As the National Assembly is set to review the 1999 Constitution, traditional rulers are agitating for constitutional roles. Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU examines the crises that may brew between the monarchs and politicians as actors on the same pedestal in the murky waters of power struggle.
When the late President Umaru Yar’Adua proposed new constitutional roles for traditional rulers, the move provoked a fresh debate on the significance of the traditional institution in the country. Nigerians were divided on the issue. On one hand were stakeholders who held the view that the involvement of royal fathers in politics would pitch them against their subjects who are politicians. On the other hand were those who believed that, judging by the high educational status of the traditional rulers, the institution could add value to public administration.
However, the National Council for Traditional Rulers (NCTR) proposed by the former President created a division among leading royal fathers who resumed their age-long war of attrition. Suddenly, there was a re-enactment of old rivalries and battle of supremacy. The traditional rulers could not reach a consensus on who should preside over the council. Neither could monarchs across the geo-political zones agree on its composition and regional representation on the council.
Five years after, royal fathers are now at the forefront of agitations for political, administrative and advisory roles under the proposed constitution. During the public hearings organised by the members of the National Assembly across the federal constituencies, many of them aired their grievances against their exclusion from governance. For example, at Oshodi-Isolo Constituency, prominent Awori monarch, the Osolo of Isolo, Oba Kabiru Agbabiaka Ilufemiloye, said traditional rulers could add value to governance by making their wealth of experience available to government across the tiers. Many stakeholders agreed with him. Others held a contrary opinion. Those who opposed new constitutional roles for the Obas, Emirs and Obis, perceived their scheming to bounce back to political power as the height of illusion and day-dreaming. They contented that these royal fathers have not been abandoned financially by the successive administrations. “Since the days of Abacha, our monarchs have been entitled to five percent of monthly local government revenue, whether the roads in their domains are tarred or not. Salaries of workers may not the paid in time, but our natural rulers are never denied”, said one of the participants at the public hearing.
In many states, majority of people opposed the politicisation of the traditional institution through meddlesomeness in politics. The rejection of new status for the traditional rulers did not go down well with many traditional rulers because many of them are educated and have even played key roles in the nation’s economy as lecturers, bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers and politicians. Indisputably, the blue blood are full of nostalgia for the glorious past when their forefathers, in full traditional regalia and other paraphernalia, ruled over kingdoms and chiefdoms. Many of them are still angered by the disruption of that orderly political evolution during the pre-colonial days before the advent of the British interlopers, who seized power from traditional rulers and later restore the power to nationalist politicians after a fierce battle for independence.
But the debate on roles for traditional rulers also appears superficial. Up to now, the nature of the constitutional role expected of traditional rulers, if the constitution is amended, is unknown. Politicians, who perceive them as rivals, have deliberately objected to it, citing the inevitable destruction of demarcation between politics and traditional rulership as reason. In a previous interview, a Lagos lawyer and politician, Babatunde Ogala, opposed the “politicisation of kingship”, stressing that “our local tradition has always defined the roles of traditional rulers”. He warned that the move to give traditional rulers constitutional roles would erode the pre-eminence of the institution.
The rise of educated rulers:
What has fuelled the clamour for constitutional roles for monarchs is the rise of elite traditional rulers endowed with intellect, professional acumen and track record of performance in public and private sectors. Although education or high literacy is not a criterion for mounting the throne, there is no village, town or city in the country that would make an illiterate its traditional ruler today. Indeed, many traditional rulers have reached the highest pinnacle of their professions before ascending the thrones of their forefathers. For example, the Ooni of Ife, Oba Okunade Sijuwade, was an accomplished company executive and successful industrialist. The Ewi of Ado-Ekiti, Oba Rufus Adejugbe, is a seasoned accountant and administrator. The Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Saa’d Abubakar, is a retired Brigadier-General. The Alaaye of Efon, Dr. Adesanya Aladejare, is a retired university don. The Emir of Ilorin, Alhaji Kolapo Gambari, is a retired Court of Appeal Judge. The Olowo-Eko of Lagos, Oba Rilwan Akiolu is a retired Police Assistant Inspector-General. The Olowo of Owo, Oba Folagbade Olateru-Olagbegi is a lawyer. The Emir of Suleja, Alhaji Awal Ibrahim, is a former governor of Niger State. The Asagba of Asaba, Edozie, is a retired Professor of Economics. The King of Brass, Diete Spiff, is a retired Army General and former governor of Rivers State. The Alake of Egbaland, Oba Adedotun Gbadebo, is a retired colonel. The Obi of Onitsha, Igwe Achebe, retired from the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation. The Emir of Kano, Alhaji Ado Bayero, is a retired diplomat.
From time immemorial, traditional rulers have been exercising the functions of government before they were displaced by the politicians. Although there was no written constitution regulating their native duties, they relied on customs, traditions and conventions. The natural rulers were perceived as second-in-command to God, personification of unity in their ancient kingdoms and symbols of progress. Owing to their influence, they could not be discarded by the colonial powers. Ultimately, they became the servants of the imperial masters under the indirect rule.
The pre-colonial period:
Human rights activist, the late Chima Ubani, who once reflected on the roles of traditional rulers and chiefs in the local government system, said they were the stabilisers and cornerstones of the local councils as “governors of their villages, towns, cities, and districts”, adding that in Yorubaland, they relied on their chiefs, community elders and family heads for easy administration and dissemination of information. In Igbo and Ibiobioland, village democracy was promoted, with clan councils, village councils and village assemblies exercising legislative, executive and judicial powers. Secret society and religious leaders complemented their roles in native administration. However, as noted by Ubani, that pre-colonial system of administration was not elective and hence, undemocratic. It was hereditary.
The colonial blow:
The powers of royal fathers waned consistently when they were displaced by colonial authorities. According to the political scientist and author, Moboluwaji Olaniyan, the British foisted indirect rule, which provoked criticisms by the few educated elite. Traditional rulers were appointed into Sole Native Authorities under the alien system. That marked the beginning of the exercise of constitutional powers by monarchs. But the royal fathers came under attack by their rivals, the educated elite who perceived them as agents of British colonialism. Ubani noted that prior to 1914 amalgamation, dirrerent brands of indirect rule were practiced in different parts of the Nigeria. In the Western Nigeria, the Obasa and Baales were the main agencies of indirect rule. In the East, the Warrant Chiefs exercised delegated powers and in the North, the Emirs ensured the success of indirect rule. There was tensin between the traditional rulers and elite. The royal fathers operated from a weak position because they were left behind by civilisation. As illiterates, the new political elite dismissed them as clog in the wheel of progress.
In Olaniyan’s view, the 1930s marked the growth of constitutional development, which also weakened the influence of the traditional rulers. The period marked the rise of political associations and groups, professionals and technocrats; lawyers, judges, teachers, accountants, and surveyors. These products of western education saw themselves as symbols of economic development and contestants for power and influence. At that time, the Governor-General, Donald Cameron, indirectly incited the institution of traditional rulers against the educated class by laying emphasis on the selection of educated princes as monarchs. Indeed, the tiny class of educated obas at that time worked as progressives for the political, economic and social development of their kingdoms.
However, educated nationalist politicians who challenged the colonial masters to a duel, dwarfed the prestige and influence of traditional rulers during the agitation against colonialism. In the 1950s, when elected local governments were established, traditional rulers were relegated to the background. Elected councillors saw traditional rulers who served in the councils as peers. Therefore, they waged war against the monarchs in two ways. Olaniyan recalled that they reduced the salaries of traditional rulers and prevented them from signing building permit, which was a major source of income. When Nigeria achieved independence, the traditional rulers played second fiddle in grassroots administration. “They were no more the wealthiest people in the society. At social functions, politicians became the cynosure of all eyes. They were more respected than the traditional rulers”, he added. Traditional rulers later started to woo politicians with honorary chieftaincy titles. Many of them also lost their sacred powers when they were compelled to jettison their traditional religions. The British introduced as Chieftaincy Act which created the Council of Chiefs. The body only attended to local issues; marriages, inheritance, family disputes and other traditional matters. Later, a House of Chiefs was created to accommodate them. They were also elected into the local councils.
Traditional institution under parliamentary system:
Between 1951 and 1966, when Nigeria practiced parliamentary system, many traditional rulers were appointed as members of House of Chiefs in the North, East, West and Midwest Regions. Some of them were also appointed into the ceremonial Senate. For political reasons, the Action Group(AG) led by the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, courted the traditional rulers. When AG was launched in Owo, the late Olowo, Oba Olateru-Olagbegi, was the chief host. The Ooni of Ife, the late Oba Adesoji Aderemi, was elected into the House of Representatives and appointed a federal minister. When Awolowo became the Premier, Oba Aderemi served as the governor. In a bid to gain more influence at the expense of the National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC), AG shown more interest in succession to some thrones. The party threw its weight behind Prince Monsediku Adeniji-Adele against Prince Adeyinka Oyekan during the Lagos obaship tussle. Oyekan was supported by NCNC.
Indeed, prominent traditional rulers actually were part of the executive and legislative arms. Oba Olateru-Olagbegi was a Minister without portfolio and a leading member of the House of Chiefs in the Western Region. When he later supported Ladoke Akintola, his town became divided. The Sarki of Arigidi-Akoko, Alhaji Olanipekun, who was also a member of the House of Chiefs, was a minister without portfolio. When political crisis festered in his town, he went on exile for 25 years. The late Oba of Badagry, Oba Claudius Akran, was elected into the House of Assembly and served for 12 years as minister under Awolowo and Akintola. Many Ibadan chiefs who later mounted the throne of Olubadan were active politicians. Aminu Kobiowu was chairman of district council in the metropolis. Daniel Akintayo Adebiyi was a parliamentarian. Emmanuel Adeyemo was a commissioner during the emergency rule of Dr. Koye Majekodunmi. Oba Samuel Lana was a member of House of Representatives and Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa. The late Iyalode of Ibadan, Mrs. Wuraola Esan, was a Senator in the First Republic. However, the 1966 military coup drew the curtains on the era of political monarchs. When presidential system was introduced in 1979, traditional rulers finally lost their constitutional powers. However, in Oyo State, the late Ataoja of Osogbo, Oba Iyiola Matanmi, served as commissioner without portfolio in Ige Administration.
Friction between monarchs and political class:
The relationship between many traditional rulers and politicians have been frosty since independence and differences in political affiliations were the roots of discord. Politicians and monarchs flexed muscles due to ego and many royal fathers suffered bruises. Following the restoration of Akintola to the premiership after the emergency rule, the governor, Oba Aderemi was advised to hurriedly pack out of the Government House to pave the way for the new governor, Chief Odeleye Fadahunsi of the NCNC. 66, he was the chairman of Local Government Reforms Committee under Obasanjo Administration. The Alaaye of Efon Alaaye, Oba Aladejare, was the Chairman of Vision 2010 in Ekiti State. Many educated traditional rulers also teamed up with their educated subjects to agitate for state creation.
Suspicion and resentment:
Under the military rule, soldiers treated the monarchs as an appendage and exposed them to ridicule. Indiscriminate deposition of traditional rulers further debased the institution during the long interregnum. Many traditional rulers could not put their house in order. They were carried away by the five percent of council allocation reserved for them. The allowance became a source of quarrel as many leading monarchs allegedly monopolised the funds and excluded their topmost subordinate chiefs from the sharing. During the “June 12” debacle, some traditional rulers soiled their reputation. When their subjects became hostile, they fled their domain. Many of them have also compromised their hallowed positions by conferring honorary chieftaincy titles purchased by corrupt politicians.
Royal fathers as politicians?
Many analysts have objected to constitutional roles for traditional rulers for some reasons. The reasoned that their return to the “political thrones” would drag them in the mud. Others believe that royal fathers cannot cope with political insults, bickering, prevarications, sabotage and character assassination associated with Nigerian politics. Some also thinks their coming to power will deepen the gulf between them and their rivals, the career politicians. Ogala, who agreed with this view, submitted that monarchs should concentrate on the discharge of duties imposed on them by local traditions. “Traditional rulers should be held in high esteem and should not be dragged into politics”, he said.
Another politician, Alhaji Lateef Raji, said “drafting the royal fathers into politics amounts to waking up the sleeping dogs”, adding that modern democracy has come to halt the dictatorship of few, which does not preclude the traditional rulers. He said there will be crisis, if the constitution now empowers modern monarchs to collect taxes and drag issues with politicians in the public. Raji warned that the institution may become a tool for mischief. “It is dangerous to draft them to the political fray. It will destroy the institution”, he added.
