OpinionPersonality

Obaship in an Era of Palliatives

5 Mins read

 

By abiodun KOMOLAFE

In an interview with journalists recently, the _Elegboro of Ijebu-Jesa_ in the Oriade Local Government Area of Osun State, Oba Moses Oluwafemi Agunsoye stated that _“no one can sit on the throne as a monarch nowadays without having good money”._ According to the first class monarch, _“gone are those days when people brought things to the palace, where the Kabiyesi would sit down and expect manna from heaven. Now, it is the palace that is giving out … So, an Oba must be up and doing, must have a job, or source of handsome income and he cannot rely on the people.”_

On consultations with the deities before choosing a king, Oba Agunsoye said: _“at times, traditionalists lie when choosing a king because money has exchanged hands. A rich man can be made a king once he pays the Ifa and the Ifa would speak in his favour, unlike those years when the truth is sacred and must be told at all times.”_

To start with, when Oba Agunsoye said no one becomes an Oba without being wealthy, Kabiyesi was only joining the likes of the _Awujale of Ijebuland,_ Oba Sikiru Adetona and _Oluwo of Iwoland,_ Oba Abdulrosheed Akanbi in appropriately situating the fate that has tragically befallen the traditional institution in Nigeria. Talking philosophically, _Elegboro_ was also inquiring about what might have been delaying the emergence of a new _Soun of Ogbomoso_ and _Alaafin of Oyo,_ close to two years after the demise of the occupants of the exalted thrones.

_‘Different strokes for different folks’,_ goes the 20th century proverbial saying. Since society is not static, the relevance or otherwise of the traditional ruler has changed so much that many things now look bizarre. Well, the major crack is the unnoticeable changing nature of institutions in Nigeria. Often, all our approaches to modernity are seen as an attempt to repudiate the traditional core values of the society. Since it is not sharp, it moves piecemeal. As such, it is not all that noticeable. Yet, it is there! The first thing is that institutional changes come without much hubbub. In an ideal world, the Oba of a town is a man in three solid offices in which none is insignificant. He is by all accounts the political head, the traditional ruler and the spiritual leader of his people.

In a non-homogeneous society like ours, it is a traumatic responsibility. An Oba is the head of the Sango traditional worshippers. When the Christian community calls, the Oba shouldn’t be wanting. And whenever it’s the turn of the Muslims, the sacred king must also look for a _kurfi_ and join the Ummah in making supplications to Allah. In a word, an Oba must just be who his subjects want him to be.

Hire and fire! Depose and jail! Needless to repeat that the traditional and the spiritual attributes of Obaship in Nigeria have become moribund and rubbished! Regrettably so, modernism has long rendered its political attribute impotent. Given the circumstances in Nigeria, the traditional institution could not have done better. In reality therefore, the traditional institution will have to reinvent itself; otherwise, troubled times loom. An example is the futile effort to reintegrate the traditional institution into politics; and it’s distancing its members from their ancestral core values.

When Oba Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi was to be crowned, all kinds of questionable and unimaginable insinuations occurred; but they were all dismissed, either for exigency or for political reasons. For example, Iyiola Omisore warned that the people should not allow Bola Tinubu to come from Lagos and impose _Ooni Adimula_ on Ile-Ife. But that’s where the warning ended. Not even the traditional chiefs and/or handlers of the ancient throne of Ife listened to him. In the end, the _Apesin Oodua of Ife_ lost the battle and _Ojaja_ II emerged. The rest is history!

As things stand, one is at a loss of a blueprint of the roles and responsibilities of the traditional rulers and the definition of their powers in the Southwest. Of course, things have changed dramatically from what they were in not-so-distant past in Nigeria’s rich history, when the likes of Oba Adesoji Aderemi, Oba Olateru Olagbegi and _Omo n’Oba N’Edo Uku Akpolokpolo,_ Erediauwa were here! Now, every Ife-born child, whether traditionally right or otherwise, wants to be a _Sooko,_ a position hitherto reserved for apparent heirs to the throne; a position that’s supposed to be a product of initiation.

Let’s go to Ibadan and see what the traditional institution has become. Arguably, this is the first time the ancient city will be having a comprehensively educated and robustly enlightened monarch. Oba Moshood Olalekan Balogun participated in the politics of the 1970s as a young Ph.D. holder. Essentially Ibadan bred and born, _Okumade_ II knows his onions. As a matter of fact, no one engages him in a debate and loses; one is bound to gain something from him. Again, this is where the media seems to have missed a vital opportunity: that Lekan Balogun became the Olubadan of Ibadanland and the Fourth Estate has done next-to-nothing in terms of tapping from the wealth of experience of this man of solid ideas who will always reveal stuff that will shake the entire country!

Time it was when Nigeria’s physical scenarios did not favour Olubadan Balogun, not because he was not qualified. The future 42nd Olubadan was only a target of the attitude of the elite and the judgment of fate! His Imperial Majesty was a victim of a society that was not ready for a man of his stature and status. Thank God for sparing his life. Now that he is the Olubadan, it’s time Kabiyesi revisited some of those brilliant ideas he used to discuss in the ‘70s. As a man with a deep sense of history, it behooves Oba Balogun to do his best to right some of the wrongs of the past.

So far, the most reassuring and settled order in the Southwest is the kingship order in Ijesaland; and that’s the truth! Take, for example, for a prince to emerge as _Owa Obokun of Ijesaland,_ he has to perform certain traditional rites. It’s not just money! No! It’s not that an Omisore will have to turn into a protest merchant; or that a Tinubu will allegedly wake up on the other side of the bed and insist on a particular candidate as the next _Owa Obokun of Ijesaland._ No! It can’t happen in Ijesaland! Should anybody dare, then the _Ijesas_ will stand against him; all hell will let loose because Ogendengbe Agbogungboro will wake up from his grave, fight the cause of his forebears and restore order; and society will calm down! Take it or leave it, society is not a detached object; it has an anchor to hold by and to hold to! Incontestably, these are the strictures that hold any rational society; and Ijesaland can’t afford to be different!

Without doubt, the Obaship institution in Nigeria, especially, in the Southwest is shifting and drifting. When society begins to drift, it continues in that trend, until there is a jerk to change the direction. But that doesn’t just happen! As if the gods are angry, the traditional institution is no longer as potent as it used to be. So, the central advice really is for all traditional rulers to rule according to the dictates of the native intelligence within their domains. In the considered opinion of yours sincerely, this is the best option!

May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!

_*KOMOLAFE writes in from Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State, Nigeria (ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk; 08098614418 – SMS only)_

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
Cover StoryDevelopmentOpinion

Pedestrian Bridges: Rising Symbols of Renewed Hope in Abuja

2 Mins read
  By Ogefila Bayo Adewale Every morning, parents watch their children leave for school along Abuja highways, their hearts race each time…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Abuja FileCover StoryOpinionPerspectivePolitics

Tinubu’s Reforms Deserve Continuity, Second Term Crucial — Onuigbo

4 Mins read
The President of Globe Legislators International, Rt. Hon. Sir Sam Onuigbo, has called on members and stakeholders of the All Progressives Congress…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com