CONSTITUTIONAL ROLES FOR TRADITIONAL RULERS?

 The institution could be strengthened, but traditional rulers should remain as custodians of our culture and  values

In one of his first public outings as Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice in August 2023, Lateef Fagbemi had canvassed the creation of a constitutional role for traditional rulers in the country. While Fagbemi would not be the first advocate of this position, his status as the nation’s chief law officer suggests that the issue is possibly a priority for the government he serves. It is therefore not surprising that a bill which seeks to establish the National Council for Traditional Rulers has scaled second reading in the Senate. The main objective of the proposed legislation is to confer on monarchs and heads of communities in the country specific constitutional roles. “They are the closest to the grassroots, which makes it possible for them to conveniently prevent violence in their domain,” Fagbemi had said two years ago to justify his call. But we nonetheless urge the lawmakers to make haste slowly on this issue.

The bill before the Senate is sponsored by Simon Lalong, a former governor of Plateau State.  The senator’s case for the amendment is anchored on the security dimension. “When there are crises and killings, the first thing people say is ‘let’s hold the traditional ruler responsible.’ It is true in their communities, they know everybody, including the criminals,” Lalong had said. “We need to charge them with responsibilities where they will be committed. But for now, you can’t hold them responsible.” During the deliberation that followed, concerns were expressed by some senators that an amendment could lead to traditional rulers being saddled with overlapping and conflicting duties. Others have articulated critical issues that could militate against investing traditional rulers with constitutional powers, and they need to be taken seriously.   

Centuries before the advent of colonial rule in Nigeria, traditional rulers of various stripes were the anchors of governance across the country, wielding extensive political and spiritual powers over their peoples. In these roles, they provided not only leadership but also fostered identity and much-needed cohesion within their communities. Later, under the British, they served as mediators between their subjects and government and helped to resolve local conflicts among other critical functions. But with the advent of independence followed by over six decades of democratic/military rule, the country’s constitutional development and governance structures have changed dramatically over the years. Therefore, any effort to redefine their roles must be approached with caution within this context.

Admittedly, there is some value in getting traditional rulers more involved in the day-to-day issues affecting their people especially in the challenging area of security. But we believe that what is needed is the strengthening of the institution, and a corresponding whittling down of government interference in the appointment of such rulers. This will enable them to have the space and credibility to do more for their people. The creation of a new quasi-democratic structure and roles for monarchs may have negative implications for their relationship with elected and appointed officials. Insulating them from partisan politics would be a more productive approach than their direct involvement in government which this bill seeks to promote.

Ordinarily, there is nothing wrong with the establishment of the council of traditional rulers which could be given statutory advisory functions in their respective states on security and development issues. But giving traditional rulers specific constitutional roles at the local level is likely to bring them in conflict with elected local government officials. The issue of financial allocation for such functions will pose an additional challenge. And that is why we believe they should stay as custodians of traditional institutions and culture rather than being involved in governance, except in clearly defined advisory roles.

Some of such current responsibilities do not require any legislation. For instance, traditional rulers can play an important part in the enlightenment campaign to ensure that every Nigerian child is in school. They can help in changing the orientation of uncooperative parents and guardians in a more progressive direction. This will also not require fresh legislation.

A key issue which the promoters of the proposed legislation seem not to have paid attention to is the politicisation of the selection processes for traditional rulers by governors and other influential people. As things stand, the enthronement of traditional rulers in most parts of the country has already become a serious security challenge and granting them constitutional roles will not improve matters. This needs to be addressed with the urgency it deserves before plunging into treacherous waters of constitutional amendments which may further undermine the prestige and honour once associated with the traditional institution in Nigeria.