Royal Showdown: Ooni Snubs Alaafin’s Deadline Over Sanusi Title

…As Ooni’s office says it will not respond to Alaafin’s 48-hour ultimatum, leaves matter to “court of public opinion.

Moses Olafare, spokesperson for the Ooni of Ife, Oba Enitan Ogunwusi, has explained why the monarch will not respond to a 48-hour ultimatum issued by the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Abimbola Owoade, demanding the revocation of a chieftaincy title recently conferred on Ibadan businessman Dotun Sanusi.

In a Facebook post on Tuesday, Olafare said Oba Ogunwusi had instructed him to ignore the Alaafin’s threat, describing it as “undignifyable.” He emphasized that the matter would be left to public opinion rather than official statements.

“My Principal has directed me against issuing a press release on the empty threat. We cannot dignify the ‘undignifyable’ with an official response. We leave the matter to be handled in the public court of opinion,” Olafare wrote.

The controversy began when Oba Owoade criticized the Ooni’s decision to confer the Okanlomo of Yorubaland title on Sanusi, describing it as an “affront” and a challenge to his authority. In a statement signed by his Director of Media and Publicity, Bode Durojaiye, the Alaafin said the Ooni’s action was ultra vires and infringed on his exclusive right to bestow Yoruba-wide chieftaincy titles.

“The conferment of a Yoruba-wide chieftaincy title by the Ooni is not only ultra vires but an insult to the Titan of Yorubaland. The Supreme Court has ruled that only the Alaafin has such authority. Yet, the Ooni continues to act above the law, trampling on both tradition and the courts,” the statement read. The Alaafin warned that failure to withdraw the title within 48 hours would result in unspecified consequences.

Observers note that this is not the first time such a dispute has arisen. In 1991, the late Alaafin, Oba Lamidi Adeyemi, protested a similar action by the late Ooni, Oba Okunade Sijuade, who conferred the chieftaincy title of Akinrogun of Yorubaland on a political figure. Oba Adeyemi described the act as a violation of sacred traditions.