What is now coming sharply into focus is that the government’s decision to halt the Awujale selection process was not arbitrary. It is a direct response to mounting concerns over the rise of so-called “preferred candidates.” Contrary to long-standing tradition and due process, certain individuals were being positioned as inevitable choices, raising serious questions about fairness, transparency, and the credibility of the entire exercise. It was this atmosphere of distrust that compelled the state government to suspend the process and order a reset, ostensibly to restore equity among all contenders.
On the ground, the situation is as stark as it is telling. As a Yoruba adage goes, “As they continue cutting their hands, they keep on wearing rings”, a vivid reflection of how some actors persist in projecting authority even amid procedural disruption. Preliminary reports from Eleweran, Abeokuta, are equally damning and troubling, suggesting serious irregularities. Yet, in a climate thick with speculation, it remains essential to await official findings before drawing definitive conclusions.
More unsettling are indications that the traditional body charged with overseeing the process began to favour select candidates, even while disregarding measured advice and legitimate objections. Instead of open resolution, a discreet, more controversial approach appears to be taking hold, the systematic elimination of otherwise qualified candidates through newly emphasised age-related criteria.
Under this framework, candidates above 65 are suddenly deemed ineligible, despite no historical, customary, or legal precedent. Traditionally, age has never been a barrier, experience, sound judgment, and institutional memory have always been core pillars of leadership. The sudden weaponisation of age as a disqualifier raises urgent questions about motive and intent. In practice, it risks sidelining the most capable and widely respected contenders in favour of expediency. History, in Nigeria and beyond, demonstrates that seasoned leadership often provides stability during delicate transitions rather than posing a liability.
Equally concerning are reports that, even during the suspension, some Afobajes continue behind-the-scenes manoeuvres to install a preferred candidate. Compounding the controversy are allegations that Otunbas, long-standing pillars of the traditional hierarchy are being deliberately marginalised. Such sidelining erodes both inclusiveness and the collective wisdom upon which traditional institutions rely.
Persistent rumours suggest candidates are being favoured not by merit or spiritual guidance but by proximity to powerful interests. Tradition is clear, the Awujale stool has always stood above personal ambition, factional loyalty, and political convenience. The introduction of unchallengeable “statuses” further undermines transparency. Across many states, such determinations must be made by properly constituted and recognised organs. Where bodies like the Afobajes or Ilamurens act without formal endorsement, their actions invite serious legal and moral scrutiny.
This raises a critical question, who truly drives the process, and to what end? If unconstituted bodies selectively disqualify candidates by age, title, or status, the entire succession risks becoming a ticking time bomb, capable of eroding public confidence and diminishing the sanctity of the Awujale stool.
Leadership, by tradition, is guided by divine will. Wisdom should not be reframed as weakness, nor age or hierarchy weaponised to exclude competence. The quiet disqualification of seasoned candidates and the sidelining of the Otunbas demand urgent scrutiny, lest a process meant to uphold justice, legitimacy, and tradition instead become a cautionary tale of exclusion, manipulation, and ambition.
Olumide Adekunle Fashina is a Lagos-based public affairs commentator writing on power, institutions, and legitimacy in Nigeria
