Alara of Aramoko: Why Ekiti Government Must Obey Its Own Law and Not Shift The Goalposts

On the surface, the Deputy Governor’s directive that the process must now proceed only by Ifa consultation and not by voting sounds like a move to “sanitize” tradition. But when you place that directive side-by-side with the Registered Ekiti State Chieftaincy Declaration 2024 for Aramoko-Ekiti, a troubling picture emerges; the government is attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game.

1. WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS: THE PROCESS HAD ALREADY ADVANCED UNDER THE LAW

Let us deal with facts, not speculations.

1. The Law: The Ekiti State Chieftaincy Declaration 2024 is the legal instrument guiding the Alara stool. It was made 28th March 2023, approved 17th April 2023, and gazetted in 2024. It is binding on all parties, including government.

2. The Stage Reached: On 23rd April 2026, the Kingmakers conducted screening and voting. Out of 8 contestants from Olokun Ruling House, 3 scaled through via Ifa divination as required by the Declaration. The 12 Kingmakers then voted.

Result: Prince Tope Ademiluyi – 6 votes. Prince Femi Akinlabi – 6 votes. Prince Adewumi Adetoyinbo – 0 votes.

3. Government Presence: The exercise was supervised by top government officials including the Commissioner for Chieftaincy Affairs, Permanent Secretary, Director, LG Chairman, and Secretary to LG. So government cannot claim ignorance of the stage reached.

At this point, the process had moved beyond “screening” into “selection by voting” as contemplated by the Declaration.

2. WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT A TIE: IT IS NOT SILENT

The Deputy Governor’s press statement says voting is “a fertile ground for bribery” and therefore must be jettisoned. With respect, that is a policy opinion, not law.

Article F of the Aramoko Declaration laid out the procedure step by step:

– F(i-iii): Nomination, presentation to Kingmakers, Ifa consultation to “sanction” candidates. This was done on 23rd April.

– F(iv): ”The head of the Kingmakers shall have a deliberative vote and shall in the event of an equality of votes have a casting vote.”

– F(v-vi): Appointment by simple majority. Ifa consultation to confirm.

– F(viii): Election in presence of LG Secretary.

The law anticipated a tie. It provided a legal remedy: the Head of Kingmakers casts the deciding vote.

What happened? The Head of Kingmakers declined to exercise that power and called for a fresh vote. Government officials present agreed to reconvene. That was the lawful position to take then.

3. THE PROBLEM WITH THE NEW DIRECTIVE: IT CONTRADICTS THE GAZETTE

The Deputy Governor now says: “There is no voting after Ifa consultation. Someone must surely emerge when Ifa is consulted.”

Three legal problems arise:

1. No Legal Basis: Nowhere in Article F does it say “no voting after Ifa.” In fact, F(iv) and F(v) presuppose voting. You cannot have a “casting vote” or “simple majority” without voting. To now ban voting is to amend the Declaration by press statement. That is not how laws are amended in Ekiti State.

2. Retroactive Effect: You cannot start a process under Rule A, reach 90% completion, and then switch to Rule B because you don’t like the outcome. That violates the principle of legitimate expectation and fair hearing_. The 3 princes and 12 kingmakers acted based on the Declaration as it is.

3. Ifa is Not a Substitute for All Steps: The Declaration requires Ifa to “sanction” candidates from the ruling house. It was done. It does not say Ifa must now pick 1 out of 3 after voting has occurred and a tie emerged. To insert that now is to rewrite history.

4. THE RISK: POLITICIZATION AND LITIGATION

Government says it has “no candidate.” We take that at face value. But perception matters in traditional matters.

When a process that was supervised by government, reached voting, produced a tie, is suddenly stopped and restarted with new rules, the public will ask questions:  Who benefits?

More importantly, this approach invites endless litigation. Any of the 3 Princes can go to Court and argue that the government violated its own Declaration. The courts have consistently nullified chieftaincy processes where government deviated from the registered declaration. See: _Adeyeye vs Adegbenro_ and several Ekiti cases under this same administration.

The result will be ; a vacant stool for years, division in Aramoko, and embarrassment for government.

5. THE WAY FORWARD: OBEY THE LAW, FINISH THE JOB

This is not about supporting any Prince. It is about supporting or obeying your own law.

To preserve peace and legality, the Ekiti State Government should:

1. Direct a return to the Declaration: Reconvene the 12 Kingmakers under supervision.

2. Enforce Article F(iv): Compel the Head of Kingmakers to exercise the casting vote to break the 6-6 tie, as the law mandates.

3. Document everything on video: For transparency, as was done during the Ifa stage.

4. Stay out of the outcome: Once the law is followed, whoever emerges will have legitimacy and government can present him without controversy.

Aramoko-Ekiti is not just another town. It is a historic Yoruba kingdom. Its headship must not be determined by administrative fiat but by law and custom.

History will remember this moment.

Will it be recorded that under Governor Biodun Oyebanji, the law was obeyed? Or that the goalposts were shifted?