A public affairs analyst, Omojola-Martins Ademulegun, has warned the Ekiti State Government against changing selection rules for the Alara of Aramoko stool by mandating Ifa divination over voting.
He argued that bypassing established voting procedures violates the Registered Ekiti State Chieftaincy Declaration 2024 following a 6-6 tie among kingmakers.
Ademulegun, in a statement on Monday, said Governor Biodun Oyebanji should not “shift the goalposts in the middle of the game.”
“The choice is clear. Let us obey the law and finish what we started,” he said.
The throne became vacant following the death of Oba Olu Adegoke Adeyemi at age 82 in August 2025.
The selection process is ongoing, with local stakeholders recently defending its transparency against calls for a restart.
Ademulegun said the selection “has become a test case for the rule of law against administrative discretion” in Ekiti.
According to him, the Deputy Governor’s directive that the process should proceed only by Ifa consultation and not by voting appears to be an attempt to alter the rules.
“On the surface, the directive sounds like a move to ‘sanitize’ tradition. But when you place that directive side-by-side with the Registered Ekiti State Chieftaincy Declaration 2024 for Aramoko-Ekiti, a troubling picture emerges: the government is attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game,” he said.
He noted that the Declaration was made on March 28, 2023, approved on April 17, 2023, and gazetted in 2024.
“It is binding on all parties, including government,” he said.
Ademulegun said that on April 23, 2026, the kingmakers conducted screening and voting.
Of 8 contestants from the Olokun Ruling House, 3 scaled through via Ifa divination as required by the Declaration.
The 12 kingmakers then voted.
The results were: Prince Tope Ademiluyi – 6 votes; Prince Femi Akinlabi – 6 votes; Prince Adewumi Adetoyinbo – 0 votes.
He said the exercise was supervised by top government officials including the Commissioner for Chieftaincy Affairs, Permanent Secretary, Director, LG Chairman, and Secretary to the LG.
“At this point, the process had moved beyond ‘screening’ into ‘selection by voting’ as contemplated by the Declaration,” he said.
He faulted the Deputy Governor’s statement that voting is “a fertile ground for bribery” and must be jettisoned, saying “that is a policy opinion, not law.”
Citing Article F of the Declaration, Ademulegun said: F(i-iii): Nomination, presentation to kingmakers, Ifa consultation to “sanction” candidates. This was done on April 23.
“Article F(iv): “The head of the kingmakers shall have a deliberative vote and shall in the event of an equality of votes have a casting vote.”
“Article F(v-vi): Appointment by simple majority, followed by Ifa consultation to confirm and article F(viii): Election in the presence of the LG Secretary.
“The law anticipated a tie. It provided a legal remedy: the Head of Kingmakers casts the deciding vote,” he said.
“What happened? The Head of Kingmakers declined to exercise that power and called for a fresh vote. Government officials present agreed to reconvene. That was the lawful position to take then.”
Ademulegun outlined three issues with the new directive: No Legal Basis: “Nowhere in Article F does it say ‘no voting after Ifa.’ In fact, F(iv) and F(v) presuppose voting. You cannot have a ‘casting vote’ or ‘simple majority’ without voting.
“To now ban voting is to amend the Declaration by press statement. That is not how laws are amended in Ekiti State.”
“Breach of Legitimate Expectation: “You cannot start a process under Rule A, reach 90% completion, and then switch to Rule B because you don’t like the outcome.
“That violates the principle of legitimate expectation and fair hearing. The 3 princes and 12 kingmakers acted based on the Declaration as it is.”
“Misreading of Ifa’s Role: “The Declaration requires Ifa to ‘sanction’ candidates from the ruling house. It was done. It does not say Ifa must now pick 1 out of 3 after voting has occurred and a tie emerged. To insert that now is to rewrite history.”
He warned that restarting the process with new rules invites litigation and politicization.
“When a process that was supervised by government, reached voting, produced a tie, is suddenly stopped and restarted with new rules, the public will ask questions: Who benefits?” he said.
