A CHAIR IS NOT A CONSPIRACY: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON IYIN, TRADITION AND THE ATTEMPT TO MANUFACTURE A POLITICAL RIFT

 

By Deji Aleshinloye

There comes a point in public discourse when journalism must cease to be a vehicle for insinuation but return to its most basic responsibility: separating facts from

speculation.The recent article titled “Mischief Disguised as Tradition in Oluyin’s Palace:

The Suspicious Request for the Governor’s Chair” appears, on close examination, to cross that very line.The issue is not whether a request was made concerning a chair. If there was a formal request, the appropriate questions are straightforward: Who made the request?

In what capacity? What exactly was requested? On what traditional or administrative basis?And what was the response?Those are legitimate questions; but the article does something entirely different.It takes an alleged request concerning a chair and proceeds, without publicly establishing the necessary evidence, to construct a narrative of ritual manipulation, political vendetta, DSS intervention, persecution of a clergyman and an alleged plot against the Governor of Ekiti State.That is an enormous leap, and responsible journalism cannot build such serious conclusions on speculation.

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE OFFENCE OF THE CHAIR?A

church is a place of worship, fellowship, thanksgiving and prayer. Its furniture serves the congregation and visitors who worship there.When prominent personalities attend a church service, they may be given designated seats as a matter of protocol, convenience or courtesy.

That does not automatically transform the chair into the personal property of the dignitary who occupies it.Indeed, the question that should be asked is much simpler:Was the chair purchased personally by the Governor? Was it donated to him? Was it presented to him as a personal gift? Or was it simply church furniture upon which he sat during a public religious service?If the answer is the latter, then the attempt to elevate the chair into a political weapon becomes difficult to sustain.

The article itself acknowledges that the church declined the request and that the chair had subsequently been dismantled and incorporated into altar furnishing.If that is indeed what happened, then the matter should have ended there.Instead, the writer has taken an unresolved administrative or traditional request and supplied an alleged motive that has not been established by evidence.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF “CHARM”?This is perhaps the most disturbing part of the publication.The writer alleges that many people believe the chair was wanted for “charms” and “ritual manipulation” against Governor Oyebanji.But belief is not evidence.

Who conducted the investigation?What physical evidence was recovered?What traditional practitioner was identified?What statement did the palace make indicating such an intention?What did the DSS officially say?Where is the DSS statement?Where is the police report?Where is the court document?Where is the sworn testimony?Where is the independent investigation?Without answers to these questions, the allegation remains an allegation.It is irresponsible to present an extraordinarily serious accusation as though it were an established fact merely because unnamed people allegedly “believe” it.The burden of proof becomes even more important when the allegation concerns a traditional ruler, a public office holder and a sensitive religious institution.

THE DSS CLAIM REQUIRES PARTICULAR CAUTION

The article says that the DSS took the matter seriously enough to invite the Oluyin for questioning.That is a factual claim capable of verification.Therefore, the writer should produce the evidence.An invitation letter, official statement, credible report from the DSS or an on-the-record confirmation would settle the question.Until such evidence is produced, the responsible position is to say that the claim is unverified, rather than use the alleged DSS involvement to create an atmosphere of criminality around the monarch.

A journalist cannot invoke the name of a national security agency merely to make a story more frightening.

THE VICAR’S TRANSFER IS ANOTHER MATTER ENTIRELY

The article further suggests that the Vicar, Ven. Dr. Samuel Sunday Agunbiade, was transferred because he refused to surrender the chair.That is another serious allegation.Yet the publicly available information from the Diocese of Ekiti currently identifies Ven. Dr. Samuel Sunday Agunbiade as the Vicar-in-Charge of Babamuboni Memorial Anglican Church and Archdeacon-in-Charge of Babamuboni Archdeaconry.If there was a transfer, when exactly did it occur?Who ordered it?Was it the Bishop?Was it the Diocese?Was it the Archdeaconry?Was it the palace?What official document connects the alleged transfer to the chair?These questions matter.

The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has its own ecclesiastical structures and authorities. Consequently, an allegation that a traditional ruler “influenced” the removal of a clergyman is not something that should be stated as fact without documentary or authoritative confirmation.

TO ME, THE POLITICAL ANGLE CANNOT BE IGNORED

The timing of this publication also deserves scrutiny. The article seeks to turn a chair into a political symbol and then places Governor Biodun Oyebanji and Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele within the narrative.That is where discerning readers should become particularly cautious.Why?Because there is a very important documented reality that contradicts the picture of political estrangement being insinuated.In November 2025, the Oluyin of Iyin-Ekiti honoured Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele with the traditional title of Oluomo of Iyin-Ekiti.

Contemporary reporting also records the monarch’s appreciation of Bamidele’s contribution to the development of Iyin-Ekiti.The same reporting records the Oluyin expressing gratitude to Governor Biodun Oyebanji for his continued support of the community.So what is the evidence that these relationships suddenly became a battlefield over a chair?More importantly, where is the evidence that Senator Bamidele is somehow behind, or threatened by, the Oluyin?There is none in the article.And that is precisely the problem.

MOB AND BAO’S POLITICAL RECORD SPEAKS LOUDER

Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele was not a distant observer of Governor Oyebanji’s 2026 re-election campaign.As Chairman of the Ekiti APC 2026 Governorship Campaign Council, he publicly defended the Governor’s record and described Oyebanji’s performance as strong enough to make his re-election an easy task.

The election itself provides an even more concrete picture.At Senator Bamidele’s polling unit, Governor Oyebanji received 164 votes, compared with eight votes for his closest challenger, PDP candidate Dr. Wole Oluyede.That is not the electoral footprint of two men supposedly engaged in a political war. It is evidence of political cooperation, and it is precisely why those who genuinely value Ekiti’s peace should resist every attempt to manufacture division between the Senate Leader and the Governor.

THE CHURCH SHOULD NOT BECOME A POLITICAL BATTLEGROUND

Babamuboni Memorial Anglican Church is not merely a building.It is a place of worship and community.Interestingly, publicly available records show that the church has hosted significant political and public figures over the years. In 2023, for example, Senator Bamidele held his victory thanksgiving at Babamuboni Memorial Anglican Church after his election victory.The church’s role is therefore larger than the chair of one visitor.A chair occupied by a Governor during a service does not become a political trophy.Nor should a chair become the basis for accusing a traditional ruler of sinister motives without evidence.

THE BIGGER QUESTION: WHO BENEFITS FROM DIVISION?

This is where Ekiti people must be vigilant.Governor Biodun Oyebanji has just secured another mandate.Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele remains one of the most influential political figures in Ekiti and at the federal level.Both men have a political stake in stability, cooperation and the continued development of Ekiti.Therefore, anyone attempting to create the impression that the two men are enemies should be asked to produce evidence rather than insinuation.The same applies to anyone attempting to drag the Oluyin’s palace into a political confrontation with either man.

Ekiti does not need another manufactured crisis.The State needs cooperation between its political leadership, traditional institutions, religious bodies and citizens.

THE PAVILION ISSUE ALSO DESERVES FACTS, NOT FICTION

The same principle applies to the controversy surrounding the pavilion and alleged demolition of people’s houses.It is unfair and politically dangerous to casually insinuate that Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele instructed anyone to pull down people’s homes when no credible evidence has been presented establishing such an instruction.A man who has consistently identified himself with the development and welfare of his people cannot logically be accused of authorising the destruction of their homes merely because his name is politically convenient to invoke.If there was a demolition, the appropriate questions are:Who authorised it? Under what law? Which agency carried it out? What property was affected? Were notices issued? Were compensation or relocation procedures followed?Those are questions for investigation.They are not questions to be answered by political speculation.

LET THE RECORD BE CLEAR

There is absolutely nothing wrong with investigating a request made by a palace.There is nothing wrong with asking whether a church followed its rules concerning its property.There is nothing wrong with asking whether traditional and ecclesiastical authorities disagreed over an object.But there is everything wrong with converting an administrative disagreement into an allegation of ritual assassination, political vendetta and conspiracy without evidence.That is not investigative journalism.That is insinuation. And when such insinuation involves respected institutions, religious leaders, a traditional ruler, a sitting Governor and the Senate Leader of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the consequences can be much greater than the story itself.

A WORD OF CAUTION TO MOB AND BAO

Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele and Governor Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji should indeed remain vigilant — but not because a chair has suddenly become more powerful than political facts.They should be vigilant because politics has a way of turning harmless incidents into weapons when people with ulterior motives need a narrative.Their strongest response is not confrontation.It is continued cooperation.It is continued service to Ekiti.It is continued respect for the traditional institution.It is continued respect for the Church.And, above all, it is refusing to allow politically motivated narratives to destroy relationships that have demonstrably served the interests of the people.

The Oluyin of Iyin-Ekiti, the Governor of Ekiti State and the Senate Leader are all institutions bigger than one chair.Ekiti’s peace is bigger than one chair.The development of Iyin is bigger than one chair.The future of Ekiti is bigger than one chair.And no responsible citizen should permit a chair in a church to become the instrument through which political enemies manufacture a war that does not exist.Ekiti Kete must reject politics of insinuation.Let facts speak. Let institutions speak. Let evidence speak.And let peace remain the winner.