Written by Nedu Okorie.
The historical significance of traditional rulers in Nigeria stretches back many centuries before the colonial era and the subsequent independence of the country in 1960.
Traditional rulers also known as kings or chiefs have played a crucial role in the social, political and cultural fabric of Nigeria. They have been the custodians of Nigeria’s diverse cultures, traditions and customs, preserving and transmitting cultural knowledge, ensuring the continuity of practices such as traditional festivals, ceremonies and rituals.
Their role in upholding cultural values have been crucial in maintaining a sense of identity and unity among various ethnic groups within Nigeria.
When it comes to mediation and conflict resolution, traditional rulers have historically served in resolving disputes within their communities. Their wisdom and knowledge have made them trusted figures capable of certain conflict and maintaining social harmony which has contributed to the prevention of escalation and violence in many instances.
Traditional rulers have also served as advisers to their communities, offering guidance in various matters such as agriculture, governance, and community development. They have also used their experience and knowledge to provide valuable insights, ensuring the well being and prosperity of their people as well as guiding their subjects in matters of ethics, morality, and spirituality. It is important to note that the role and functions of traditional rulers may vary across different ethnic groups in Nigeria. However the overall historical significance of traditional rulers lies in the ability to unify, guide, and preserve the cultural heritage of the various communities they represent.
I spoke with Professor Jawondo Ibrahim Abdulganiy, a teaching professor at the department of History and International Studies, University of Ilorin, he is also the director for the Centre for Peace and Strategic Studies, University of Ilorin. He gave his thoughts on the politicization of traditional rulers in Nigeria from a historical perspective.
“The question you are asking regarding politicisation of traditional rulers in Nigeria or traditional positions in Nigeria has a long standing history which could be divided into two, the history of our societies before Nigerian communities’ contact with Westernisation or Europeans and the colonial periods itself. All of these two, have implication in what’s we currently christened, ‘politicisation of traditional rulers’. I’ve gone this far to say this because I know that in this contemporary situation once you mention politicisation in anything, what really comes to mind is the touch of democracy and all of these and vice versa. But before democracy there had been traditional rulers and of course we have seen element of politicisation in what they are doing. For instance before the colonialists came to Africa and Nigeria in particular, there have been traditional institutions and those who occupied it, politicised it. (If you’re a student of traditional institution you’ll see that different rules applied in different places). We have seen serious politicisation in various traditional rules. We have seen different families that are entitled to a position, but the king makers politicize this, by giving it to whoever they like. Though within the heir apparent. Sometimes, the none heir apparent, because of their influence in the society (economic, social, or religious influence), got into that position through politicisation of the king makers as at that time. We have also seen how politicisation have made the kingmakers to depose some king and appoint otherwise. So when we are talking about politicisation we are not talking in terms of democracy, but we are talking in terms of how external touch is applied to traditional institutions and our traditional rulers also took active parts in the all of these.” Says Professor Abdulganiy.
Dr. Idowu Johnson, a lecturer at the department of Political Science, University of Ibadan, gives us another dimension to the politicisation of traditional rulers in Nigeria. He says that the rule of traditional rulers became irrelevant by the prolonged military regime.
“The role of the traditional rulers in governance is not a new phenomenon. In the First Republic, our traditional rulers were very active in terms of administrative experiences. They did not only help the local populace, but also assisted governments at the local, at the state, and even the federal level, for effective administration. However, the Prolonged military regime destroyed that fabric, whereby the role of the traditional rulers was not too relevant, and be that as it may, the politicisation of traditional rulers began when most of them began to parley with the governors, particularly under the military regime. Don’t forget the molestation of traditional rulers by General Buhari in 1983 and 1984, when he molested the Oni of Ife, and the Sultan of Sokoto, when he suspended them because they travelled to Israel. Since then, their role had been eroded, and the members of the government at the top level started seeing them as an appendage.” Says Dr. Johnson.
Ambassador Hamzat Razak, a public affairs analyst in Ilorin, Kwara State, and the convener of ‘Kwara Must Change’ posits that the politicisation of traditional rulers in Nigeria is a mis-question, stating that, it is an issue that is expected, being that the traditional system of government does not have a definite function based on the constitution. He also stressed that political and traditional government are inseparable.
“Politicisation of traditional system of government in Nigeria is kind of a mis-question, because the traditional institution in Nigeria itself is a political organisation from inception. What took away their political power is the coming of colonisation, which replaced the traditional kind of government with the modern government that we have. Now despite having the modern government, we still preserve the traditional government because, interwoven with the traditional government is our culture, tradition, and heritage. So in my own opinion, the politicisation of traditional government is something that is expected because the traditional government is also a political establishment, and there is no way you can entirely remove politics from the traditional government so there is no way we can separate politics from traditional government and they have to work together. And that’s why you have seen that in some instances some traditional rulers in the country often exert power of political dimension, while those seeking power of politics often hobnob with the traditional rulers to be their supporter or mobilise for them or they want to be in their good book, because they know that the traditional institutions can also wield political power. So what I would suggest is that there must be pure definition of function, because at the moment the traditional institution does not have a definition. While informally we see it as a preserver of our culture and traditions but at the same time, they do not have responsibility ascribed to them from the Constitution (this is just an informal perception)”. Says Ambassador Razak.
The issue of non partisanship and neutrality are essential values that traditional rulers are expected to uphold so as to maintain their integrity and impartiality. There have been continuous debates on whether traditional rulers are expected to remain politically neutral and refrain from engaging in partisan politics or otherwise.
According to the non-partisan school of thoughts, traditional rulers are to be apolitical, and the positions transcend individual political affiliations. By staying non-partisan, they ensure that their decisions and actions are not influenced by political biases or favouritism towards any particular political party or interest group. This notion bearers further posits that non-partisanship allows traditional rulers to serve as unbiased advisers and mediators, as they can provide fair and impartial guidance to their communities, irrespective of political differences.
This principle ensures that traditional rulers are respected as impartial figures, who prioritize the well being of their communities over political agendas. However, Ambassador Razak gives us an alternative perspective concerning the non-partisanship and neutrality of traditional rulers. He asserts that it is impossible for traditional rulers to be non-partisan and politically neutral.
“Now, regarding the neutrality of the traditional institutions, I think it is high time we stop asking for what is impossible. Asking traditional rulers to be neutral in their own affairs is an impossibility. If we want to institute a government through a democratic means, the government that is coming in can have positives and negatives for the traditional rulers. And as members of the society, the traditional rulers will have perceptions, they will have interests, they will have prejudices, they will have bias, they will have things they are favorably disposed to, and they will have things that they are not favorably disposed to. And as human beings it is only natural that what they are favorably disposed to, they want to advocate for, and what they are not so favorably disposed to they would not want to advocate for. Things that are in line with their prejudice will get positive vibe, and those against their prejudice will get otherwise. So it is impossible for the traditional rulers to be neutral. And we should stop demanding for what is impossible. What we can demand for is fairness, that they do not join those maligning people unduly. But if the traditional ruler feels that something ought to be done and is not being done, as human being it is only natural that they will not be so in line with it. So what we should be doing is, give them responsibility as defined, and hold them accountable to that responsibility. Because the neutrality we are asking them to do is not even defined by the Constitution. So why should we be castigating traditional rulers for what is not defined. For what has not been given to them as a responsibility.” Says Ambassador Razak.
That being said, traditional rulers should ensure that their decisions are based on fairness, justice, and the best interest of all parties involved. It is important to note that by upholding the principles of non-partisanship and neutrality, traditional rulers maintain their authority, respect, and credibility within their communities. These principles enable them to effectively carry out their advisory, and custodial roles ensuring that their decisions and actions are guided solely by the well-being and best interests of the community as a whole.
While the principles of non partisanship and neutrality are generally expected of traditional rulers, there have been instances where some traditional rulers in Nigeria have been actively involved in political campaigns, publicly endorsing specific political candidates during elections. However not all traditional rulers engage in such activities this involvement blurs the line between their traditional role and partisan politics.
On December 14, 1991. Governorship elections were held in all the states of the federation. The conduct was generally hitch free. But the result of the election in one state, Edo, was nullified by the relevant election tribunal. The tribunal took the decision, haven convinced itself that the election was adversely affected by undue influence, occasioned by the political broadcast of a Benin Chief, alleging that the Oba of Benin had directed his people to vote for the eventual winner. Although the court of appeal later reversed the nullification. It became a moot point in Nigeria’s electoral history that the partisanship by otherwise neutral royal fathers could serve as undue influence in an election.
Some traditional rulers may align themselves with political figures or parties in exchange for privileges, favours, or influence. This involvement can compromise the ability to remain non-partisan and neutral, as they may extend preferential treatment or support to specific politicians due to personal connections or interests.
In 2011 the governorship candidate of the All Progressive Grand Alliance, APGA, during the April polls in Abia State, Chief Reagan Ufomba alleged that Governor Orji Uzo Kalu gave traditional rulers in the state between 1 million naira and 2 million naira to buy votes for him during the election. Whether this allegation is correct or not is not quite easy to ascertain, in view of several conflicting reports about which candidates a particular royal father supports.
Dr. Johnson as well as Professor Jawondo, respectively shared their thoughts on the involvement of traditional rulers with political parties and figures for favours, privileges, and influence.
“When you look at the present predicament of traditional rulers, it can be attributed to the role of traditional rulers in politics. Traditional rulers play roles in politics in the past, but they never showed it to the entire populace. However today they are showing it openly, and this has affected them by turning the hearts and support of the citizens against them and also the government at the top level. For instance if a governorship candidate is contesting, and the traditional ruler is having a support for the opponent and eventually the person who he is supporting is not in power, from there he can be humiliated. This had been the bane of traditional rulers. This also has social implication for good governance, democracy, and the fabric of our society. Because it is the role of traditional rulers to be the custodians of our society, to develop a society, to call those people at the grass level to order, to mobilise, so that it can send government policies to the people. But because of their involvement in local politics they are no more respected. Not only that, even the choice of the traditional leaders into the positions of their forefathers are now being politicised, because of the involvement of money and aligning to the dictates of the governor of the state. So those that are qualified are no more the people that are on the throne.” Says Dr. Johnson.
“Now let us see how the current situation in which we find ourself, democracy. How democracy has affected the traditional institution positively and negatively. Since the establishment of independence in 1960, the constitution of Nigeria had placed the traditional rulers who were formerly the makers, the controllers, the moderators, and the ‘who is who’ in Nigerian communities, had made them subservient to colonialist. That type of constitution was brought into independence, and Nigerians who stepped into the shoes of colonialists decided to operate the constitution the way it was, just because our people amongst us who had become nationalist, who had struggled for the independence of Nigeria, believe that they should have the control of Nigeria, rather than going under any traditional institution or any traditional ruler. The pre-colonial periods shown to so many that occupants of traditional institutions had become authoritarian, and that they hold the life and death of their subjects.” Says Professor Abdulganiy.
Traditional rulers may also engage efforts to mobilize support for a particular political candidates or parties within their communities. This can include using their influence and authority to rally community members behind a chosen candidate, leading to a perception of bias and compromising their neutral position. Regrettably in the name of mobilizing supports, many traditional rulers mar elections by allowing themselves to be used by one candidate against another not withstanding that all candidates see them as their fathers.
In 2010 for instance, there was the disturbing story that aides of traditional rulers were using palace vehicles to convey perpetrators of political violence. The then Inspector General of police, IGP Afeez Ringim, had to direct the Police Commissioners and Commands’ Assistant Inspector Generals of police to educate traditional rulers on the security roles they could play during elections. It is worth noting that the involvement of traditional rulers in politics have sparked a lot of debate and criticisms. Many argue that such actions undermine the traditional institutions’ integrity as traditional rulers are expected to provide guidance and foster unity within their communities, without promoting any political agenda. What are some recommendations for striking a balance between the monarchical system of government and a functioning democratic government.
Dr. Johnson gives some recommendations for striking a balance between the traditional monarchical functions and political functions. “What I will recommend is that, we have to go back to the traditional role of traditional rulers, whereby they serve as advisers to the governor or to the government of the day. Not as showing openly in supporting them which affect their role, so that they cannot be molested. Haven said that, it’ll be advisable for traditional rulers to play the role of guidance of the society and also as a leverage of breaching the gap between the government and the citizens.” Says Dr. Johnson.
On the other hand Professor Jawondo while proffering his recommendations disclosed that traditional rulers have lost their powers and they are now an appendage to the current political dispensation. “My own recommendation is very simple. Whether we like it or not, subjects are attached to their leaders. And who are the leaders? The traditional rulers are our leaders. They still have control over the society. If you want to believe what I’m saying, you’ll see that when electioneering campaign is going on, they campaigners, the politicians, they rest on the powers of these traditional rulers. So I want to say with all sincerity that a special place should be created for them in this current democracy, so that they can be much more relevant in a way that they will have control over their people and they will have effective linkage with the government, so that development can be ensured in their environment.” Says Professor Abdulganiy.
It is however important to remember that these instances are not a representation of all traditional rulers many traditional rulers in Nigeria remain committed to upholding non-partisanship and neutrality, ensuring that they serve their communities in an unbiased and impartial manner, focusing solely on the well being of their people.