The question of Yoruba paramountcy has been a recurring theme in Nigeria’s history, igniting debates between tradition, colonial inventions, and modern political distortions. At the heart of these debates lies the relationship between the Alaafin of Oyo and the Ooni of Ife. For centuries, historians, politicians, and even the judiciary have attempted to draw a line of supremacy between these two great thrones. Yet the truth is far more layered than the distorted narratives that have gained ground in the last century. To understand the Alaafin’s authority and why modern manipulations have clouded the history, one must travel back to the origins of Yorùbá civilization.
Odùduwà, revered as the progenitor of the Yoruba, is said to have fathered Òkànbi, his only son. From Òkànbi came seven grandsons, each of whom established kingdoms and dynasties that formed the bedrock of Yorùbáland. Among them was the founder of the Oyo kingdom, whose descendants became the Alaafin. Others established the crowns of Benin, Kétu, Sábẹ̀, and other Yoruba polities. Thus, the Alaafin was not a later invention but a direct heir of the Odùduwà dynasty, tied by blood and destiny to the very foundations of Yoruba civilization.
The narrative that has often been repeated—that the Ooni of Ife was the spiritual priest while the Alaafin was merely political—is an oversimplification and, in many ways, a distortion of the deeper history. Ife, indeed, is the cradle of the Yoruba, the symbolic site of origin and cultural memory. But Ife’s monarch, the Ooni, was not originally cast in the role of a universal high priest over Yorùbáland. The division of roles among Odùduwà’s descendants was not spiritual versus political but territorial and dynastic. The Alaafin’s ascendancy, built upon Oyo’s military might and expansive empire, ensured that Oyo became the political and linguistic core of the Yoruba. The Yoruba language spoken today is essentially Oyo Yoruba, the dialect of the empire that subdued, absorbed, and influenced the others. This linguistic reality is itself evidence of Oyo’s supremacy, for no other Yoruba kingdom imposed its language upon the others with such finality.
The Alaafin’s supremacy was forged in the crucible of empire. Oyo’s cavalry armies, disciplined structures of governance, and innovative checks and balances made it a formidable state from the 14th to the 19th century. The Alaafin’s authority was not ceremonial; it was imperial, shaping trade routes, diplomacy, and war. The balance of power was maintained by the Oyo Mesi, but the monarch himself commanded reverence and fear. When the British arrived, it was Oyo’s imperial model that caught their attention. For purposes of indirect rule, colonial administrators such as Lord Lugard recognized the Alaafin as the paramount ruler of Yorùbáland, citing archival records like the 1897 Colonial Intelligence Report. To the British, the Alaafin was the most practical central authority to work with, even though other Yoruba kingdoms retained autonomy.
This colonial recognition, however, came at a cost. By privileging one throne over others, the British disrupted the delicate balance between Ife’s spiritual origin and Oyo’s political power. What was once a complementary duality became recast as rivalry. Worse still, post-colonial politics exploited these rivalries to further partisan aims.
The most striking example came in the era of Chief Obafemi Awólọ́wọ̀, the sage of Yoruba politics and founder of the Action Group. Awólọ́wọ̀’s genius lay in his ability to harness Yoruba unity for political mobilization, but in doing so, he often relied on distortions of tradition. Through political grandstanding and intellectual maneuvering, he sought to diminish the power of the Alaafin. His most decisive act came with the elevation of Ooni Adesoji Aderemi to the position of Governor of Western Nigeria in 1960. By installing the Ooni—a monarch who had not historically wielded political power—as the first indigenous governor of a Nigerian region, Awólọ́wọ̀ not only shifted the balance of prestige but also redefined the Yoruba hierarchy in the political imagination of modern Nigeria.
This was not a neutral act of historical continuity but a calculated political move. It allowed Awólọ́wọ̀ to weaken the Alaafin’s hold, centralize power in the Action Group, and cultivate loyalty from Ife. The constitution of independent Nigeria, silent on the roles of traditional rulers, further weakened monarchs. Unlike the colonial state, which found use for kings as intermediaries, the modern Nigerian state sidelined them, leaving traditional rulers at the mercy of politicians. Thus, while the Alaafin’s historical authority remained intact in oral tradition, archival records, and even Supreme Court judgments, its influence was diluted in the political sphere.
Court cases have repeatedly attempted to settle this issue. The 1978 judgment by Justice Adewale Thompson, the 1991 crisis sparked by the Ooni’s attempt to confer the Akinrogun of Yorubaland title, and the landmark 2014 Supreme Court ruling (SC/104/2008) all reaffirm the Alaafin’s paramountcy in matters of chieftaincy. The Lagos State White Paper of 2019 further recognized this. Historians like Professor Jide Osuntokun and Professor Toyin Falola have also shown, with archival evidence, that Oyo’s imperial legacy established the Alaafin as the highest political authority.
Still, the perception battle persists. In popular imagination, Ife remains the spiritual cradle, and the Ooni embodies this symbolism. But to conflate this sacred status with political supremacy is historically inaccurate. The Alaafin’s authority was grounded in empire, language, and law, while the Ooni’s authority is rooted in cultural origin and spiritual legitimacy. The manipulation of this duality, particularly through Awólọ́wọ̀’s interventions, has created the erroneous narrative that continues to divide Yoruba discourse.
The task for modern Yoruba society is not to perpetuate distortions but to reclaim history in its complexity. The Alaafin’s supremacy is not an invention of colonial administrators nor a creation of modern courts; it is the inheritance of Odùduwà’s bloodline through Òkànbi and the empire his grandson built. The Ooni’s place as custodian of origins is equally valid but cannot erase Oyo’s political centrality. To insist otherwise is to confuse reverence for history with manipulation of it.
In the end, Yoruba civilization thrives not on the supremacy of one throne but on the coexistence of many. Yet, to rewrite the Alaafin out of his rightful place is to erase the evidence of empire, the power of language, and the integrity of historical truth.
