Before the British came, the ancient Yoruba Governance system (the Constitutional Ọba) was representative democracy at its best; ‘the rule by the people’. There was a decision-making body or Governing Council (the Ijọba) made up of representatives of artisans, lineages,  kins, and trades etc. There was the Ọba (mistranslated in English to ‘ruler’) who was the administrative head (Asiwaju) and mouthpiece of the Council. There were thus two lots of representatives in the Constitutional Ọba system, namely, the Ijọba (the political representatives) and the Ọba (the symbolic representative). The primary loyalty of the Ijọba and the Ọba was to the community or urban. 

In the Elective Representative System, brought by the British to the Yorubaland, political parties chose their representatives (‘party representative’) who were then transmogrified into  ‘peoples’ representatives’. Each party representative was chosen to represent an arbitrarily determined ‘constituency’ of people, individuals simply lumped together purely for the purposes of governance. Unlike the requirement of the Constitutional Ọba, it was not necessary in the Elective Representative System for the party representative to be of, or belong to, the ‘constituency’. Elections were a sort of beauty contests between party representatives. The primary loyalty of the party representative was to the party not to the community or urban (Ilu).

The Yoruba politicians of the colonial era recognised, and made known, that the Constitutional Ọba system possessed an ‘incalculable sentimental value for the masses’ (Obafemi Awolowo in The path to Nigerian Freedom, 1947). Indeed, Awolowo’s Action Group (AG), a Yoruba-based political party, tied itself to the Yoruba rulers through the auspices of Egbe Omo Oduduwa, a cultural group, which aimed:

‘…to recognize and maintain the monarchical and other similar institutions of Yorubaland...to acknowledge the leadership of Yoruba Obas and to establish a firm basis of entire cooperation between the Yoruba people and their Obas in the political, economic. and social affairs of Yorubaland.’

The Yoruba rulers were the ‘Native Authorities’ in the colonial times. They were the instrument of Britain’s Indirect Rule policy, but in addition to that role, the Yoruba rulers initially were involved in the elective politics of Nigeria. Legislative Councils were created in the early colonial period in Nigeria. Following the 1914 Amalgamation, the council included as ex-officio members two Emir (from the North) and the Alaafin of Oyo (from the South). The Clifford Constitution (1922) introduced limited elected representatives into the council, which opened up new roles for the Yoruba rulers. In Lagos, Herbert Macauley’s Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP) enabled traditional rulers to directly participate in elections to the Legislative Council. The NNDP established a coalition, which included amongst others, the Lagos ‘White Cap Chiefs’ (traditional land owners). All the successful candidates at the election were fielded by the NNDP coalition.

The Richards Constitution (1946) imported the Principle of Regionalism into Nigeria with the establishment of the Houses of Assembly. The Governor appointed ‘official members’, to provide him with support, whist the ‘Native Authorities’, that is, the Yoruba rulers, selected unofficial members amongst themselves. In addition, the Governor, after consultation with the Chiefs of the Western Provinces, appointed three ‘Head Chiefs’ to the House. In effect, the Yoruba rulers were doubly represented in the Western Nigeria House. In fact, the influence of the Yoruba rulers carried over into the national Legislative Council since it included members elected by the Regional Assembly.

The Macpherson Constitution (1951) was based on opinions ‘canvassed’ through a series of hierarchical conferences; representatives were sent from village, to district, to province, to region, finally to national, the conference of which took place in Ibadan. Positions were reserved at each level for the ‘Native Authorities’, which meant that Yoruba rulers had a voice in the emerging Macpherson Constitution. That constitution established the House of Chiefs and gave it legislative powers. The Yoruba rulers were represented in Nigeria’s governance at that time in three ways, namely, selection of members for the House of Assembly, the entire membership of the House of Chiefs, and selection of members for the national House of Representatives.

The Lyttleton Constitution (1954) disposed of the ‘grassroot’ pedigree of the Macpherson Constitution, and established the ‘Politicians’ Charter’, which greatly constrained the constitutional powers of the Yoruba rulers at both national and regional levels. Yoruba rulers no longer had a role in the selection of members of the Western House of Assembly or of the national House of Representatives, which were now given over entirely to political parties. What was left for the Yoruba rulers was membership of the national Senate, and of the House of Chiefs, which had not been abolished. The two ‘noble’ houses were made subordinate to the ‘elected’ houses (Assembly and Representatives). Membership of the Council of Ministers (national) and of the Executive Council (regional) preserved some influence for the Yoruba rulers. This constitutional position was largely maintained by the 1960 Independence Constitution, which also established the ‘Minority Council’, an advisory body, which included Yoruba rulers as members. 

By excluding the courts from adjudicating on chieftaincy matters, the 1963 Republican Constitution, which was built on the 1960 Independence Constitution, finally gave the politicians absolute power over the Yoruba rulers. Section 161(3) of the Constitution says:

‘…no chieftaincy question shall be entertained by any court of law in Nigeria, and a certificate which is executed by an authority authorized in that behalf by a law coming into force in a territory on or after the date of commencement of this Constitution (including law passed before that date) and which states –

(a) that a particular person is or was, by reference to that territory or a part of it, a chief of a specified grade at a specified time or during a specified period; or

(b) that the provision of a law in force in that territory relating to the removal or exclusion of chiefs or former chiefs from areas within the territory have been complied with in the case of a particular person, shall be conclusive evidence as to matters set out in that statement.’

Nigeria’s military dictators, who murdered their way into power in January 1966, and by their decreed constitutions (of 1979 and 1999), stripped the Yoruba rulers of all roles, constitutional and legal.