Nigeria: Our Royal Fathers and Our Constitution

His Excellency President Umaru ‘Yar’adua, the Matawallen Katsina, has spoken, time and again, of his desire to have constitutional role for our Royal Fathers. The leadership of the National Assembly has followed suit. The Royal Fathers themselves, from across the length and breadth of the country, are calling on the Federal Government to implement the report of the National Political Conference, a conference that is synonymous to the foiled third term project, which recommend constitutional roles for them, whatever that means. There are indications that the constitution will be reviewed within the life span of this administration. And, our royal fathers want a place in it.

The concept of traditional rulers refers not to a single system but a collection of several hundreds of systems, mostly created arbitrarily by the powers that be. Each system has its own rules of succession, legitimacy and powers. Majority of them, particularly in the north, are dynastic, with the throne usually passed onto the eldest son or nearest male descendent or, in most cases, the preferred of the state government.

Three distinctive phases could be identified in the historic evolution of traditional rulership system in Nigeria: the pre-colonial period when traditional rulers were a necessity; the colonial era when they were a necessary evil, and the post-colonial period where they are, still, an unnecessary nuisance. We will take a look at each of these periods in turn.

During the pre-colonial period, traditional rulers provided leadership to the various communities that today constitute what we know as Nigeria. The traditional ruler then is the supreme head of the kingdom/ emirate/chiefdom/empire or even the caliphate as the case may be. He was the owner of the land and the father and protector of his subjects. The office of the Royal father then carried, in the words of Ronald Cohen, “with it the aura of untouchability, remoteness and sacredness.” In that era the traditional institution was a necessity.

The colonial era was the period of increase in the number of traditional rulers. This increase was catalysed by the policy of Indirect Rule. Justification for the policy of indirect rule has been debated. Many writers, most notably Margery Perham in her book Lugard: The Years of Authourity, have emphasised that there was no practical alternative to the adoption of a policy of Indirect Rule. That a system of ruling through native chiefs, was a matter of expediency rather than of high moral, political or philosophical principles. Lugard was, as Perham puts it “shackled by the poverty of his revenue” and was obliged to open up and to attempt to control (if not administer) a vast territory “much of which had never been viewed by himself or any other European” with the aid of a small and reluctant Imperial grant-in-aid, sufficient only for the employment of a tiny cadre of “political” (i.e. administrative) officers. A policy of “direct rule” whatever that could conceivably have meant at the time was impossible to contemplate. Accordingly, as Lugard put it in one of his Political Memoranda of 1906,”we must utilize the existing machinery and endeavour to improve it”. From the foregoing, it is clear that the policy of Indirect Rule actually employed traditional rulers as public servants, as administrative officers for the colonial government. Any traditional ruler, in the words of Lugard “will hold his place only on condition that he obeys the laws of the protectorate and the conditions of his appointment.” Thus, traditional chieftaincy institutions flourished even in areas such as Tivland, Iboland and Urhoboland where they were absent in the pre-colonial era. Gradually the British transferred the responsibilities of government to the colonial officers, while still retaining traditional rulers as fronts.

Independent Nigeria witnessed an explosion in the number of traditional rulers in the country as more traditional institutions were created for reasons mostly political. However, due to the historic roles played in the north, by the duo of Malam Aminu Kano (NEPU) and Malam Ibrahim Imam (BYM), the Native Authority systems, as the traditional systems were then called, underwent series of reforms which culminated in the Local Government reforms of 1976. Consequently, traditional rulers were stripped of most, if not all, of their powers both spiritual and temporal and are reduced to no more than ceremonial monarchs. Little wonder then, the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and its successors of 1989 and 1999, left the future of the Royal Fathers hanging in the balance.

Proponents of the idea of giving constitutional roles to the royal fathers argued that they, traditional rulers, are the custodians of culture. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, our culture is worst hit by the continuous existence of the traditional institutions. It has been said that culture is an aspect of its society. In fact, culture is the important link between the individual and society. However, in Nigeria our traditional institutions have turned our national civic culture upside down. In Nigeria, as observed by Achebe, the Government is “they”. It has nothing to do with you or me. It is simply an alien institution.

Those who should know have expounded the core of the cultural dilemma in Nigeria. According to Professor P. P. Ekeh, with the multiplicity of primordial (traditional) cultures co-existing alongside a single nation-wide civic culture, the individual citizen enjoys the freedom to participate in only one or both of Nigeria’s primordial cultures and its civic culture. The citizen thereby exploits the opportunity open to him by avoiding difficult cultural demands from one domain and switching to easier and more beneficial ones in another domain. It also enables the individual to gain from both cultural domains at the same time. In fact, it appears fully permissible and legitimate for an individual to enrich himself, possibly by stealing, from the civic cultural domain, provided his primordial cultural domain benefits from such wealth. Need I give examples? Consequently, some Nigerian citizens, when they find themselves in position of responsibility accept it happily and expose the unworthiness of the nation with reproaches and denunciations, so that they may neglect their duty towards their country without incurring the blame or reproaches of others.

Over the years, the traditional institutions have perfected the art of self preservation and perpetuation. Through an intricate combination of covert and overt tactics, so-called elites are identified and conferred various titles to win and secure their loyalty and services. Such elite are ultimately deployed in defending and championing the cause of the traditional set up. Stop! Think about this. Examples abound. Again, need I give any?

In their desperation for constitutional roles, the traditional rulers are even promising to bring peace to the turbulent Niger Delta sub region. How, I wonder, can institutions at the very centre of all known cases of inter and intra communal crises in Nigeria, from Ife-Modakeke to Zangon Kataf, suddenly become peacemakers?

It is indeed anachronism par excellence that the Nigeria of the 21st Century, a federalism of 36 states; a presidential democracy and a republic with more than ten thousand elected representatives: 774 LGA chairmen, 774 LGA vice chairmen, more than 7740 councillors; 109 senators, 360 members of the House of Representatives, more than 1080 members of States Houses of assembly; 36 state governors, 36 states deputy governors, a sitting President and a vice president, is thinking of giving traditional rulers constitutional responsibility. What responsibility? It’s open to conjecture. We did not even mention the civil servants across the entire 37 Civil Services in the Nigerian federation.

To now give traditional rulers constitutional responsibilities is tantamount to reversing our gains on all fronts. It is a negation of the very spirit of our constitution. It would ridicule our nationalism. It will enthrone mediocrity and, ultimately, compromise our Nationhood. How can unity and good governance be achieved in a situation where Nigerian citizens are also, constitutionally, subjects of a thousand-and-one different traditional rulers? Talk of conflict of loyalty and identity. How can there be freedom, equality and justice when a segment of the society constitute a hereditary privileged_ a class of people whose bread is guaranteed buttered by mere accident of birth? Talk of a level playing ground or a just and egalitarian society. How can Nigeria achieve lasting peace with such a conflict-ridden system entrenched in our Constitution? The traditional institutions have overstayed their welcome. In fact, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria should be reviewed towards abolishing the traditional institutions.