ILESA HIGH COURT RULING ON OWA STOOL: PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES STRENGTHEN ARIMORO’S POSITION, LEGAL DEBATE CONTINUES
The High Court sitting in Ilesa has delivered a nuanced judgement in the ongoing dispute over the Owa Obokun stool, bringing renewed attention to the circumstances surrounding the installation of Owa Clement Adesuyi Haastrup, while also highlighting concerns long raised by Prince Arimoro of the Bilaro Oluodo Ruling House.
In its ruling, the court examined two central issues: the legality of the installation process and the claimant’s standing to bring the case before it.
On the first and most fundamental issue, the court held that the installation and recognition process did not fully comply with the Osun State Chiefs Law. It described the procedure as inconsistent with established legal provisions, thereby affirming concerns that the process was not properly conducted in line with due tradition and statutory requirements.
This finding, observers note, appears to indirectly validate the long standing objections raised by Prince Arimoro and his supporters, who had consistently argued that the selection process was fundamentally flawed from inception.
A key point of contention was the controversial requirement for candidates to obtain nomination forms reportedly pegged at ₦10 million. The court acknowledged concerns around this practice, noting that there is no clear provision in the Chiefs Law empowering any local authority to impose such a financial barrier for aspirants to the Owa Obokun stool.
Prince Arimoro’s refusal to participate in what he described as an unlawful and exclusionary process was also brought into focus. His position, according to sources close to the ruling house, was rooted in the principle that traditional succession should not be commercialized or subjected to arbitrary financial conditions outside the law.
Traditionally, succession procedures require that candidates from the ruling house be presented before kingmakers for proper selection before onward transmission to government authorities for approval. The deviation from this established norm formed a central pillar of the objections raised in the suit.
However, the court also ruled that the claimant lacked locus standi to institute the case, noting that he did not participate in the final selection process involving nominated candidates.
Despite this procedural limitation, legal analysts suggest that the substantive findings of irregularity may still have far reaching implications for the broader legitimacy debate surrounding the stool.
The judgement, while not fully resolving the dispute, has therefore left the matter open to further legal and traditional scrutiny, with stakeholders awaiting clarification on remaining aspects of the case.
Supporters of Prince Arimoro have described the ruling as “a partial vindication,” insisting that the acknowledgment of procedural flaws reinforces their position that due process was not followed.
The case remains one of the most closely watched traditional leadership disputes in Osun State, with both legal and cultural implications still unfolding.
© Surrealistic Media Group
