There is a question that Senator Sharafadeen Abiodun Alli may need to answer the people of Oyo state and Ibadan sooner rather than later.
The question is very simple: When will he accept the Obaship conferred on him by the Oyo State Government?
The question has become necessary following his recent elevation by the Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja, from Ekarun Balogun Olubadan to Ekerin Balogun Olubadan.
There would ordinarily be nothing controversial about a high chief progressing within the traditional hierarchy of Ibadanland.
But this particular elevation has reopened an old controversy because Alli was not in Ibadan when the ceremony took place. He was in Saudi Arabia performing Umrah.
Yet, unlike what happened when the Oyo State Government conferred a beaded-crown Obaship on him in April, Alli did not reject the latest elevation because of his absence. Instead, he announced it himself.
He thanked the Olubadan and members of the Olubadan Advisory Council. He thanked those who represented him at the ceremony. More importantly, he said he was “deeply honoured” by the elevation.
He described the new position as a responsibility and pledged to continue serving Ibadanland and Oyo State. That is where the story becomes interesting.
Because the same senator who questioned the propriety of being elevated by the state government while absent has now accepted an elevation by the Olubadan while absent.
It is, in effect, a tale of two elevations in absentia. One was rejected and the other was accepted.
And both happened while the person being elevated was not physically present.
To understand the present controversy, one has to go back to April, 2026.
The Oyo State Government had approved the elevation of some high chiefs in Ibadanland, including Alli, and scheduled their coronation at Mapo Hall.
The affected chiefs did not attend the ceremony.
The Olubadan Palace subsequently indicated that they had informed the Olubadan of their inability to attend and had requested that the ceremony be postponed.
The state government, however, proceeded with the exercise.
The government maintained that the action was backed by law and that the governor had the authority to confer beaded crowns on the affected high chiefs.
That position was disputed by the Olubadan Palace and others who questioned the procedure adopted by the government.
The controversy therefore quickly moved beyond the question of attendance.
It became a dispute over who had the authority to perform what aspect of the traditional process, whether the governor could proceed without the physical presence of the beneficiaries, and whether such an exercise could properly be regarded as an installation.
It was against this background that Alli rejected the state government’s action.
He subsequently described the installation in absentia as “mere theatre” and alleged that the exercise was politically motivated.
The allegation was denied by the state government, which maintained that it was simply carrying out its statutory responsibilities.
But by then, the political dimension of the dispute had become impossible to ignore.
Alli was not only a traditional title holder. He was a serving senator representing Oyo South Senatorial District and a prominent member of the All Progressives Congress.
He was also increasingly identified with the opposition to Governor Seyi Makinde’s administration.
Today, that political identity is even clearer because Alli has emerged as the APC’s candidate for the 2027 governorship election in Oyo State.
Therefore, virtually every disagreement involving him and the Makinde administration is likely to be viewed through the prism of the coming election.
That does not mean every government action against him is politically motivated.
Neither does it mean every objection raised by him is politically driven.
But it does mean that the political environment cannot reasonably be ignored.
The April Obaship controversy was therefore taking place against the backdrop of a brewing 2027 contest in which Alli could potentially face candidates backed by the political structure of the incumbent administration.
That context is very important to this argument. Fast-forward to September, 2026. The Olubadan of Ibadanland elevated Alli from Ekarun Balogun to Ekerin Balogun but Alli was not in Ibadan.
He was in Saudi Arabia performing Umrah. This time, however, the senator’s reaction was completely different.
There was no rejection and there was no request for postponement, there was also no description of the ceremony as theatre.
Instead, Alli took to social media to announce the elevation and express his gratitude.
He thanked Oba Ladoja and members of the Olubadan Advisory Council for the confidence reposed in him and he declared that he received the new position with humility, gratitude and a renewed commitment to serve.
He even put the matter beyond the question of title. According to him, “a step up in rank is a step up in responsibility.” That statement is significant and key to hold on to.
Because it shows that Alli was not merely acknowledging that something had happened in his absence. He was accepting the elevation and the responsibilities attached to it.
This is where the public deserves an explanation. Was Alli’s objection in April really about his absence or about something else? Perhaps the 2027 politics and the game plan.
If his argument was that no elevation could validly take place while he was absent, then the September elevation presents an obvious contradiction to consistency.
But if his argument was that the April exercise was invalid because of the particular legal and procedural circumstances surrounding the governor’s conferment of the beaded crown, then there is a clear distinction.
The April exercise was a state-government conferment of beaded-crown Obaship.
The September exercise was an elevation within the established Olubadan hierarchy.
The two processes are therefore not identical. One should not pretend otherwise but that distinction does not completely resolve the question of absence which formed the crux of the entire controversy.
The physical absence that became an important part of the argument in April was also present in September.
That is why Alli should explain precisely what he objected to in April. Was it the fact that he was absent, was it the authority of the governor, the procedure adopted, the timing, the relationship between the state government’s statutory powers and the Olubadan’s traditional authority, or was it a combination of all these factors put together?
A clear answer would put the controversy to rest and give the people of Ibadan land in particular a clearer picture of what is going on.
There has been a tendency in political arguments surrounding the issue to describe Alli’s position as “selective deception.”
Alli rejected one elevation that occurred in his absence.
He accepted another elevation that occurred in his absence.
That is the contradiction staring everyone in the face.
Whether it amounts to deliberate deception is a matter for the public and political debate.
But the inconsistency itself is undeniable, and it deserves an explanation.
If the problem in April was that the person being elevated was not physically present, why was that not a problem in September?
If representation was acceptable in September, why was representation unacceptable in April?
If an elevation could be announced and accepted by a person who was thousands of kilometres away in Saudi Arabia, why should another elevation be dismissed merely because the beneficiary was not at the venue?
These questions are not necessarily an indictment of Alli. They are questions of consistency especially from a man who seeks to lead the entire state and be held accountable for his actions and inactions.
And most importantly, consistency matters in public life, particularly from whoever seeks to lead millions of people. Consistency is not a matter of convenience, it is of principle.
And anyone who stands for anything because it is convenient and serves their purpose will equally fall for anything that service their interests.
Politicians routinely ask citizens to judge them by their records and statements. The same standard should apply when their statements appear to conflict.
For fair argument, it must be acknowledged that the April and September ceremonies were not exactly the same.
The governor’s April action involved the conferment of a beaded crown and recognition of Obaship under the state’s legal framework while the September action was a progression within the Olubadan chieftaincy system.
The 2027 governorship election is now less than a year away and Alli is the APC governorship candidate ready to fight for the number one office in the state.
Makinde remains the political power behind the administration whose policies and actions Alli has increasingly criticised.
It would therefore be unrealistic to pretend that politics has nothing to do with the atmosphere surrounding the controversy.
At the same time, it would also be unfair to reduce every traditional or legal disagreement to 2027 politics because there are genuine institutional questions involved.
Who controls what, what does the Chiefs Law of Oyo state as amended actually permit, what is the role of the governor, what is the role of the Olubadan, when does an elevation become an installation, and does physical presence matter?
These questions should be answered by law, established custom and authoritative interpretation, not by campaign rhetoric.
The issue should not be turned into a one-sided interrogation of Alli. The Makinde administration should also be held to the same standard.
If the government maintains that the April conferment was validly completed despite the absence of the beneficiaries, it should clearly identify the legal provisions supporting that position.
It should also explain how the customary requirements of the Ibadan chieftaincy system interact with the governor’s statutory powers.
That is especially important because traditional institutions are not ordinary political structures. They carry historical legitimacy and cultural significance.
The government therefore has a responsibility to ensure that its relationship with the traditional institution is guided by clear rules rather than political convenience.
The same questions apply to the Olubadan institution because if the Olubadan-in-Council can elevate a high chief while he is outside the country, then that practice should be understood within the established customs of Ibadanland.
If that has always been acceptable, then the April objection should be properly defined within the context of its rejection by Alli.
Otherwise, the public is left with two institutions presenting apparently conflicting positions about what constitutes a valid traditional elevation.
The danger in allowing this controversy to remain unresolved is that the traditional institution itself may become another battlefield for partisan politics and that would be very unfortunate.
The Olubadan institution predates today’s political parties and will, hopefully, outlive today’s politicians.
Governors will come and go, Senators will come and go, political parties will change but the Ibadan traditional institution will remain.
That is why its rules should not be made to look flexible whenever political interests collide.
If traditional rulers are expected to remain above partisan politics, the principle must be applied consistently.
If the governor has statutory responsibilities concerning traditional institutions, those responsibilities must be exercised within the law.
If the Olubadan has traditional authority over the elevation of chiefs, that authority must equally be respected.
And if a politician occupies a traditional position, his political activities should not become the reason for changing the rules applicable to others.
In April, Alli was elevated in absentia by the state government and rejected the exercise.
The issue is not whether Senator Alli is entitled to accept or reject a traditional title. It is whether the standard he applies to one elevation is the same standard he applies to another.
At the very least, there is a clear appearance of selective treatment, and in public life, appearances matter.
The most convincing way to resolve the matter is not through another press statement, political rally or social media exchange.
It is through a straightforward explanation. Why was absence unacceptable in April but acceptable in September?
Until that question is answered, the controversy will continue to hang over the Ibadan traditional institution and may even become a reference point for possible future recurrence of same or similar action.
For now, the public has witnessed two elevations. Both happened while the beneficiary was away.
While one was rejected, the other was accepted, and the difference clearly deserves an explanation, particularly from a man who campaigns to provide leadership of accountability and transparency.