must have been top-notch! One could imagine the ripple effects if he had allowed the attackers access to their would-be victims. How would the people from the ethnic stock of the victims have reacted?

Patriotism goes beyond the denotative implication of ‘one being devoted to or supportive of one’s country’. It entails giving all for the betterment of one’s nation. Sadly, this is the most important quality our leaders lack. Beyond singing the National Anthem and reciting the National Pledge, our leaders have nothing speaking for them in terms of patriotism. That is why they don’t blink while pilfering our patrimony.

Nigeria today is a Federal Republic because some men and women fought a gruesome 30-month civil war to keep the nation one. During that war (May 1967-January 1970), over two million Nigerians were killed on both sides of the divide (Nigeria and Biafra). To commemorate the sad event, a day was set aside on January 15 of every year to honour the memories of those who paid the supreme price for Nigeria to be one.

Known as Armed Forces Remembrance Day, this year’s own was celebrated without the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, being present. Pray, which nation celebrates its Armed Forces Remembrance Day without its C-in-C in attendance? That is how unpatriotic our leaders could be!

The argument advanced for the absence of the President at such a national memorial event is that he was in a foreign country on an assignment for the economy of the nation. But like the proverbial crab and its-three-year-labour at the mill without its palm oil filling a small tin (Odún méta tí alákàn ti ńse epo, kò kún agolo, òfo ló já sí) what has been the benefits of the numerous globe-trotting by President Tinubu since he assumed office in 2023?

Good enough that Tinubu remembered to pay tribute, despite his ‘tight schedule’ overseas, to Imam Abubakar at his passing. It is incumbent on us, therefore, to impose it on the President that it is not enough to use flowery words to describe the late Islamic leader as a man who “stood firmly on the side of peace, benevolence, and conscience”, choosing “humanity over division, love as opposed to hatred, and embrace rather than rejection.”

President Tinubu should walk the talk by showing that level of ‘benevolence’ displayed by Imam Abubakar. The President should have pity on the hapless citizens who suffer daily under the weight of the traumatic economic policies of his administration. He should save Nigerians from imminent deaths from hunger and starvation the way Imam Abubakar rescued those 262 Nigerians from the jaws of death. That is humanity; that is kindness.

Tinubu should also stand on the side of good ‘conscience’, be humane and also ‘exemplify’ “the kind of humanity and moral courage” Imam Abubakar exhibited by staying focused in confronting the problems bedevilling this nation. The greatest tribute our President can pay to Imam Abubakar is to halt his decoyed medical tourism and the vomitous act of disappearing without notifying the people as if he were not elected by human beings. Even if he has succeeded in capturing the nation and its people, President Tinubu should stop flaunting that at our faces all the time!

Imam Abdullahi Abubakar died a hero. His children and relations alike should be consoled that, in addition to reaching a ripe age, their patriarch represented the true definition of humanity. Theirs is a glorious and proud heritage! In my small library are two portraits of my father and my father-in-law, two men whose deeds indicated that humanity exists. I am adding a third portrait, and you can guess whose it would be: Imam Abdullahi Abubakar, the Grand Humanity of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (GHFRN). He showed us what humanity looks like in its physical form! Rest on, Imam Abdullahi Abubakar.

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

On Monday, 25 March, 1946, Chief I. B. Akinyele, Chief James Ladejo Ogunsola, Messrs D. T. Akinbiyi and E. A. Sanda, the very cream of the Ibadan educated elite, met behind closed doors with Oyo town delegates at the secretariat in Ibadan. One of them got home that day and wrote in his diary that they “could reach no agreement because we (Ibadan) flatly refused to pay one penny towards the Alaafin’s salary.”

Yet, some 84 years earlier (1862), the same Ibadan went to war against friends, family, and acquaintances in support of Alaafin. Ibadan destroyed Ijaiye because its ruler, Kurunmi, was rude and unruly to the Alaafin. He had to die because he refused to recognise the king whose father made him Aare, and who made Oluyole Basorun of Ibadan.

Ibadan of 1862 served Oyo and its Alaafin; that of 1946 damned them. Between the first stance and the second, what changed or what caused the change? The tongue. The body. Disposition. Reciprocal respect. My Christian friend pointed at a verse in the Bible: “And the king answered the people roughly. In a blustering manner, gave them hard words and severe menaces…” Then it was “To your tent, O Israel!”

On Sunday, 3 February, 2008, twelve out of the then seventeen members of Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs visited the Alaafin in Oyo. They said they were there “to solidarise and pay traditional respect to our permanent chairman.” From that visit came a ten-point resolution which was published as an advertorial on page 27 of the Nigerian Tribune of 5 February, 2008. The title of that advert is: ‘Oyo obas back Alaafin for permanent chairmanship of Council of Obas and Chiefs.’ The fifth of the resolutions is the shortest and most categorical: The obas declared that in Oyo State, “remove the Alaafin, and all other obas are equal.”

The obas who signed that statement were the Eleruwa of Eruwa, Olugbon of Orile Igbon, Okere of Saki, Aseyin of Iseyin, Iba of Kisi, Onpetu of Ijeru, Onjo of Okeho, Sabi Ganna of Iganna, Aresaadu of Iresaadu, Onilalupon of Lalupon, Onijaye of Ijaye and Olu of Igboora.

Now, read that list again – and this is where I am going: In the Saturday Tribune of January 17, 2026 (two days ago), an advert celebrating the reconstitution of the obas’ council with the Olubadan as rotational chairman was signed by six of those who signed the 2008 advert which celebrated Alaafin’s permanent chairmanship. These are: Eleruwa of Eruwa, Olu of Igboora, Olugbon of Orile-Igbon, Onpetu of Ijeru, Okere of Saki and Aseyin of Iseyin.

Yesterday’s “permanence” becomes today’s “rotation,” each wrapped in the rhetoric of unity, justice, and tradition. We see obas who were with Oyo in 2008 shifting allegiance to Ibadan in 2026. What this suggests is not moral collapse but the old, unembarrassed truth about power: it obeys seasons. Our obas, like politicians, have read too much of Geoffrey Chaucer. They move in steps that suggest that time, when it shifts, rearranges loyalties as effortlessly as it rearranges hierarchies.

Friendship and politics define statuses and hierarchies. Governor Rashidi Ladoja in 2004 decentralised the council of obas into zones and directed each paramount oba to preside over their area. His decision was based on the fact that there was no throne of Oyo State for the kings to fight over. I agree with that reasoning, and, in fact do not think any council anywhere is necessary as conclave of obas. However, last week, Oba Rashidi Ladoja assumed office as chairman of an undecentralised council of obas. What has changed?

Ladoja’s successor, Governor Adebayo Alao-Akala in 2007, made Alaafin permanent chairman. The Olubadan and Soun of Ogbomoso kicked and would have nothing to do with that arrangement. The governor ignored them. He said he was following the law. But the same Alao-Akala, on his way out of government in May 2011, used the House of Assembly to reverse that decision. Because his friendship with the Alaafin had expired, he made the position rotational in the following order: 1. Olubadan; 2. Soun of Ogbomoso; 3. Alaafin of Oyo. Check the Nigerian Tribune of 3 May, 2011, page 4.

Were all these about history, or that fluid thing called change? What obviously there was (and is) is politics; and in politics, nothing is constant; not truth, not friendship. What exists is interest. “There is no fellowship inviolate, No faith is kept, when kingship is concerned,” says Second Century BC Roman poet, Ennius. Obas, institutions and palaces that took a position in 2008, are this year taking a directly opposing stand. What changed? Is it about the person of the last Alaafin and the persona of the incumbent?

In his caustic response to last week’s inauguration of Oyo State Council of Obas, Alaafin Akeem Owoade referred to himself as “superior head of Yorubaland.” Did he have to write that? And, what does it mean? Whatever that claim was meant to achieve has attracted negative vibes from every corner of Yorubaland. I read resentment and resistance even when its author knows it is a plastic claim. In the old understanding of the world, the ancients spoke of two ruling forces: Love, which binds; and Strife, which sunders. The palace, no less than the cosmos, is governed by this uneasy pair. The oba in Yorubaland reigns within the contradiction. The crown draws devotion even as it breeds resentment. It commands reverence when it is humble and just in its royalty; it invites resistance when haughty and proud.

Shakespeare, in Richard III, speaks about kings’ “outward honour” and “inward toil.” In Hamlet, he says “The king is a thing…Of nothing.” In Henry V, he says the “king is but a man, as I am” and therefore prone to errors courtiers make. No two kings are the same; no two reigns score the same marks. There are definitely differences in engagement between the last Alaafin and this new one. Alaafin Adeyemi III went out to make quality friends and read good books; his successor, so far, appears distant and aloof. I am interested in who, among obas and commoners, are his friends. I am eager to know the books he reads. His handlers should help him to succeed by telling him to look more forward than backwards. A lot of 19th century data which he romanticises are no longer valid. For instance, Ibadan of the past saw itself as part of Oyo; today’s Ibadan sees Oyo as part of its inheritance. Read Professor Bolanle Awe in her ‘The Ajele System: A Study of Ibadan Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century’ (1964). Mama reminds everyone who argues with history that “the direct heirs of the Old Oyo empire…regrouped themselves in three main centres at Oyo, Ijaye and Ibadan.” So, Ibadan is Oyo while today’s Oyo is not necessarily Ibadan.

People who understand the dynamics of power and history would insist that Ibadan’s defiance in 1946 and its earlier zeal in 1862 are not contradictions so much as timestamps. We see and feel Ibadan challenging Oyo, even feeling insulted by suggestions of being subjects of Alaafin. Authority once defended as sacred becomes, under a new alignment of interests, negotiable. This Oyo has everything a father has, except age. It has a history of leadership. But has Oyo provided the right leadership in the last one year? You remember what King Sunny Ade sings should be done to Egungun that dances for twenty years and remains in poverty? You throw away its mask and costume and promote Gelede. That is why institutions today act selectively, and actors remember the past strategically. What appears as amnesia or inconsistency is cold calculation. The past is not denied; it is merely edited.

Every Alaafin since 1830 has had to contend with the Ibadan factor. Ibadan is pro-Oyo but it won’t accept suggestions of Alaafin and Oyo overlordship. And that is because the founders of Ibadan were shareholders of Oyo, both the old and the new. In particular, they see in Oyo and its monarchy partners, not lords. Indeed, Ibadan never believed/believes there was (is) a king anywhere for them to worship. Professors I. A. Akinjogbin and E. A. Ayandele say the early Ibadan “prided themselves as a group who had nothing but contempt for the crowns.” Indeed, in July 1936 when the city wanted its Baale to become known and called ‘Olubadan’, its leaders made it clear that what they wanted was the change in title; they did not want an oba who would rob them of their republican freedom. Is that not the reason for its very unique lack of royal or ruling houses? Read Toyin Falola’s ‘Ibadan’, pages 681 and 682.

The new Alaafin has no excuse for making cheap and expensive mistakes. His heritage is goodly and his court not lacking in quality men and women. When he was made oba a year ago (January 2025), Professor Toyin Falola, easily Africa’s preeminent historian and Yoruba patriot, wrote a long piece of advice for the man chosen as our Alaafin. The title of that piece is: ‘Alaafin Owoade and Yorùbá Renaissance.’ It was primarily written for the new king to read. If he read it, I am not sure many of today’s challenges would spring and hang on his nascent reign. Every paragraph of the essay is gold, every line golden. If he read it last year, he should read it again and make it his operations manual. Take these: “He must learn history. I can reveal to the new Alaafin that his immediate predecessor took time to understand history. Alaafin Adeyemi’s power of retentive memory was second to none. He had a memory arsenal covering almost 500 years…

“Alaafin Owoade must know history…The new Alaafin must not engage in historical revisionism as his counterparts now do. Rewriting history is dangerous, as in saying the Benin Empire owes little to Ile-Ife and Oranmiyan. Conflating Ugbo with Igbo is a wrong-footed interpretation of the past. He needs not to dabble into issues of superiority around who the superior king was in the past. Oyo and Ile-Ife are constant in the people’s history because they represented the seats of economic and political power and the spiritual rallying point of the Yorùbá people. Let him explore the consensus around historical prestige: the foundation of prominent Yorùbá ancestors and the creation of a glorious history.”

So far, it would appear that Alaafin Owoade has not benefited from the nuggets in the Falola advice. He should go back to it. He should also go out to make quality friends among his brother obas. He needs them. If there are people he needs to beg, he should beg them. Nothing is damaged (yet) beyond repairs. Like flights of planes, every reign has tough beginnings. In tension and turbulence, the expertise of the pilot makes a lot of difference. If the Alaafin refuses to spread his eyes first, no guest will sit on the mat he spreads, no matter how beautiful.

He also needs to know (or remember) that power attracts, but it also repels. This is why allegiance cannot be ordered into existence; it must be patiently won. It is also why sovereignty carries its own burden, captured in the timeless lament of the dramatist: uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. For the Alaafin to remain tall, he must woo Ibadan and other Yoruba towns with friendship; he cannot summon their loyalty by proclamation.

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.