The Throne Must Remain Above Partisan Politics ||▪︎ By Dr Peter Akande 

6th of September, 2026

By Dr Peter Akande

 

There is a fundamental problem with the argument presented above: it deliberately mixes two completely different issues—the responsibility of traditional rulers to protect the interests of their people and their involvement in partisan politics. These are not the same thing, and we must stop pretending that they are.

 

Nobody is asking our revered Obas to abandon their responsibilities. Nobody is asking them to remain silent when their communities face insecurity, poverty, poor infrastructure, unemployment or other challenges. On the contrary, a responsible traditional ruler should always speak for the welfare and development of his people.

 

But speaking for the people does not require joining partisan politics.

 

An Oba can demand good roads without supporting a political party. A monarch can condemn insecurity without campaigning for a candidate. A traditional ruler can question government policies without becoming a political mobiliser. A king can engage a Governor constructively without becoming an instrument of the Governor’s political opponents.

 

That is the distinction that must be maintained.

 

Therefore, if Governor Seyi Makinde cautions traditional rulers to stay away from partisan politics, it is mischievous to automatically interpret such a position as intimidation, humiliation or an attempt to silence the traditional institution. It can reasonably be understood as a call for the palace to preserve the neutrality that gives traditional rulers their unique authority and respect.

 

Our traditional rulers are fathers to all. That is their greatest strength.

 

The moment a monarch openly identifies with one political camp against another, he risks losing the confidence of people who do not share that political preference. A traditional ruler should be able to receive members of every political party in his palace, listen to everyone and maintain relationships across political divides.

 

That is why the throne must remain above partisan politics.

 

The writer asks whether an Oba should close his eyes when his people are suffering. Of course not. But this is a false choice. Nobody has said an Oba should close his eyes. The issue is whether the Oba must enter partisan politics in order to open those eyes.

 

There are legitimate ways for traditional rulers to raise concerns. They can engage government officials. They can summon relevant authorities. They can make representations. They can speak publicly about matters affecting their communities. They can advocate for development and peace.

What they should not do is transform the palace into a political headquarters.

 

The Hypocrisy Within the Traditional Institution

There is, however, another issue that those defending this position must confront. A few Ibadan chiefs have, unfortunately, encouraged this kind of political entanglement, rather than helping to preserve the sanctity and neutrality of the traditional institution.

 

This is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable.

 

Traditional rulers and chiefs are supposed to be custodians of our culture, history, customs and traditions. They are expected to stand above the temporary political interests that divide society. Yet, today, some members of the traditional institution appear increasingly comfortable dining and fraternising with politicians in ways that make it difficult to distinguish traditional engagement from political alignment.

 

Let us be clear: there is nothing wrong with a traditional ruler receiving a politician. Politicians are members of society, and every responsible monarch should maintain cordial relationships with political leaders.

 

The problem begins when such relationships become so politically partisan that the neutrality and dignity of the institution are compromised.

 

If politicians can freely enter the palace, seek endorsements, cultivate political alliances and enjoy the influence of traditional institutions, then we must be honest enough to acknowledge that the palace is gradually being drawn into the political arena.

And once that happens, the consequences should not surprise anyone.

 

If traditional institutions want to participate fully in partisan politics, then perhaps we should take the argument to its logical conclusion: why not introduce voting and competitive elections into the traditional institution as well?

 

If the throne is going to become another arena for political competition, then people may reasonably ask why the same principles of political participation should not apply to the selection and legitimacy of those occupying such positions.

 

But if we agree that the traditional institution is fundamentally different from partisan politics, then we must protect that distinction.

 

You cannot demand the privileges of political neutrality while enjoying the advantages of political participation.

You cannot ask society to respect the throne as an institution above politics and simultaneously allow the palace to become a meeting point for partisan political calculations.

 

That is the contradiction we must address.

The best way to protect our traditional institution is not to drag it into political battles. It is to keep it above those battles.

 

Governors come and go. Political parties come and go. Political candidates come and go. But the throne remains.

That is precisely why it should not be reduced to an instrument of partisan politics.

 

There is also an important question for those passionately defending the “political independence” of traditional rulers: Would you maintain the same argument if the traditional ruler were openly supporting a political party or candidate you personally opposed?

 

If the answer is no, then the argument is not really about institutional independence. It is about political convenience.

We must be consistent.

 

If traditional rulers should stay away from partisan politics, the principle must apply regardless of which party benefits or suffers.

If an Oba is wrong to campaign for one party, he is wrong whether that party is APC, PDP, APM or any other political platform.

 

If a traditional ruler is expected to remain neutral, that neutrality should not suddenly disappear because his political preference happens to align with ours.

 

That is the integrity required of the traditional institution.

 

Nobody is saying that the Governor is above criticism. He is not.

Nobody is saying that an Oba is above criticism either. He is not.

But we should not confuse criticism with political activism, just as we should not confuse a call for neutrality with intimidation.

 

The language of “master and servant” is particularly unnecessary. The Governor is not the master of traditional rulers, and traditional rulers are not servants of the Governor. They occupy different spheres of responsibility. The Governor governs under the Constitution; traditional rulers occupy an important cultural and traditional position within society.

 

Their relationship should therefore be one of mutual respect, consultation and cooperation, not confrontation.

 

And this is where those who claim to defend the dignity of the traditional institution should be careful. The best way to protect the throne is not to drag it into every political battle. The best way is to keep it above those battles.

 

Let politicians fight their political battles.

 

Let political parties campaign.

 

Let candidates seek votes.

 

Let Governors defend their records.

 

Let opposition parties challenge governments.

 

But let the palace remain a place where everybody can enter without feeling that he is entering the headquarters of a political party.

 

That is the dignity we should preserve.

 

Traditional rulers have a responsibility to their people, but that responsibility is much greater than partisan politics. Their mandate is not to APC supporters, PDP supporters, APM supporters or supporters of any other political platform. Their responsibility is to all their people.

 

Therefore, the strongest position is not to silence our royal fathers. It is to protect their right to speak on matters of public interest while insisting that they remain above partisan political alignment.

 

Nobody should use the crown to fight political battles.

 

Nobody should use the palace to settle political scores.

 

And nobody should hide partisan interests under the sacred language of “defending the traditional institution.”

 

Let our Obas speak. Let them advise. Let them advocate. Let them demand development.

Let them defend their people. But let them remain above partisan politics.

 

That is not disrespect.

 

That is not intimidation.

 

That is not humiliation.

 

It is the highest form of respect we can give the throne.

 

And to those few chiefs who are encouraging the politicisation of the traditional institution, the message should be simple: do not destroy the very institution you are supposed to protect.

 

If we allow the palace to become another political arena today, we should not be surprised tomorrow when people begin asking whether traditional institutions should also be subjected to the same competitive political processes as elected institutions.

 

Preserve the sanctity of the throne—or turn the throne into another political battlefield.