Adebayo Adenrele
A public affairs analyst, Omojola-Martins Ademulegun, has called on the Ekiti State Government to strictly adhere to the provisions of the registered Chieftaincy Declaration guiding the selection of the Alara of Aramoko-Ekiti, warning that altering the process midway could trigger legal disputes and undermine public confidence.
In a statement titled “Alara of Aramoko: Why Ekiti Govt Must Obey Its Own Law and Not Shift the Goalposts,” Ademulegun argued that the ongoing selection process has become a critical test of the state’s commitment to the rule of law over administrative discretion.
The analyst faulted the recent directive attributed to the Deputy Governor, Chief Monisade Afuye, that the selection should proceed solely through Ifa consultation without voting, describing the position as inconsistent with the registered Ekiti State Chieftaincy Declaration for Aramoko-Ekiti.
According to him, the declaration, which was approved in 2023 and gazetted in 2024, remains the legally binding framework regulating the succession to the Alara stool and should not be altered through administrative pronouncements.
Ademulegun maintained that the selection process had already progressed substantially in accordance with the declaration before the new directive was issued.
He explained that on April 23, 2026, kingmakers conducted the prescribed screening and Ifa consultation involving eight contestants from the Olokun Ruling House, after which three princes emerged for the voting stage.
He stated that voting by the 12 kingmakers resulted in a tie, with Prince Tope Ademiluyi and Prince Femi Akinlabi each securing six votes, while Prince Adewumi Adetoyinbo received none.
The analyst noted that senior government officials, including the Commissioner for Chieftaincy Affairs, Permanent Secretary, relevant directors, the local government chairman and secretary, were present during the exercise, arguing that the government was fully aware of the stage the process had reached.
He contended that the declaration expressly provides for voting after Ifa consultation and also anticipates the possibility of a tie.
According to him, Article F(iv) of the declaration empowers the head of the kingmakers to exercise a casting vote where there is equality of votes, making it unnecessary to abandon the voting process.
Ademulegun further argued that replacing voting with exclusive Ifa consultation at this stage lacks any legal basis under the declaration.
He maintained that the provisions requiring a simple majority and a casting vote clearly presuppose voting and cannot be set aside through a press statement.
He also warned against applying new procedures to a process that had already commenced under existing rules, saying such action could violate principles of legitimate expectation and fair hearing.
According to him, all the contestants and kingmakers participated based on the procedures outlined in the gazetted declaration and were entitled to expect those rules to remain unchanged until the process was concluded.
The analyst further argued that the declaration requires Ifa consultation to sanction eligible candidates but does not provide that Ifa should subsequently select one candidate after voting has produced a tie.
He cautioned that any deviation from the registered declaration could expose the state government to prolonged litigation.
He urged the state government to reconvene the 12 kingmakers under official supervision, direct the head of the kingmakers to exercise the casting vote as stipulated in the declaration, ensure transparency by documenting the proceedings, and refrain from influencing the eventual outcome.
