My position goes beyond the question of nomenclature whether the state should be called Ijebu or Ijebu-Remo. The name is only one part of a much larger issue. My view is founded on three main grounds.
By Otunba (Dr) Abdulfalil Abayomi Odunowo
First, there is the matter of historical continuity and administrative precedent. The cause I have consistently understood and supported is the creation of Ijebu State, not Ijebu-Remo State. If that longstanding historical aspiration is now to be abandoned or diluted, there must be a justification that is both compelling and fair. The old Ijebu Province was established by the colonial administration in 1923, with Ijebu-Ode as its administrative headquarters. It remains the only pre-independence province that has not been elevated to statehood, even though comparable provinces such as Oyo, Kano, and Sokoto have been divided into multiple states. Any state created from this territory should therefore preserve that continuous administrative and cultural identity, rather than adopt a hybrid formulation that weakens the reality of the original province. A distinct “Ijebu State,” with its capital at Ijebu-Ode, is the most direct expression of that history. A compounded name, by contrast, risks implying that the province was merely an artificial colonial construct that may be renamed at will.
Second, there is the issue of demographic weight and democratic legitimacy. Of the nine local government areas that make up the old province, six are Ijebu and three are Remo. In any democratic process for state creation—including the constitutional requirements of a referendum, support in the National Assembly, and concurrence by the state House of Assembly the numerical majority should not be expected to give up its primary identity marker in order to satisfy the minority. Compromises on local government creation, resource-allocation formulas, and rotational arrangements are both possible and desirable. The removal of the majority’s historic name is not.
Third, there is the practical question of consensus politics as against the politics of identity. Genuine consensus is necessary if the proposal is to meet the demanding constitutional thresholds: two-thirds of the National Assembly, approval by state Houses of Assembly, and eventual presidential assent. But consensus cannot be secured by making one group’s identity subordinate to another’s. The Remo demand for distinctiveness grounded in migration narratives from the Iremo quarters in Ile-Ife and strengthened by the 1937 Martindale Enquiry is legitimate and should be protected through structural safeguards, not by adopting a name that permanently places “Remo” in a secondary position or, on the other hand, by using a name that suggests the two groups are interchangeable. The practical solution, therefore, is a state whose name and capital reflect the historic core of the province, backed by clear constitutional or statutory guarantees for Remo cultural institutions, land rights, and fair representation. We are dealing with six Ijebu local governments and three Remo local governments. In seeking consensus, we must not create an arrangement that effectively treats three LGAs and six LGAs as if they embody equal structural interests. This is a substantive issue of balance, not merely a question of naming.
Taken together, these three grounds move the debate beyond nomenclature and into the deeper issues of history, democracy, and workable federalism. Once those principles are accepted, the name “Ijebu State” with Ijebu-Ode as capital follows as the logical outcome, not simply a matter of preference. Any hybrid name would amount to a political compromise that still leaves the underlying issues unsettled.
Signed by
Otunba (Dr) Abdulfalil Abayomi Odunowo.
Convener
Ijebu Logan Fun itesiwaju Ijebu Movement
إرسال تعليق