Fusengbuwa Ruling House Sues Ogun Govt, Kingmakers Over Awujale Stool

The succession dispute over the vacant stool of the Awujale and Paramount Ruler of Ijebuland has taken a legal turn, as the Fusengbuwa Ruling House has approached the Ogun State High Court seeking an order compelling the kingmakers to conclude the selection of a new monarch.

The suit, marked HCJ/149/2026, was filed at the High Court of Justice, Ijebu-Ode Judicial Division, by Otunba AbduLateef Adebayo Owoyemi, Oloriebi and Family Chairman; Otunba Adedokun Ajidagba, Family Deputy Chairman; and Prof. Fassy Yusuf, Vice Chairman.

The claimants instituted the action on behalf of themselves and members of the Fusengbuwa Ruling House of Ijebu-Ode.
Named as defendants are the Governor of Ogun State, the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, members of the Ogun State Executive Council, the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, the Chairman and Secretary of Ijebu-Ode Local Government, and the nine Awujale Afobaje Kingmakers led by the Ogbeni Oja of Ijebuland, Olorogun Sonny Kuku.

The suit, sworn to on August 21, 2026, challenges the alleged closure of the Awujale Palace by the police on the directive of the Ogun State Government, which the plaintiffs claim effectively halted the ongoing process for selecting a successor to the late Awujale, Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona.

Oba Adetona died on July 13, 2025, aged 91, after a historic 65-year reign.

According to the plaintiffs, Ijebu-Ode Local Government notified the Fusengbuwa Ruling House on December 2, 2025, that it was its turn to produce a candidate for the vacant stool under the rotational arrangement recognised by the Obas and Chiefs’ Law of Ogun State 2021.

The ruling house said it subsequently commenced its nomination process and held a meeting on January 12, 2026, within the 14-day period prescribed by Section 16(1)(b) of the law.

A total of 95 princes and princesses were reportedly nominated, with the resulting list forwarded to the nine-member Awujale Afobaje Kingmakers Council on January 19, 2026, for the next stage of the process.
The kingmakers are led by Olorogun Sonny Kuku, the Ogbeni Oja of Ijebuland. 

Other members are Chief Rasheed Adesanya, Olisa; Chief Oluwaranti Lekan Osifeso, Olootu Olowa; Chief Jimi Lawal, Olootu Ifore; Chief Abimbola Okenla, Kakanfo Awujale; Chief Kunle Ogunade, Apebi; Chief Agboola Alausa, Balogun; Chief Adebisi Adaran, also known as Gbenden, Ogbeni Odi; and Chief Ayotunde Ola Odulaja, Lapoekun and Secretary.

The claimants alleged that less than 24 hours after the nomination list was submitted, police officers arrived at the Awujale Palace after midnight on January 20 and prevented the kingmakers from meeting to select a candidate from the 95 nominees.

They said a subsequent letter from the local government cited security concerns and allegations of bribery and financial inducement as reasons for the suspension of the process by the state government.

The suit also names the Executive Chairman of Ijebu-Ode Local Government, Hon. Dare Alebiosu, who had approved the commencement of the process on January 6, and the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Hon. Ganiyu Hamzat.
The plaintiffs alleged that Hamzat subsequently petitioned the Eleweeran Police Station in Abeokuta on February 2, 2026, requesting that the kingmakers and principal officers of the ruling house be invited for questioning over alleged bribery and financial inducement.

The Fusengbuwa Ruling House, however, maintained that no evidence or formal petition substantiating the allegations was presented. It further claimed that investigations by the police and the Department of State Services did not establish any wrongdoing.

In the originating summons, the plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that the nomination process was validly completed and that the kingmakers are legally obligated under Sections 16(1)(e) and (f) of the Obas and Chiefs’ Law to select a candidate from the submitted list and forward the name to the State Executive Council.

They also contend that the State Executive Council is required under Section 22 of the law to act on the candidate selected by the kingmakers. Among other reliefs, the plaintiffs are asking the court to order the nine kingmakers to reconvene within seven days of judgment and complete the selection process.

They are also seeking an injunction restraining the state government and security agencies from further interfering with the selection process. A major issue the plaintiffs want the court to determine is whether, having convened its meeting and completed the nomination of candidates within the period prescribed by Section 16 of the law, the Fusengbuwa Ruling House had fully discharged its statutory responsibility and could therefore be prevented from being asked to reopen or repeat the process.

The plaintiffs are also asking the court to determine whether the kingmakers, having received the Fusengbuwa nomination list on January 19, became legally obligated to proceed with the selection of a candidate and forward the selected name to the appropriate state authority.

Another question for determination is whether the Governor, Attorney-General, commissioners and local government officials had any legal authority under the 2021 law or any other written law to direct or cause the forcible entry into and closure of the Awujale Palace by the police.

Consequently, the ruling house is seeking declarations that it duly completed its nomination exercise on January 12, 2026, and that the kingmakers are obligated to select a candidate from the list submitted to them.
It is further asking the court to declare the closure of the Awujale Palace, purportedly to halt the selection process, unlawful, ultra vires the Obas and Chiefs’ Law of Ogun State 2021, and in breach of the claimants’ and kingmakers’ right to fair hearing.

Counsel to the plaintiffs, led by Otunba Olusegun Otayemi, argued in the originating summons that the state’s chieftaincy law establishes a sequential process of nomination, selection and approval, which the relevant authorities are required to follow once the process has commenced.

The legal team also relied on previous judicial decisions, including Menakaya v. Menakaya and Garba v. University of Maiduguri, in support of its arguments on statutory duties and the right to fair hearing.

The case is yet to be heard, while responses from the defendants had not been made public as of the time of filing this report.