Daud Olatunji
The Eselu of Iselu Kingdom in Yewa North Local Government Area of Ogun State, Oba Ebenezer Akintunde Akinyemi, has dragged the Ogun State Governor, Dapo Abiodun, and other government officials before the Federal High Court, Abeokuta, challenging his suspension from office over alleged involvement in partisan politics.
Akinyemi was suspended by the Ogun State Government about two weeks ago over allegations of engaging in partisan political activities, an action that reportedly came with a directive ordering him to immediately vacate his palace and stop presenting himself as the Eselu of Iselu Kingdom.
The suspension letter, dated October 20, 2026, also directed the monarch to stop wearing or using his crown, ileke, beaded staff, irukere and other traditional royal insignia.
However, challenging the government’s action, the monarch approached the Federal High Court, alleging that he was suspended without prior notice or an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations.
He is consequently seeking an interim injunction restraining the government and the police from enforcing the suspension pending the determination of his substantive suit.
The court has fixed November 11, 2026, for ruling on the monarch’s application seeking an interim injunction to restrain the state government and the police from enforcing his suspension.
Justice A.A. Okeke fixed the date after listening to arguments from the monarch’s counsel, Dele Fadesere, who urged the court to protect the traditional ruler’s fundamental rights pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Fadesere told the court that the application was necessary to safeguard the monarch’s rights and prevent the enforcement of the suspension from undermining the legal proceedings.
In the application filed before the Federal High Court, Abeokuta Judicial Division, with suit number FHC/AB/FHR/148/26, Akinyemi is seeking an order restraining the respondents from compelling him to vacate the Eselu Palace or stopping him from performing his traditional functions.
Other respondents in the suit are the Ogun State Attorney-General, the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, and the Commissioner of Police, Ogun State.
The monarch is also asking the court to restrain the respondents from preventing him from presenting himself as the Eselu of Iselu Kingdom or wearing his crown, ileke, beaded staff, irukere and other traditional royal insignia.
He further wants an order preventing the police and other government officials from harassing, intimidating, arresting, detaining or interfering with him in the exercise of his rights and functions as the traditional ruler.
In an affidavit supporting the application, Akinyemi stated that he received a suspension letter dated October 20, 2026, from the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, directing him to immediately vacate the palace, stop presenting himself as the Eselu and discontinue the use of royal paraphernalia.
The monarch, however, alleged that he was neither served with prior notice nor given an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations that preceded the suspension.
He argued that the action violated his right to fair hearing and other fundamental rights guaranteed under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
Akinyemi expressed fears that the government could deploy the police to enforce the suspension by forcibly removing him from the palace, preventing him from carrying out his traditional responsibilities or taking other actions capable of undermining the outcome of the court proceedings.
He maintained that enforcing the suspension before the determination of the substantive suit would expose him to public humiliation, damage his reputation and traditional dignity, and cause irreparable injury to the institution of the Eselu of Iselu Kingdom.
The monarch further argued that his displacement from the palace would amount to an alteration of the existing situation before the court had determined the legality of the government’s action.
He consequently urged the court to preserve the status quo as it existed before October 20, when the suspension letter was issued.
In the written address accompanying the application, his counsel, Oladipo Olasope, SAN, and D.J. Fadesere, argued that the monarch had established sufficient grounds for the grant of an interim injunction.
The lawyers submitted that the central question requiring judicial determination was whether the state government could suspend the traditional ruler without first giving him an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.
They contended that the application raised serious legal issues concerning the protection of fundamental rights, particularly the right to fair hearing.
Citing the Supreme Court decision in Kotoye v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419, the applicant’s lawyers argued that an applicant seeking an injunction must demonstrate that there is a serious question to be tried, that the balance of convenience favours the application, and that damages would not constitute adequate compensation if the injunction were refused.
They also relied on Reckitt & Colman v. Gongoni (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 716) 592, arguing that the primary consideration in granting an injunction is the existence of a legal right requiring protection pending the determination of the substantive action.
The counsel maintained that refusing the application could allow the respondents to alter the existing circumstances and present the court with a fait accompli before the substantive dispute was resolved.
According to them, the balance of convenience favours the monarch because enforcing the suspension could cause damage that would be difficult to reverse, while granting the injunction would merely preserve the existing situation until the court determines the dispute.
The applicant also gave an undertaking to indemnify the respondents in damages should the court subsequently find that the interim injunction ought not to have been granted.
The application, dated October 23, 2026, was brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, and relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
'
'Do you want to share a story with us? Do you want to advertise with us? Do you need publicity for a product, service, or event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348183319097 Email: platformtimes@gmail.com
We are committed to impactful investigative journalism for human interest and social justice. Your donation will help us tell more stories. Kindly donate any amount HERE
'