Iyaloja Crisis: Position of the Law on Adeleke, Ataoja’s Competing Claims

Reloaded News Desk

The renewed dispute between the Osun State Government and the Ataoja of Osogbo, Oba Jimoh Oyetunji, over the position of Iyaloja General has raised a fundamental legal question; what law or legally recognised instrument determines who has the authority to appoint the Iyaloja General of Osun State?

The dispute resurfaced after the Ataoja announced the recognition of Alhaja Awawu Asindemade as Iyaloja General, while Governor Ademola Adeleke rejected the announcement and reaffirmed Mrs Oyebode Mary, whom his administration appointed to the position in 2023.

Adeleke said the authority to appoint the Iyaloja General belongs to the state government and described any contrary announcement, including that from the Osogbo Royal Palace, as null and void.

The Ataoja, however, took a different position, publicly asserting that the authority to appoint the Iyaloja General belongs to him and restoring Asindemade’s royal beads.

The competing declarations have brought the underlying question of authority into sharp focus.

What does the Constitution say?

The starting point is the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Paragraph 1(e) of the Fourth Schedule lists among the functions of a Local Government Council the “establishment, maintenance and regulation” of markets.

That provision clearly gives local government councils a constitutional role in market administration.

However, the provision does not expressly state that a State Governor appoints an Iyaloja General.

It also does not expressly confer such an appointment power on a traditional ruler.

That clarification is significant because the constitutional responsibility to regulate markets cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of an exclusive gubernatorial power to appoint the head of market women across an entire state.

There is a Nigerian case law!

A relevant Court of Appeal decision is Alhaja Olasunbo Olokode & Ors v. Alhaja Adidat Bello Ijaola & Ors (2005), which concerned a dispute over leadership of Olorunsogo Market in Lagos State.

The case involved competing claims concerning the position of Iya-Oja and whether the leadership position was filled through appointment under customary practice or through an election.

The Court of Appeal examined the evidence surrounding the alleged election and the constitutional responsibility of local government councils over markets.

The decision is relevant to the Osun controversy because it demonstrates that the method of selecting market leadership cannot simply be assumed; the applicable legal, regulatory or organisational framework is important.

The case, however, does not establish a general rule that a State Governor has the exclusive power to appoint an Iyaloja General.

Nor does it establish that a traditional ruler automatically possesses such power.

Its value to the present controversy is therefore narrower; it reinforces the importance of identifying the legal framework governing the particular market leadership position in dispute.

Osun’s own history on the matter

Historical records from the Osun State Government show that the state has previously played an institutional role in organising and engaging market women.

In 2013, the administration of former Governor Rauf Aregbesola inaugurated a State Market Women Board.

An official state government record identified Alhaja Awawu Asindemade as chairman of the board.

The government’s record described the board as part of an institutional arrangement for engaging market women and organising market activities.

This establishes that successive administrations have recognised and worked with organised market-women leadership.

It does not, however, by itself establish that the state government created a statutory office called Iyaloja General of Osun State, or that the Governor has an exclusive statutory power to appoint its occupant.

The 2023 appointment

The immediate history of the current dispute dates back to May 2023, when Governor Adeleke appointed Mrs Oyebode Mary as Iyaloja General.

The appointment displaced Awawu Asindemade, who had occupied the position under previous administrations.

Asindemade disputed the government’s authority at the time and maintained that the government could not remove her from the organisation she led.

That disagreement therefore predates the current confrontation between the Governor and the Ataoja.

What about the Osun Chiefs Law?

The Chiefs Law of Osun State also requires examination because the present dispute involves a recognised traditional ruler.

The law provides a statutory framework concerning recognised chieftaincies and the approval of appointments to such offices.

But another important question remains unanswered:

Is the office of Iyaloja General legally classified as a recognised chieftaincy under the Osun Chiefs Law?

Reloaded News has not found sufficient evidence in the materials reviewed to establish that proposition.

It would therefore be unsafe to use the Chiefs Law as though it automatically governs the appointment of the Iyaloja General simply because the Ataoja is involved in the dispute.

The legal status of the Iyaloja office must first be established.

The document that could settle the argument

The most important document in this controversy may therefore not be a statement from either the Governor or the palace.

It may be the instrument that actually creates or regulates the office.

That could be a state law, regulation, local-government bye-law, government gazette, constitution of a recognised market organisation, registration document, or another legally enforceable instrument governing the appointment and removal of the Iyaloja General.

If such an instrument gives the Governor the appointment power, that would materially support the government’s position.

If it assigns the power to a market association, traditional institution or another body, the legal position would be different.

If the office exists principally through customary or organisational practice rather than a specific statute, evidence of that custom and the governing rules of the organisation would become particularly important.

Government recognition is not necessarily the same as appointment power

A government may recognise an individual as the leader of a market organisation without necessarily possessing the original power to create or appoint that leader.

Conversely, a traditional ruler may install or recognise an individual according to custom without that act necessarily conferring statutory governmental recognition.

The present dispute appears to involve both concepts at the same time.

Governor Adeleke’s administration recognises Oyebode.

The Ataoja has now recognised Asindemade.

The question is whether either recognition constitutes the legally controlling appointment.

That cannot safely be answered merely by comparing the two public statements.

What is established and what remains unresolved?

The available evidence establishes that there are currently two competing claims of authority.

The Osun State Government says its appointment of Oyebode remains valid and that the Governor has the relevant appointing authority.

The Ataoja has asserted a competing traditional authority and recognised Asindemade.

The Constitution gives local governments responsibility for the establishment, maintenance and regulation of markets.

Nigerian case law shows that the legal framework governing market leadership matters when appointment or election is disputed.

Osun’s own historical records show significant governmental involvement in organising market women.

But Reloaded News has not identified, from the materials examined, a specific provision that expressly states that the Governor of Osun State alone has the power to appoint the Iyaloja General.

Neither have we established a statutory provision expressly giving the Ataoja of Osogbo that exclusive power.

That is the critical legal gap.

The next question for Osun

The controversy therefore goes beyond the personalities of Adeleke, the Ataoja, Asindemade and Oyebode.

It raises a question of institutional authority that deserves a clear legal answer.

If there is a law, regulation, bye-law, gazette or organisational constitution governing the office, it should be identified and examined publicly.

If there is no such instrument, the dispute raises a different question: on what legal basis has successive administrations recognised, appointed or replaced occupants of the position?

Until that underlying framework is established, declaring either side to possess an exclusive legal power risks turning a contested institutional question into a settled proposition when the available evidence does not yet justify such a conclusion.

For now, the facts show a clash between governmental recognition and traditional authority, with the legal foundation of the appointment itself remaining the central issue.

Category: Law | Osun | Governance | Traditional Institutions | Politics

Hashtags:

NEWS THAT INFORMS, MEDIA THAT TRANSFORMS