|
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
Member,Institute for Benin Studies,
18 Ezoti Street,
Benin City.
|
