RE-YORUBA ORIGIN CONTROVERSY :PROF
ADE-AJAYI'S VIEW IS
POLITICISED,ETHNICISED AND
AHSTISTORICAL
By Ewaen Edoghimioya

The interview granted your paper by the
Emeritus Prof J.F.Ade-Ajayi of the University
of Ibadan on the Yoruba origin controversy
and his views are most disappointing and
most unbecoming of an emeritus professor of
his calibre. To say the least, it lacked the
objectivity, professionalism and decorum
which you expected him to bring to the issue.
He allowed his ethnic bias and accompanying
anger to take the better part of him and it
could be seen that he only just managed to
restrain himself from resorting to insults and
abuse. But the harsh tone of his language
were suggestive enough of his disrespect for
the Omo n' Oba n'Edo, Uku Akpolokpolo, Oba
Erediauwa who is his elder and a royal father.
As a leading light of African history and
culture, i started to wonder what kind of
African history he was teaching his students
and the kind of example he giving to us
younger historians who are expected to look
up to him.
A reading of the interview shows that Prof
Ajayi have either not read the portion of the
book dealing with the origin of the Oduduwa
published in Nigerian dailies or he was too
disoriented by the content as to be able to
articulate his comments or replies to the
questions posed by the interviewer .
Otherwise, he would not have resorted to
falsifying the Omo n' Obas statements as
contained in the book. The first and major
falsehood he fabricated is his claim that Omo
n' Oba wrote that Egharevba "..has Akoko Edo
blood in him". There is no where in the book
where Omo n'Oba made such a statement.
What Omo n'Oba wrote was ".Apart from the
fact that Edo n Ekue( Edo-Akure partly Benin
and partly Yoruba by birth) blood in the man
"(Egharevba) manifested itself.".So one does
not know how Prof Ade Ajayi got his Akoko
Edo which he used to replace Edo-Akure. He
went further to ask "Akoko Edo people are no
longer under Edo state"? This latter question
based on his fabrications was obviously
aimed at ridiculing the Omo n'Oba as one
who does not know the ethnic belonging or
categorization of the Akoko Edo.
Another outright falsehood is Ade-Ajayi's
statement that ".there is no doubt that
Oranmiyan founded Oyo and he also founded
Benin".To state that Oranmiyan founded
Benin is a mistake which I am sure an
elementary school pupil who studied social
studies in Nigeria will not make. For an
emeritus professor of African history to make
such public gaffe, without retracting it after it
was printed is to say the least disappointing.
Prof Ade-Ajayi's statement is the big lie of
Nigerian history of the twenty first century.
The most terrible blunder of Prof Ade-Ajayi
was the statement that "The Oba of Benin has
no locus standi , as it were to tell the story of
Oranmiyan." If the Omo n'Oba , who is a
direct descendant of Oranmiyan have no locus
standi to tell the story of his forebear, I
wonder who has the local standi? Is it Prof
Ade Ajayi,(though a historian) whom I am
sure cannot even trace the relationship
between his native sub-Ekiti groups relations
with oduduwa.? If anybody have the locus
standi anywhere in the world, it is the direct
descendants of 0ranmiyan of which the Omo
n' Oba is the foremost.
On the professional level, Prof Ade -Ajayi only
exposed his ethnic bias and politiking rather
than engage in historical analysis. The major
areas of his comments in which he abused
professionalism are his use and source of
historical evidence, and definition of a
professional historian. The major plank of
Ade-Ajayi's comments is the claim that "His
(Omo n'Oba's) father used to attend and meet
at the conference of yoruba Obas regularly
during the colonial rule.His own father did
not object to this." This evidence of Oba
Akenzua II attendance of such meetings is one
issue which many a Yoruba historian have
struggled over the years to force down as
"fact" or evidence of history) and they cite the
seating arrangement in the meetings of
Yoruba Obas (attended by Omo n' Oba n'Edo,
Uku Akpolokpolo, Oba Akenzua II 1933-1978)
in which the Ooni sat at the head of the table
. This development has been falsified and
projected as evidence of Obas of Benin
subordination to the Ooni of Ife. Though Ade-
Ajayi stated that these meetings were taking
place under colonial rule, he deliberately
refused to state the context and circumstances
in which these meetings took place. This
silence on the context and circumstance
misleads the public into thinking that the
meetings were traditional and customary, and
creates the impression that a relationship of
superiority and /or affinity have always
existed between the Oba of Benin and the
Yoruba Obas and even within the ranks of
Yoruba Obas. Professionally, Ade Ajayi should
have told us why and how these meetings
came into being, the purpose and interest
which they served.
Until Oba Akenzua II, no Oba of Benin
attended any conference or meeting of Yoruba
Obas. Such kind of pan Yoruba Obas meeting
never existed in history as a pan Yoruba
consciousness and state never existed. These
meetings were not started until the late
1930s.Attempts by some Yoruba Obas in
present day Ondo and Ekiti states to pay
customary tributes to Omo n'Oba ,Uku
Akpolokpolo,Oba Eweka II after restoration in
1914 were stopped by the British and
prohibited. This shows that the British were
not interested in such interactions. But in the
late 1930's certain administrative changes
were implemented by the British which
divided Southern Nigeria into Western and
Eastern provinces. The British colonial
administration initiated and instituted these
meetings of Sole Native Authorities (wrongly
called conference of Yoruba Obas) in the
western provinces to discuss and solve
common problems of the provinces. Oba
Akenzua II as the only Sole Native Authority
in Benin Province under the directive of the
colonial government was always "invited" by
the government and was bound to attend. The
meetings were held under the auspices of the
British and it was the administrative
mechanism for foisting regionalism and
formed the basis of the latter western region
house of chiefs which Oba Akenzua II also
attended by virtue of his status as a first class
ruler. While the house of chiefs lasted, the
Egbe Omo Oduduwa and Action group
government foisted Yoruba leadership on the
house. Late Obafemi Awolowo went as far as
trying to control the traditional rulers and
forcing them to toe his party line.He did not
hesitate to subtly threaten or "advise" Oba
Akenzua II on 8th March 1955 to desist from
party politics, and Oba Akenzua reminded
him of the partisanship role of the Ooni and
the Alake. What happened to traditional
rulers in western region who did not toe
Awolowo's party line is well documented.
When Midwest was created , the Omo n' Oba
stopped attending the meetings. That Oba
Akenzua II attended these meetings had
nothing to do with any history or traditional
affinity as Ade Ajayi will want to mislead the
public to believe. It was sheer colonial
administrative politics and later day Action
Group influenced ethnic politics.
Another major and faulty plank of Ade-Ajayi's
comment had to do with evidence.He
haraunge that "He (Omo n' Oba) did nor cite
any evidence". But did not ask a similar
question in the case of Egharevba and went
ahead to uphold Egharevbas work as some
gospel. If I may ask what is difference
between the sources of Omo n'Oba and
Egharevba and are both not based on Oral
traditions? Egharevba selected the oral
traditions which he presented as history and
Omo n'Oba did same. Why the double
standard and what makes Egharevba
traditions acceptable? Is it because his
"traditions" he cite are supportive of Oyo
Yoruba biased history of Samuel Johnson.
Omo n'Oba even went as far as showing the
Akure-Yoruba influence on Egharevba in
order to prove the bias and context of
Egharevba history and this is application of
historical method. Permit me to further
buttress the context and sources of Yoruba
biases and influences on Egharevbas work.
Apart from the Akure ancestry, Egharevba
had part of his early education in Yorubaland,
was a benefactor of Bishop James Johnson(a
Yoruba),he was Anglican (CMS) and worked
with Revd Payne who introduced him to the
CMS Press controlled by the Yoruba
intellingentsia,his first editor was C.J. Smart,
a Yoruba letter writer resident in Benin City,
and was also influenced by Ajisafe another
Yoruba author with whom he consulted for is
publications.
To claim that Egharevba was right to
continuously revise his books was another
gaffe .Ade-Ajayi did not explain the kind of
revision and their basis expected of a
professional. The revisions were not based on
credible evidence and were largely
introduction of materials that suited his
fancy, pet theories and his mentors. All these
are evident in his works. He was continuously
challenged for his biases. Even in his later
life, Egharevba stated that and I quote that
"..Oduduwa was not a Yoruba man. Oduduwa
found the yorubas already living in Ife when
he arrived"(Text of interview 3rd May 1975).
I am sure that if Ade-Ajayi (and the yorubas
whose cause he is championing) were aware
of this , he(they) will start having a second
thought on calling him for evidence to support
their case.
Permit me to ask what qualifies, Egharevba as
a better historian on Benin Kingship history
than the Omo n' Oba? Is it because Egharevba
was the first to write or less educated or less
interested politics than Omo n'Oba?
Egharevba selected the tradition that suited
his fancy and published it to the exclusion of
other traditions.That he was the first to write
neither makes his work nor the traditions he
selected gospel. Egharevba was no less a
politician too and his political leaning was the
(CMS/Yoruba initiated Reformed Ogboni
Fraternity influenced) Benin Tax Payers
Association which was allied to the Action
Group.Other traditions have always existed
and Egharevba attention was drawn to them
and were used to challenge him too.If these
traditions were not published then, it does not
mean that they must be silenced for the sake
of the yorubas. Let all the traditions be
published for critical examination and
enrichment of our history. Ade-Ajayi cannot
just wake up and dismiss one tradition and
try to force his favoured version down our
throat. What he has done is no history , but
politics and an ethnicised one.
EWAEN EDOGHIMIOYA
B.A(Hons) & M.A.History
http://www.edo-nation.net/edoghimioya1.htm