The ancient Yoruba were the most urbanised Africans of precolonial times. They formed kingdoms of various sizes each with a capital city (Ilu) and a monarch (Ọba).

The capital city was regarded as the epicentre of not only the kingdom but of the entire universe, the birthplace of gods and humans alike and the core of the kingdom’s identity.

The Yoruba urbans were permanent and based on farming rather than on industrialisation. The pattern was traditional not acculturation as in Europe.

Evidence of the existence of ancient Yoruba urbans abound. 1485 – d’Aveiro on his visit to Benin City learnt about a powerful city further in the interior (Ile Ifẹ) where their monarch was crowned.

1505 – Pereira mentioned in his writings the large city of Geebuu (Ijẹbu Ode). 1698 – Bosman identified Old
Ọyọ as responsible for the invasion of Arder (Dahomey). 1729 – D’Anville added the city of Oudobo (Ondo) to his map.

Clapperton documented his visits from 1825 to Katunga (Old Ọyọ) and other Yoruba cities before they were
destroyed by wars.

The percentage of the Yoruba peoples living in large urbans in those ancient times was comparable to that in the European nations. Bascom calculated the index of urbanisation in Yorubaland in 1931 to be between that of the USA
and Canada, and the distribution of population in Yoruba urbans to be comparable to that in France.

In 1931, the population density in Lagos was 58,000/sq. mile whilst that of Ogbomọṣọ was 43,000/sq. mile.

The Yoruba were city-dwelling farmers by design and not by accident. There were two underpinning philosophies or principles; namely ‘Agboile’ meaning ‘courtyard family’ and ‘ile labọ simi oko’ meaning ‘home is the place you come
to rest after farm’.

The ‘courtyard family’ principle is unique to the Yoruba. It is wrongly referred to as the ‘extended family’, but it was a community on its own.

It comprised of people of the same lineage (Idile); that is, more than one nuclear family, two or more generations, living together in one courtyard, the ‘agbo’. At the apex of the ‘courtyard family’ was the progenitor (courtyard
father or Baalẹ).

Each ‘courtyard family’ had its own clearly defined areas of abode, and the city was a confluence and contiguity of such lineage areas. The progenitor was his family’s judicial officer.

The ’ile labọ simi oko’ principle is also uniquely Yoruba. ’Ile’, the living quarters, was separate from ‘oko’, the farm and working quarters.

The Yorubaof yore lived some distance away from their farms for rest and respite.

The Yoruba urban design was of a city surrounded with a periphery of farms. The marketplace (Ọja), the women’s working quarters, where commodity exchange and distribution took place, and where the families socialised, was located at the centre of the city.

The Ọba’s residence usually was located within that marketplace. The marketplace was organised into distinct commodity districts each with its own conventions, rules, and leadership.

In the city, the families were served by an array of specialists and artisans organised into guilds (Ẹgbẹ) with their own individual governance structure.

There were in addition regulated short-distance and long-distance trading with their middlemen. It was this complex and complicated socio-economic milieu that caused the ancient Yoruba to develop a sophisticated government
system.

The need to organise their urbans that gave rise to the ancient Yoruba ‘Constitutional Ọba’ system of government. In this system, governance was shared between the monarch (Ọba) and the Oloye (Chiefs or Section Heads, in Council).

Indeed, the Council was the link between the Ọba and the people. The Oba reigned but did not rule. His power was limited by the convention that the power to make and unmake belonged to the Council.

The Ọba’s tenure was at the pleasure of the Council. Indeed, the Ọba’s primary role was to lend traditional legitimacy and symbolism, to embody and emphasize the identity and authority of his people, and to provide continuity and stability.

There was mass participation (through the Council), separation of power and rule of law. Council membership was predetermined by clans, households, guilds, professions, religion etc. The Council was the policy making body.

Although the Ọba was the supreme legal authority, he exercised that power in practice with the agreement of the people via the Council.

The Ọba was not an autocrat. His power was not absolute. He was merely the highest in rank.

The ancient Yoruba practiced what has taken many modern countries years of wars and strife to develop. Japan, UK, Malaysia, and several other particularly British Commonwealth countries today practice variations of this ‘constitutional monarchy’.

Unlike the peaceful, traditional evolution of the Yoruba system, ‘constitutional monarchy’ in these other countries developed specifically to oppose the tyranny of monarchs.

The ancient Yoruba constitution set out the rules on how power was to be exercised, by whom and its limits.

There was a general expression of the sovereign will of the people. Governance was in practice bottom up and not the product of a political class or elites.

The Yoruba constitution was a ‘Constitutional Ọba’ because it identified the Ọba as the person exercising power. The position of the Ọba was sanctioned by culture, history, and tradition.

The Ọba was the custodian of the conventions, customs, traditions, and the rule of law. The authority and power of the Ọba however was limited by the Council.

In those ancient days, the most powerful groups in the society were the professionals and artisans. There were no professional politicians and no political elites.

The Yoruba ‘Constitutional Ọba’ system has survived colonialism and 60 years of independence.

Although the imposition of western style governments downgraded Yoruba political institutions and made them subservient to a political/elite class that saw itself as superior to our tradition, the Yoruba of today, almost to a man, know this unwritten constitution.

Today’s Yoruba know that the Ọba is the ruler and that he had Chiefs to assist him in governance.

They know further that the Yoruba nation is composed of many groups; Ijẹṣa Ẹgba, Ijẹbu, Ọyọ, Ondo and so on.

They know also that these different groups of the Yoruba Nation are autonomous, and that no group ruled over or was superior to another.

This is confederation. In other words, the ancient unwritten Yoruba constitution accommodated both democracy and confederation.

It is only ignorance and lack of understanding that would cause anyone to suggest that we jettisoned the Yoruba constitution for any other.

The Yoruba say: ‘Ile lanwo kato sọmọ lorukọ’ meaning, ‘to the house we look, before we name the child’.

Nigeria has failed with both Parliamentary and Presidential systems of government. Remote and dictatorial, they do not suit our temperament.

Western-style constitutions do not reflect the true meaning of the word ‘democracy’.

Democracy means ‘rule by the people’. It does not mean vote for leaders.

It does not mean political competition. It does not mean majority rule.

The ancient Yoruba practiced true democracy.

The Yoruba constitution was short and precise. It is fallacy that one document alone makes the constitution.
Conventions, customs, and traditions are parts of the constitution.

The laws of the land are also parts of the constitution. The ‘Constitutional Monarchy’ of 1688 is the British constitution. That is it!

Chief (Dr) Olusola Oni
MBBS, MSc, MD, LLM, GDL, FRCSEd, FWACS, FMCS, FRCSEng

(Baasegun Alabe of Ijebu-Jesa, Osun.