OVERTIME there have been long-drawn arguments about the place of traditional rulers in Nigeria’s contemporary democracy. The bone of contention is whether to give constitutional role to our Royal Fathers as in the days before 1976 Reforms or bow to the whims and caprices of the political class who need the traditional institutions for their personal aggrandisement, particularly for honour, prestige and recognition, but would not want the institution to soar as an independent outfit as seen from the lacuna created in the 1999 Constitution.
This position is antithetical to the principles of modern democratic practices, particularly as they concern the freedoms and rights of the people. Democracy has its origin and legitimacy in the grassroots, the citadel of traditional institution, which are usually headed by the Royal Fathers. ‘It is the first school of democracy, liberty and freedom which principles are the basis of the 21st century government in many countries’.
A political scientist, Vishnoon, describes the essence of the traditional institution as an arena of local politics where people learn their first lessons in the art of governance. He said, “Until we learn to govern or be governed by our neighbours, we cannot successfully govern people who are at a distance”.
It is on this plank that I attempt to make a case for the incorporation of the roles of the Royal Fathers into the Constitution. The most significant of the roles is the enhancement of good governance and rapid socio-economic development at the grassroots, especially for the peace and security of our rural communities.
For purposes of clarity, it is important to attempt a working definition of traditional ruler to be able to put the topic in its perspective. The roles of traditional rulers before the advent of colonialists as well as their position during the colonial administration will also be examined. There has been consistent clamour for recognition of the roles of traditional rulers in the Constitution. But the question is: How justifiable is it?
Assuming the traditional rulers are assigned specific roles in the Constitution, how would that affect the present three-tier government structure? What is the implication of such roles having constitutional backing, particularly the funding? These are some of the nagging issues this piece will try to provide answers to.
The need to find a working definition here is to put the article in its stride. The implication is to lay to rest the argument on whether a person who accepts chieftaincy title from a community, whether his own or not, can qualify as a traditional ruler and whether such a person should be included in the class of traditional rulers whose roles should be prescribed by the Constitution. Another issue is whether such a person can automatically become a member of the cabinet of the traditional ruler who handed him the title.
Sulu Gambari made a distinction which is worth mentioning here wherein he said, “a Traditional Ruler is not the honoured and honorary chief. He is a traditional head of an ethnic community whose stool conferred the highest traditional authority on the incumbent.”
A prominent analyst and author, Joe Egwurabe, once argued that: “A traditional ruler is an individual occupying communal political leadership position, and enjoying the legitimacy of particular communities to direct their affairs.”
I wish to adopt this definition for the reason that tradition has inculcated in the people some deference towards authority. The chief’s authority is sanctioned in religion, and it is a sacrilege to flout it, except in extreme cases of tyranny and oppression.
The traditional rulers’ stool was a great symbol of power, leadership and authority in the good old days. It commanded the respect and loyalty of the peoples of their different kingdoms. It was almost a taboo to speak ill of a traditional ruler or to flagrantly flout his orders. In some of the kingdoms, the traditional rulers were not just monarchs but theocrats as in Northern Nigeria.
The belief by many authors in years past, which still holds till date, is that the traditional system was built upon the history, heritage, cultural values and religion of the people. That was the attraction of the colonialists who saw the loyalties enjoyed by the traditional rulers among their subjects before introducing the indirect rule system to aid them in their administration.
There is no gainsaying the fact, therefore, that the colonial masters did not meet an unorganised and lawless society when they came to Nigeria. The reason was that the traditional rulers were already on ground administering the affairs of their various communities as the custodians of culture and tradition. The indirect rule system introduced by the British colonial masters would not have worked well especially in those areas it recorded some great level of success.
Through the indirect rule approach, the traditional fathers were officially launched into the political arena to form a link between tradition and modern government. This was the genesis of local government administration in Nigeria, and which some writers believed was very close to the people. In the words of Max Weber under this system, the citizens are subject to conventions rather than laws. It is also personal since obedience is owed to the person who occupies the seat of authority by virtue of inherited status rather than by election.
However, T.O. Elias – a former Chief Justice of Nigeria – captured the position in this way: the native authority was beset by such challenges as poor funding, control, checks and no clear-cut functions. Be that as it may, the traditional rulers were involved in political leadership at the time of colonial rule.
Post independent constitutions of Nigeria nevertheless gave some level of recognition to the traditional institution as representatives of their people at the House of Chiefs, which later transformed into native and local authorities with executive powers over issues such as community policing, immigration, prison services as well as tax administration.
The 1960 and 1963 constitutions created a Council of Chiefs for traditional rulers at the regional level, while the 1979 gave them representation in the National Council of States at the federal level and Council of Chiefs at the state level. The council played advisory role on customary matters, cultural affairs, chieftaincy matters as well as when requested to give advice on the maintenance of public order.
However, it was the same 1979 constitution that incorporated the constitutional reforms of 1976 that gave birth to the local government system of administration and confiscated and transferred to the local government the responsibilities performed by the traditional institutions in the post-independence constitutions.
From 1979 till date, and coupled with the military interregna, the traditional institution had only been reduced to a mere tool in the hands of politicians who have continued to reduce the political relevance of the royal fathers for their selfish aggrandisement. The 1999 constitution was, nonetheless, a complete erosion of the traditional rulers’ constitutional recognition, including even the advisory role given to them by the 1979 constitution.
Despite the fact that the traditional institution remains the oldest surviving cultural-political institution, which has always served as the pivot for social security, national cohesion and meaningful socio-cultural development, the operative constitution has failed to make any provisions for the existence of the institution.
What then is the way forward? The answer to this question is not difficult to find. Nigeria’s Senate President in the 7th Republic, Senator David Mark, was once quoted by one of the national dailies as saying, “we will continue to assist our traditional rulers who are responsible for unity and peace in order to further strengthen their roles. We shall find specific roles for them in the constitution when we finally review the 1999 constitution.” How far he went to drive this promise remains in the realm of guesswork.
Nevertheless, it is understood that the national lawmakers have listed the prescription of constitutional roles for traditional rulers as one of the issues for consideration in the ongoing constitutional amendment. Since then, there has been an avalanche of arguments for or against the constitutionality of roles for the royal fathers. The focus of this piece is predicated on the proposition that the traditional rulers are closer to the people at the grassroots and can from time-to-time assist the government in ensuring peace, security and social progress. There is then the need to give them constitutional roles to provide them the legal backing required.
Malam Ibrahim Saddo – another notable commentator and writer, expressed the same view that traditional rulers cannot help the government on security issues without legal backing and so stressed the need for defined constitutional responsibilities for traditional rulers to be included in the constitution.
Making a case for constitutional recognition of royal fathers is borne out of the conviction that the traditional institutions are still highly respected in most communities in the country and for wielding considerable political and economic influence, and therefore there is every need to assign specific roles to them in the constitution. There is also the need to harness the strategic position they occupy in their communities to bring government closer to the people, and that is the only way government could penetrate the grassroots.
Many analysts have argued that traditional rulers should be shielded and isolated from politics. The proponents of this position have since forgotten that the colonial masters made use of the traditional institutions and it worked well for them. It cannot also be said that traditional rulers or institutions were directly or indirectly responsible for the collapse of the First Republic when it formed an arm of the bicameral legislative assemblies of the various regions making up the country.
To be continued