Lawyer asks Makinde to intervene in Oyo kingship tussle

Pelumi Olajengbesi, a human rights lawyer, has asked Seyi Makinde, Oyo governor, to intervene in the Aresa kingship tussle in Surulere LGA of the state.

In a statement on Saturday, Olajengbesi, who is the managing partner at Law Corridor, an Abuja-based firm, asked the governor to use his office to ensure that the rule of law prevails in the dispute between two ruling houses of Emiolu and Oshunbiyi both of the Iresa-Adu community.

Olajengbesi urged the governor to ensure that all parties involved in the matter stay further actions over the vacant stool of Aresa pending the hearing and determination by the court of appeal sitting in Ibadan, the state capital.

The lawyer said with the demise of Jimoh Oyeyemi Oloyede, the former king from the Oshunbiyi ruling house, in 2018, the Emiolu ruling house is entitled to produce the next Aresa of Iresa-Adu as the two ruling houses operate the principle of rotation.

Olajengbesi, the lawyer of the Emiolu ruling house, said some “misguided individuals” bent on ruining communal harmony have taken steps against the clear provisions of the chieftaincy declaration and continued to instigate “frivolous and untraditional means to gain access to the vacant throne of Aresa”.

“For the records, the chieftaincy declaration without ambiguity provides that each of the ruling houses shall take turns in presenting a ruler whenever there is vacancy in the stool of Aresa,” Olajengbesi said.

“Clear to say that the Late Oba Jimoh Oyeyemi Oloyede of Oshunbiyi ruling house was installed in the year 2000 and superintended over the affairs of Aresa land for about eighteen (18) years until his demise in 2018.

“While we reckon that the Oshunbiyi House had their internal squabble over the ascension of Late Oba Jimoh, we make bold to say that a soothsayer is not required to tell that the next family in turn to present a ruler is the Emiolu house, following the demise of Late Oba Jimoh.

“Notwithstanding this irrefutable circumstance, some individuals perhaps working against the gazetted chieftaincy declaration of Iresa-Adu have continued to institute unwarranted suits against the throne of Aresa and against the traditional right of the Emiolu family.

“In a deserving attempt to protect their right, the Emiolu house approached the high court of Oyo state to seek the court’s intervention in according the house their right to the throne.

“Unfortunately, the high court relying on a court of appeal order granted over an internal dispute within the Oshunbiyi family, and without considering the requisite chieftaincy declaration and other relevant material facts, dismissed the case of Emiolu House over a preliminary objection filed on behalf of the Oshunbiyi ruling house and further ordered that the Oshunbiyi family whose son (Late Oba Jimoh Oyeyemi Oloyede) just left the throne after 18 years, to further produce the next king to preside over the affairs of Iresa-Adu kingdom.

“We consider this order to be a gross miscarriage of justice particularly on the ground that the Emiolu family was not a party to the case giving rise to the court of appeal’s order the basis of which the high court dismissed the matter.”

Olajengbesi further noted that his firm believes that the high court failed to consider the fact that the Oshunbiyi house should not be allowed to present another ruler.

“Consequently, we have instituted an appeal against the judgement of the high court before the court of appeal sitting in Ibadan. This will enable us present the case of the Emiolu house before our lord justices of the appellate court and we are confident that the dice of justice will roll in favour of the Emiolu ruling house while the traditional mandate of the family shall be judicially and justiciably restored,” the lawyer said.

“In the same vein, we equally call on Seyi Makinde, Oyo state governor, to use his good office to ensure that the rule of law prevails and all parties involved in the matter to stay further actions over the vacant stool of Aresa pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.”