From Alaafin’s 2021 installation to government’s former ban and the latest appointment, the unresolved Saratu Konibaje dispute has reopened questions about traders’ autonomy, political influence and the timing of Abeo’s recognition.
The long-running battle for the position of Iyaloja-General of Oyo State has entered a new chapter following Governor Seyi Makinde’s approval of Princess Folashade Azeezat Abeo Nurudeen for the position, reopening a controversy that the same administration once sought to contain by prohibiting rival claimants from parading themselves as the state’s principal market leaders.
The development, formally announced on Friday, October 16, 2026, represents a significant shift from the government’s earlier position that neither side should occupy the disputed office until the crisis within the market leadership structure had been investigated and resolved.
While the government has presented the latest appointments as part of efforts to promote unity, cooperation and effective coordination among traders, the circumstances surrounding Abeo’s emergence have raised fresh questions about the process that produced the decision and whether the long-standing disagreement with Alhaja Saratu Aduke Konibaje has been conclusively settled.
For observers familiar with the dispute, the central question is no longer simply who occupies the office of Iyaloja-General, but why an administration that previously avoided endorsing either claimant has now formally recognised one of them.
How the battle began
The roots of the controversy date back to April 2021, when the late Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi III, installed Princess Azeezat Folashade Abeo Nurudeen as Iyaloja-General of Oyo State.
The installation took place at the Alaafin’s palace on April 26, following a letter dated March 14, 2021, which the Oyo State Market Leaders Joint Working Committee reportedly submitted to the monarch. According to reports at the time, eight of the committee’s 12 market clusters endorsed Abeo’s candidature.
The Alaafin subsequently explained that the installation reflected the decision of the supporting market associations and disclosed that he had informed Governor Makinde about the exercise.
However, the development immediately encountered resistance from another group of market leaders, who maintained that the state’s market leadership should emerge through the collective decision of traders and their associations.
On the same day Abeo was installed, a rival coalition of traders, artisans, market men and women reportedly appointed Alhaja Saratu Aduke Konibaje as Iyaloja-General at an emergency meeting in Ibadan.
Konibaje had served as Otun Iyaloja-General to the late Alhaja Wuraola Asake Kola-Daisi, who died in October 2020. Supporters of the rival claimant argued that her emergence followed the established market leadership structure and the choice of the traders.
Thus began a contest in which both sides drew support from different groups within the market community, while the authority to determine the ultimate legitimacy of the office became a matter of continuing disagreement.
Makinde’s government imposed a freeze
With the competing claims deepening divisions among traders, the Oyo State Government eventually stepped in, declaring that nobody should parade themselves as Iyaloja-General or Babaloja-General pending the investigation and resolution of the crisis.
In an official statement published on the state government’s website, the administration said the dispute predated its tenure and stressed the need for lasting peace among market associations.
The then Commissioner for Trade, Industry, Investment and Cooperatives, Hon. Adeniyi Adebisi, explained that government support would be extended to groups that maintained peace and worked together.
The statement was unequivocal: pending the conclusion of the investigation and resolution of the internal disagreement, there should be no Iyaloja-General or Babaloja-General in the state.
That position became an important reference point in the controversy because it appeared to place the government above the competing camps rather than confer official recognition on either Abeo or Konibaje.
However, the prolonged absence of a definitive resolution also left the underlying disagreement intact. The rival claims continued to feature in public discussions, with each camp advancing its own interpretation of the legitimate process for selecting market leaders.
The latest recognition of Abeo therefore marks a departure from the government’s earlier blanket restriction, making the basis for the change an important question for the market community.
The political dimension surrounding the dispute
Although the government has described the new appointments in administrative and economic terms, the timing has inevitably drawn attention to the wider political relationships surrounding the dispute.
Chief Jubril Dotun Sanusi, chairman of Ilaji Hotels and Sports Resort and a prominent Ibadan businessman, has been associated with the camp supporting Konibaje. His influence within Ibadan’s traditional, commercial and political circles has also made his position on the controversy noteworthy.
Sanusi’s relationship with Makinde and the political developments surrounding their respective alignments have become part of the broader conversation about the dispute. However, political association alone does not establish that either man influenced the government’s decision or that the appointment was made to reward or punish any particular individual.
The latest controversy has nevertheless placed those relationships under renewed scrutiny, especially given the contrasting political directions described by observers familiar with the state’s evolving political landscape.
Sanusi has recently spoken publicly about the matter, calling for transparency and insisting that the wishes of market traders should be respected. In a statement reported by OyoInsight on October 16, he argued that market leadership should not be determined by political loyalty or used to punish individuals for maintaining political independence.
He also called for a transparent explanation of the process that produced the latest decision.
His intervention adds a new dimension to the controversy because it shifts attention from the personalities involved to the fundamental question of whether the interests and collective preferences of market associations were adequately considered.
Why the timing is attracting attention
The latest development comes against the background of changing political relationships in Oyo State ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Makinde’s political ambitions and the evolving arrangements involving the Peoples Democratic Party, the Accord-aligned political landscape and other political platforms have continued to shape conversations about the state’s political future. At the same time, prominent political figures and influential businesspeople have been reassessing their political relationships and affiliations.
Within this environment, the formal recognition of Abeo has prompted questions about whether the timing carries political implications beyond the government’s stated objective of restoring unity among traders.
Some observers may interpret the development through the prism of shifting alliances and the influence that prominent individuals wield within grassroots commercial networks.
The development, formally announced on Friday, October 16, 2026, represents a significant shift from the government’s earlier position that neither side should occupy the disputed office until the crisis within the market leadership structure had been investigated and resolved.
While the government has presented the latest appointments as part of efforts to promote unity, cooperation and effective coordination among traders, the circumstances surrounding Abeo’s emergence have raised fresh questions about the process that produced the decision and whether the long-standing disagreement with Alhaja Saratu Aduke Konibaje has been conclusively settled.
For observers familiar with the dispute, the central question is no longer simply who occupies the office of Iyaloja-General, but why an administration that previously avoided endorsing either claimant has now formally recognised one of them.
How the battle began
The roots of the controversy date back to April 2021, when the late Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi III, installed Princess Azeezat Folashade Abeo Nurudeen as Iyaloja-General of Oyo State.
The installation took place at the Alaafin’s palace on April 26, following a letter dated March 14, 2021, which the Oyo State Market Leaders Joint Working Committee reportedly submitted to the monarch. According to reports at the time, eight of the committee’s 12 market clusters endorsed Abeo’s candidature.
The Alaafin subsequently explained that the installation reflected the decision of the supporting market associations and disclosed that he had informed Governor Makinde about the exercise.
However, the development immediately encountered resistance from another group of market leaders, who maintained that the state’s market leadership should emerge through the collective decision of traders and their associations.
On the same day Abeo was installed, a rival coalition of traders, artisans, market men and women reportedly appointed Alhaja Saratu Aduke Konibaje as Iyaloja-General at an emergency meeting in Ibadan.
Konibaje had served as Otun Iyaloja-General to the late Alhaja Wuraola Asake Kola-Daisi, who died in October 2020. Supporters of the rival claimant argued that her emergence followed the established market leadership structure and the choice of the traders.
Thus began a contest in which both sides drew support from different groups within the market community, while the authority to determine the ultimate legitimacy of the office became a matter of continuing disagreement.
Makinde’s government imposed a freeze
With the competing claims deepening divisions among traders, the Oyo State Government eventually stepped in, declaring that nobody should parade themselves as Iyaloja-General or Babaloja-General pending the investigation and resolution of the crisis.
In an official statement published on the state government’s website, the administration said the dispute predated its tenure and stressed the need for lasting peace among market associations.
The then Commissioner for Trade, Industry, Investment and Cooperatives, Hon. Adeniyi Adebisi, explained that government support would be extended to groups that maintained peace and worked together.
The statement was unequivocal: pending the conclusion of the investigation and resolution of the internal disagreement, there should be no Iyaloja-General or Babaloja-General in the state.
That position became an important reference point in the controversy because it appeared to place the government above the competing camps rather than confer official recognition on either Abeo or Konibaje.
However, the prolonged absence of a definitive resolution also left the underlying disagreement intact. The rival claims continued to feature in public discussions, with each camp advancing its own interpretation of the legitimate process for selecting market leaders.
The latest recognition of Abeo therefore marks a departure from the government’s earlier blanket restriction, making the basis for the change an important question for the market community.
The political dimension surrounding the dispute
Although the government has described the new appointments in administrative and economic terms, the timing has inevitably drawn attention to the wider political relationships surrounding the dispute.
Chief Jubril Dotun Sanusi, chairman of Ilaji Hotels and Sports Resort and a prominent Ibadan businessman, has been associated with the camp supporting Konibaje. His influence within Ibadan’s traditional, commercial and political circles has also made his position on the controversy noteworthy.
Sanusi’s relationship with Makinde and the political developments surrounding their respective alignments have become part of the broader conversation about the dispute. However, political association alone does not establish that either man influenced the government’s decision or that the appointment was made to reward or punish any particular individual.
The latest controversy has nevertheless placed those relationships under renewed scrutiny, especially given the contrasting political directions described by observers familiar with the state’s evolving political landscape.
Sanusi has recently spoken publicly about the matter, calling for transparency and insisting that the wishes of market traders should be respected. In a statement reported by OyoInsight on October 16, he argued that market leadership should not be determined by political loyalty or used to punish individuals for maintaining political independence.
He also called for a transparent explanation of the process that produced the latest decision.
His intervention adds a new dimension to the controversy because it shifts attention from the personalities involved to the fundamental question of whether the interests and collective preferences of market associations were adequately considered.
Why the timing is attracting attention
The latest development comes against the background of changing political relationships in Oyo State ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Makinde’s political ambitions and the evolving arrangements involving the Peoples Democratic Party, the Accord-aligned political landscape and other political platforms have continued to shape conversations about the state’s political future. At the same time, prominent political figures and influential businesspeople have been reassessing their political relationships and affiliations.
Within this environment, the formal recognition of Abeo has prompted questions about whether the timing carries political implications beyond the government’s stated objective of restoring unity among traders.
Some observers may interpret the development through the prism of shifting alliances and the influence that prominent individuals wield within grassroots commercial networks.
Market associations are important community institutions, and their leaders often have extensive relationships with traders, transport operators, small-business owners and other groups whose interests intersect with politics.
Nevertheless, no publicly verified evidence cited in the government’s announcement establishes that Abeo’s appointment was connected to Sanusi’s political alignment, his relationship with Makinde or Konibaje’s alleged political preferences.
Such claims must therefore remain questions for investigation rather than conclusions presented as established facts.
The timing is politically significant enough to invite scrutiny, but a credible report must distinguish between the sequence of events, documented political relationships and allegations about the motives behind an official decision.
Government’s explanation: Unity and commercial coordination
In announcing the appointments, the Commissioner for Information, Prince Dotun Oyelade, said the governor had approved four market leadership positions.
Apart from Abeo as Iyaloja-General, Alhaji Y.K. Abass was recognised as Babaloja-General of Oyo State. S.T. Jimoh was appointed Aare Oloja, while J.T. Raimi was named Asiwaju Oloja.
According to the government, the appointments recognise the individuals’ contributions to trade and commerce, particularly their roles in coordinating trading committees across the state’s 33 local government areas.
The administration also said the appointments were intended to promote unity, cooperation and harmony among trade associations, strengthen the commercial sector and support economic growth.
That explanation provides the official rationale for the decision. It also raises a practical question: whether the new appointments will bring the rival factions together or create another round of disagreement if supporters of the unrecognised claimant remain dissatisfied.
The government’s ability to demonstrate that the process was inclusive, credible and consistent with the relevant market leadership arrangements may prove crucial to the durability of the new structure.
Can Abeo’s recognition end the crisis?
Abeo’s supporters have welcomed the government’s decision, describing it as a formal recognition of a leadership claim that dates back to the late Alaafin’s installation in 2021.
Her appointment gives her a new basis for engagement with the state government and market associations, particularly in coordinating activities across the various commercial clusters.
Yet government recognition does not automatically establish that every market association previously involved in the dispute has accepted the decision. Nor does it, by itself, answer all questions about the relationship between traditional endorsement, traders’ preferences and administrative authority.
The history of the controversy shows why those distinctions matter. Abeo’s supporters relied on the endorsement of several market clusters and the Alaafin’s installation, while Konibaje’s supporters cited their coalition’s selection process and the late Wuraola Kola-Daisi’s previous position within the market leadership structure.
A lasting settlement may therefore require more than the issuance of appointment letters. It may depend on sustained consultations, a clear explanation of the process and a willingness by the competing groups to accept an arrangement that protects the interests of traders across the state.
The same challenge applies to the appointment of Y.K. Abass as Babaloja-General, given the history of disputes over the male counterpart of the office. Previous disagreements over his installation and the legal challenges surrounding his position illustrate the wider difficulties involved in reconciling competing claims to market leadership.
The questions Makinde’s government must answer
The latest decision leaves several legitimate questions for the government and the market community.
What specific process was used to determine the successful candidates? Which market associations participated in the consultations leading to the appointments, and how were their positions documented?
Was the earlier government investigation concluded, and if so, what were its findings? If it was not concluded, what new considerations informed the decision to recognise Abeo despite the previous directive that nobody should parade themselves as Iyaloja-General or Babaloja-General?
Finally, what arrangements have been made to engage Konibaje and the associations that supported her, so that the new recognition does not simply replace one disputed arrangement with another?
These are questions of accountability, institutional consistency and commercial stability. They are also relevant to the credibility of the government’s stated objective of promoting unity among traders.
For the market community, the ultimate test will be whether the new leadership structure improves representation, protects traders’ interests and provides a peaceful mechanism for resolving disagreements.
Beyond politics, traders need a lasting settlement
The Iyaloja-General position is more than an honorary title within the commercial community. It carries symbolic importance and provides a focal point for representation, consultation and coordination among market associations.
For thousands of traders operating across Oyo State, the immediate concern is whether their leadership can speak with a credible and broadly accepted voice when engaging the government on market infrastructure, security, access to credit, taxation and the conditions necessary for small businesses to thrive.
The controversy also presents an opportunity for the administration to clarify the principles governing the recognition of market leaders and establish a transparent process that can withstand political changes and competing interests.
Abeo’s appointment may mark the beginning of a new phase in the dispute, but the durability of that phase will depend on whether the rival claims are addressed through credible engagement rather than merely through official recognition.
For now, the central issue remains the contrast between the government’s earlier decision to suspend recognition of rival claimants and its subsequent approval of Abeo.
Whether that reversal represents the conclusion of a long-delayed administrative process, a successful effort to unify market leadership or a development with wider political implications can only be established through further evidence and a clear account of how the decision was reached.
Until then, the questions surrounding the timing, process and acceptance of the new Iyaloja-General will remain central to the debate over market leadership in Oyo State.
Nevertheless, no publicly verified evidence cited in the government’s announcement establishes that Abeo’s appointment was connected to Sanusi’s political alignment, his relationship with Makinde or Konibaje’s alleged political preferences.
Such claims must therefore remain questions for investigation rather than conclusions presented as established facts.
The timing is politically significant enough to invite scrutiny, but a credible report must distinguish between the sequence of events, documented political relationships and allegations about the motives behind an official decision.
Government’s explanation: Unity and commercial coordination
In announcing the appointments, the Commissioner for Information, Prince Dotun Oyelade, said the governor had approved four market leadership positions.
Apart from Abeo as Iyaloja-General, Alhaji Y.K. Abass was recognised as Babaloja-General of Oyo State. S.T. Jimoh was appointed Aare Oloja, while J.T. Raimi was named Asiwaju Oloja.
According to the government, the appointments recognise the individuals’ contributions to trade and commerce, particularly their roles in coordinating trading committees across the state’s 33 local government areas.
The administration also said the appointments were intended to promote unity, cooperation and harmony among trade associations, strengthen the commercial sector and support economic growth.
That explanation provides the official rationale for the decision. It also raises a practical question: whether the new appointments will bring the rival factions together or create another round of disagreement if supporters of the unrecognised claimant remain dissatisfied.
The government’s ability to demonstrate that the process was inclusive, credible and consistent with the relevant market leadership arrangements may prove crucial to the durability of the new structure.
Can Abeo’s recognition end the crisis?
Abeo’s supporters have welcomed the government’s decision, describing it as a formal recognition of a leadership claim that dates back to the late Alaafin’s installation in 2021.
Her appointment gives her a new basis for engagement with the state government and market associations, particularly in coordinating activities across the various commercial clusters.
Yet government recognition does not automatically establish that every market association previously involved in the dispute has accepted the decision. Nor does it, by itself, answer all questions about the relationship between traditional endorsement, traders’ preferences and administrative authority.
The history of the controversy shows why those distinctions matter. Abeo’s supporters relied on the endorsement of several market clusters and the Alaafin’s installation, while Konibaje’s supporters cited their coalition’s selection process and the late Wuraola Kola-Daisi’s previous position within the market leadership structure.
A lasting settlement may therefore require more than the issuance of appointment letters. It may depend on sustained consultations, a clear explanation of the process and a willingness by the competing groups to accept an arrangement that protects the interests of traders across the state.
The same challenge applies to the appointment of Y.K. Abass as Babaloja-General, given the history of disputes over the male counterpart of the office. Previous disagreements over his installation and the legal challenges surrounding his position illustrate the wider difficulties involved in reconciling competing claims to market leadership.
The questions Makinde’s government must answer
The latest decision leaves several legitimate questions for the government and the market community.
What specific process was used to determine the successful candidates? Which market associations participated in the consultations leading to the appointments, and how were their positions documented?
Was the earlier government investigation concluded, and if so, what were its findings? If it was not concluded, what new considerations informed the decision to recognise Abeo despite the previous directive that nobody should parade themselves as Iyaloja-General or Babaloja-General?
Finally, what arrangements have been made to engage Konibaje and the associations that supported her, so that the new recognition does not simply replace one disputed arrangement with another?
These are questions of accountability, institutional consistency and commercial stability. They are also relevant to the credibility of the government’s stated objective of promoting unity among traders.
For the market community, the ultimate test will be whether the new leadership structure improves representation, protects traders’ interests and provides a peaceful mechanism for resolving disagreements.
Beyond politics, traders need a lasting settlement
The Iyaloja-General position is more than an honorary title within the commercial community. It carries symbolic importance and provides a focal point for representation, consultation and coordination among market associations.
For thousands of traders operating across Oyo State, the immediate concern is whether their leadership can speak with a credible and broadly accepted voice when engaging the government on market infrastructure, security, access to credit, taxation and the conditions necessary for small businesses to thrive.
The controversy also presents an opportunity for the administration to clarify the principles governing the recognition of market leaders and establish a transparent process that can withstand political changes and competing interests.
Abeo’s appointment may mark the beginning of a new phase in the dispute, but the durability of that phase will depend on whether the rival claims are addressed through credible engagement rather than merely through official recognition.
For now, the central issue remains the contrast between the government’s earlier decision to suspend recognition of rival claimants and its subsequent approval of Abeo.
Whether that reversal represents the conclusion of a long-delayed administrative process, a successful effort to unify market leadership or a development with wider political implications can only be established through further evidence and a clear account of how the decision was reached.
Until then, the questions surrounding the timing, process and acceptance of the new Iyaloja-General will remain central to the debate over market leadership in Oyo State.
0 Comments