0
0
The call for creation of a new state out of the present Ogun State is gathering momentum, especially in the south‐western geopolitical zone. A sound and defensible option is to name the new entity Ijebu-Remo State, with Ijebu Ode as its capital. There are multiple historical, cultural and political reasons for this name and capital choice. However, it is also essential to recognise the opposing arguments or “detractors” that could undermine the proposal. Addressing both sides clearly will strengthen the case.
Why “Ijebu-Remo State” is the preferable name
First, the combination “Ijebu – Remo” recognises the historical unity and common heritage of the two adjoining Yoruba sociocultural zones, while also preserving their distinctiveness. The area of Remo (Remoland) has been administratively linked to Ijebu territory since the colonial era, and though there have been tensions, the two peoples share deep cultural and kinship ties. For example, the official inquiry chaired by Miles Martindale in 1937 (the Martindale Commission of Inquiry) was convened to examine the status of Remo visàvis Ijebu. That report noted that some Remo towns recognised the paramountcy of the Akarigbo of Remo even though they had progenitors from Ijebu land. ([ebiographer.wordpress.com][1]) It also affirmed that though the Remo and Ijebu people came from the ancestral home of Ile-Ife at different times, they had always enjoyed a “brotherly relationship” with Ijebu as the elder brother group. ([pureoai.bham.ac.uk][2])
Second, Ijebu Ode making the capital is logical. Ijebu Ode has been the historic political and cultural centre of Ijebuland. It is the seat of the Awujale of Ijebu and carries the traditional weight suitable for a state capital. Using Ijebu Ode as capital signals continuity and stability, while Remo towns remain fully part of the new entity (hence “Ijebu-Remo”). The name thus captures both major zones and privileges the historic centre. Moreover, the name Ijebu-Remo, rather than only “Ijebu State” or “Remo State”, avoids alienating either side: Remo is explicitly included.
Third, the name Ijebu-Remo draws on earlier precedent. At the National Constitutional Conference of 1994 the creation of “Ijebu-Remo State” was likewise proposed, with Ijebu Ode identified as the capital. ([pureoai.bham.ac.uk][2]) Thus there is an established conceptual basis for the name. Therefore, the present proposal is not a betrayal of any group but a revival of a previously considered, deliberated name.
The case for this name is strengthened further by grievances rooted in structural imbalance. Within Ijebuland itself, IjebuOde has historically been accused of treating many of its Egures (dependent settlements) as second-class citizens, politically and culturally subordinate to the metropolis. Remo’s resistance to a state name that excludes them—such as “Ijebu State”—is driven by fear of being placed in the same subordinate position. By adopting the name Ijebu-Remo State, the proposal removes that anxiety entirely. It signals partnership, equality, and mutual ownership of the new state, rather than subsuming Remo under Ijebu dominance.
Recognising the historical nuance from the Martindale Inquiry
The Martindale Commission’s terms of reference included a critical question: “In view of the fact that the Akarigbo of Ijebu-Remo migrated from IleIfe … there is no historical sanction for the subordination of the Akarigbo of Ijebu-Remo to the Awujale of IjebuOde.” ([pureoai.bham.ac.uk][2]) In other words, even under colonial administration, questions were raised about Remo’s subjugation to Ijebu. Thus, in renaming the new state Ijebu-Remo, one honours that legacy of nuance: acknowledging Remo as a partner rather than a mere appendage.
Detractors and objections: what works against the “Ijebu-Remo” name
However, this name is not without its detractors. Several valid objections must be addressed:
1. Distinct identity of Remo: Some voices within Remo insist on full separation and desire a standalone “Remo State”, arguing that Remo is not simply a subdivision of Ijebu but a distinct sociopolitical entity. For example, recent reporting suggests Remo indigenes affirm “Remo insists on distinct identity in new state demand”. ([Punch News][3]) Accepting a combined name risks being perceived as perpetuating the subordination of Remo within an Ijebu‐led state.
2. Colonial imposition of “Ijebu-Remo” nomenclature: There is an argument that the descriptor “Ijebu-Remo” was essentially a colonial administrative artefact — a way for the British to group the Remo division under the Ijebu province. One source notes: “The term Ijebu-Remo was introduced during the colonial era by a British clerk who mistakenly grouped the two areas together.” ([facebook.com][4]) Critics may claim that the name is an artefact of external classification rather than indigenous consensus, and therefore lacks moral legitimacy.
3. Fear of dominance by Ijebu: Although the name includes Remo, some may worry that the prefix “Ijebu” still gives colonial weight to Ijebu predominance, and that Remo would remain subordinate in power and resource allocation in the proposed state. This fear may drive Remo communities to resist the name and instead push for “Remo-Ijebu” or “Remo State”.
4. Contestation of capital location: Choosing Ijebu Ode as capital, while understandable historically, may be seen by some Remo towns as favouring Ijebu. They may prefer a neutral site or even a Remo town as capital. Accepting Ijebu Ode may thus create friction unless balanced by equitable governance mechanisms.
5. Name recognition and branding: From a practical standpoint, a state name should resonate broadly and be acceptable to both major subregions. If significant segments of Remo reject the combined name, then the branding may become a liability in ballot referenda, community mobilization, and political campaigns.
Responding to these objections
A robust proposal must therefore accompany the name “Ijebu-Remo State” with clear guarantees of balance: institutional arrangements so that Remo towns have equal representation, capitals’ office-sharing or regional heads to reassure that Ijebu is not monopolising power. Further, the naming process should involve broad consultation across Ijebu and Remo communities, ensuring that the name is not perceived as topdown but as consensual.
Also, to address the colonial‐nomenclature issue, the proposal can emphasise that while “Ijebu-Remo” was drawn up in colonial classification, the peoples themselves share deep historic links (migration, kinship, suzerainty relations) and thus the name restores that linkage in a modern format rather than imposing it externally. The Martindale Inquiry showed that Remo towns did recognise a relationship with Ijebu (even if contested). ([ResearchGate][5])
Conclusion: a balanced, forward-looking naming
In summary, naming the new entity Ijebu-Remo State with Ijebu Ode as capital offers a balanced and historically grounded approach. It honours the Ijebu centre while explicitly including the Remo area, thereby overcoming the sense of exclusion. It builds on earlier proposals (notably the 1994 National Constitutional Conference) and offers continuity. At the same time, being mindful of the objections — distinct Remo identity, capital fairness, legacy of subordination — will be critical to crafting a viable, inclusive new state. With proper representation guarantees, equitable administrative structures, and fair resource allocation, the name Ijebu-Remo State can become a unifying rather than divisive symbol.
The time is ripe for Ijebu and Remo communities to work in tandem — as they historically did — to present a strong bid for statehood. Doing so under the name Ijebu-Remo, with Ijebu Ode at the centre, offers both honouring of tradition and a fresh platform for development, unity and self-governance.
Tunde Akarigbo
07031553179
Member
Ijebu-Remo State Agenda Forum
[2]: https://pureoai.bham.ac.uk/ws/files/10613945/Corrected_Proofs_HiA_2013.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Colonial Politics and Precolonial History Pure”
[3]: https://punchng.com/remoinsistsondistinctidentityinnewstatedemand/?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Remo insists on distinct identity in new state demand”
[4]: https://www.facebook.com/patrickstories/posts/historyofremoacolonialtermreferstoaregioninsouthwesternnigeriainhab/1149385293892060/?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Both the Ijebu and Remo people have distinct origins …”
[5]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363418620_British_Colonial_Administration_and_Intergroup_Relations_in_Yorubaland_The_Case_of_Remo_Groups_in_Sagamu_Southwestern_Nigeria?utm_source=chatgpt.com “The Case of Remo Groups in Sagamu, Southwestern Nigeria”
SB E-news.
Related posts:
About the Author
