The Sultan of Sokoto, Sa’ad Abubakar III, has been sitting firmly on the throne of his fathers since his installation in November 2006. His 18-year…
CHIGOZIE AMADI
The Sultan of Sokoto, Sa’ad Abubakar III, has been sitting firmly on the throne of his fathers since his installation in November 2006.
His 18-year reign has been quite peaceful and tranquil, devoid of controversies and turbulence, even as it extended to the administrations of four different governors.
But, barely one year into the administration of the current governor, Ahmed Aliyu Sokoto, signs of turbulence began to appear.
The Sokoto State House of Assembly on the 25th of June, passed the Sokoto Emirate Council Amendment Bill, which intent is to, among others, reduce the influence of the Sultan by stripping him of powers to appoint kingmakers and district heads without approval by the state government.
The action of the state assembly has attracted wide attention as it has been interpreted as calculated at getting at the Sultan, and part of an alleged grand plan to dethrone him.
The matter became so heated that Vice President Kashim Shettima and other eminent persons and groups had to intervene by cautioning against ridiculing the stool of the Sultan. However, the state government refuted such insinuations, saying there was no plan to dethrone the monarch.
By the time we were tidying up some of the concluding pages of this week’s edition of Weekend Trust on Thursday, news filtered in that the Sokoto State Governor had signed the law that removed the power of the Sultan to appoint district and village heads under his jurisdiction.
The development in Sokoto became worrisome as it coincided with a similar crisis in Kano, over the emirship of the ancient city.
Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero, who was turbaned as emir in 2020, after the administration of Governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje deposed Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II, was also dethroned by the current administration of Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf, while Sanusi was re-enthroned in a clear case of role reversal.
The Kano State House of Assembly also went ahead to repeal the law establishing additional emirates in Kano and dissolved all the four emirate councils created by the Abdullahi Umar Ganduje administration.
A feud ensued, however, when Emir Bayero refused to vacate the throne, insisting he remains the emir and returned from Ogun State, where he had gone on a visit, to occupy the Nasarawa Palace in Kano.
As if that was enough, another rumble affecting royalty began brewing in Katsina, when the state government requested an explanation from the Katsina State Emirate Council over the absence of some district heads at the 2024 Eid-el Kabir, ‘Hawan Sallah’ celebration.
That move also attracted more than a passive interest as many were quick to recognise it as an indication that all is not well between the palace and the Katsina Government House.
These, combined with other recent rifts between state governors and traditional rulers in their domains, like the dethroning of the Ohimege Igu of Koton Karfe, Alhaji Abdulrazaq Isah-Koto in Kogi State; and the Paramount Chief of Piriga in Kaduna State, Chief Jonathan Zamuna; by their immediate past state governors have piqued the interest of the citizenry and caused many to conclude that the once highly respected traditional institution is under siege by the political class.
Before the siege
Traditional rulers, before the coming of the colonialists were highly respected and revered in the various ethnic communities, kingdoms and emirates that made up Nigeria.
In some jurisdictions, they were regarded as the human representatives of God, and they combined both religious and political functions.
They were held in awe in the Yoruba dominated South-west; the Niger Delta areas like in Calabar, Benin and others; just as in Northern Nigeria, they were highly regarded in the Sultanate and emirates and in other kingdoms like in Igalaland, Tivland and Jukunland.
The only notable exception was in the South-east, where the pre-colonial system of administration was republican.
Despite the near infallible status of the pre-colonial traditional rulers, the culture and traditions specified conditions for sanctioning them when they erred to the extent that they could be deposed, sent on exile or asked to commit suicide.
The myths built around them, however, made their subjects believe they were unimpeachable and beyond reproach.
In Hausaland, the emirs were so strong that they were called Sarkin yanka (one who has absolute power over life and death), yet there are accounts of such monarchs being deposed in the pre- colonial era.
A historian, Malam Adnan Bawa Bello, recounts that the first recorded deposition of a Sarki (Emir) in Kano, dates back to 1247-1290, when Guguwa Dan Gijimasu was removed from his throne.
But the practice of ordering monarchs to vacate their thrones at the slightest provocation became rampant with the coming of the colonialists.
Seeing the enormous influence that the traditional rulers wielded, especially in Northern Nigeria and the South-west, the colonialists introduced the system of indirect rule which allowed them to exert control over the people through their rulers.
In places where such institutions existed, they appointed the warrant chiefs as alternatives mainly for tax collection.
Various historians recorded how the colonial authorities created roles for the traditional rulers by giving them control of the police, prisons and tax collection, in addition to their political cum spiritual functions.
The Etsu Nupe, Alhaji Yahaya Abubakar, confirmed this recently while recalling the historical background of traditional institutions in Nigeria.
He said during the colonial era, the traditional institution was already established, which was why the colonialists went through the institution to administer their rules.
Even with such recognition, certain factors made clashes between the monarchs and the colonial authorities inevitable.
In the biography of Maitama Sule by Ayuba T. Abubakar, the writer noted that by their own design, the British officers did not relate with anyone outside the emirs and Native Authority establishment, as no one else in their estimation had any significance.
He said even when they created political and administrative structures, they favoured the aristocrats and scions of traditional rulers to take up such positions.
It has been noted by several commentators that this later became a problem when those outside royalty found themselves in power.
Early warning signs
The colonialists fought several wars to bring territories under their authority. But even after imposing their rule, they met with defiance from many of the traditional rulers as not all of them embraced the system of administration they introduced where District Officers exercised parallel powers or even acted as their bosses.
Historians believe the traditional rulers fought because they wanted to preserve their influence and power.
A notable case of resistance was when the 35th Oba of Benin, Ovonramwen Nogbaisi, fought to preserve his throne and a punitive expedition was launched against his kingdom after an attack on a delegation approaching Benin City.
The Oba was said to have escaped, but returned to the city to formally surrender on August 5, 1897, after six months. He was consequently exiled to Calabar, with two of his wives.
In the North, the British colonial authorities took several punitive actions against many of the rulers without respect or regard for their power or territorial influence.
According to documents sourced by our correspondent, Sarkin Kano Alu was, for instance, deposed in 1903 and exiled to Yola and later Lokoja, where he died in the 1920s.
Many others who were found wanting in one way or the other were similarly punished.
Then the Lamido of Adamawa, Yerima Ahmadu, was for instance accused of committing what was referred to as grave abuse of authority and disagreeing with his advisory council. He was, therefore, deposed and exiled to Biu in July 1953. Reports have it that he died there.
Muhammadu Sama’ila, Emir of Argungu, was alleged to be operating autocratic rule and was failing to consult his council, so he was deposed and exiled in 1953.
Also, Mai Abba Masta (Mustapha III) Shehu of Dikwa, was charged with the offence of autocratic rule and failure to consult his council and was deposed in March, 1954.
In the same year, the Ohinoyi of Ebira land, Alhaji Ibrahim Attah, was also charged with autocratic rule and failure to consult his council. Rather than wait to be deposed, he chose to abdicate the throne in July, 1954.
Then Emir of Bauchi, Malam Yakubu III also resigned when he was charged with maladministration and autocratic bearing, and retired to Wase in October, 1954.
The Attah of Igala, Umaru Ame Oboni, was also charged with the offence of autocratic rule and failure to consult his council. He retired and later committed suicide while in exile at Dekina Local Government Area of present day Kogi State, in June 1956.
When Emir of Argungu, Muhammadu Sheshe, was accused of maladministration and autocratic bearing, he retired in October, 1939.
Former governor of Nasarawa State, Senator Abdullahi Adamu, in an interview with Weekend Trust, observed that under the native authority system, the emirs were in control, even though they were supervised by the British and later by the Nigerian elite who emerged as leaders.
By the time the colonialists left, they had succeeded in setting precedents and sowing seeds of discord between the administrators they left behind and the traditional rulers.
Where the traditional rulers supported the ruling party, the politicians were alleged to clamp down on the opposition, but where the party the rulers have sympathy for is not in government, the political leaders went after them.
This happened in Western Nigeria, when the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Adeniran Adeyemi II, was dethroned and sent on exile in 1955 for what was believed to be his political difference with Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who was Premier of Western Region.
Historical records have shown that the trend continued even after Nigeria gained independence.
Sarkin Kano Sanusi I, was, for instance, made to vacate his throne following differences with the Sardauna of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello in 1963 and subsequent indictment for alleged financial malfeasance.
The Olowo of Owo, Sir Olateru Olagbegi II, was also dethroned in June 1966 by the then military governor of the Western Region, Colonel Robert Adeyinka Adebayo, for reasons not unconnected with the politics of that era.
Lacuna in the statutes
It has been observed that the statutes guiding the affairs of regions, states and the nation did not help matters.
Before the first military coup in Nigeria, all the regions, Northern Nigeria; Eastern Nigeria, Western Nigeria and Mid-Western Nigeria had their constitutions which recognised the traditional institution.
That made it possible for Oba Akenzua to be the president of the Mid-Western House of Chiefs, the Emir of Gwandu, Alhaji Muhammadu Mera, the president of the Northern House of Chiefs; the Osemawe of Ondo, Oba Rufus Adesokeji Aderele Tewogboye II, president of Western House of Chiefs; and Chief Essien Uyo, president of the Eastern House of Chiefs.
But the military, on assuming power in January 1966, suspended the five constitutions under Decree Number 1 and replaced them with a national government.
Gen. Yakubu Gowon (rtd) who replaced General Aguiyi Ironsi later set up an Advisory Committee to look into the boundaries of the existing Native Authorities, and advise on the devolution of powers from the provincial system of administration.
The committee recommended the replacement of the term ‘Native Authority’ with ‘Local Government’, and the splitting and recalibration of the Native Authorities, which saw to the appointment of Resident Administrators for each local government.
But this reform was believed to have whittled down the influence and powers of traditional rulers.
The Murtala Mohammed/Olusegun Obasanjo administration subsequently set up a technical committee, headed by Alhaji Ibrahim Dasuki, who later became the Sultan of Sokoto, popularly known as the ‘Dasuki Committee’ to look into how best the proposed reform could be carried out.
This, many scholars believe, paved the way for the drafters of the 1979 Constitution to take the role of traditional rulers more seriously and include it in the Constitution.
This, however, did not accord immunity to the traditional rulers from undue humiliation by the political class as even under the 1979 Constitution which the 2nd Republic operated, there were recorded cases of harassment.
Bisi Onabanjo, as governor of Ondo State, for instance, removed the Awujale of Ijebuland, Oba Sikiru Adetona, while Abubakar Rimi of Kano had clashes with Emir Ado Bayero, in which the then governor described the traditional ruler as a ‘public servant.’
The trend continued under the military which sacked the then civilian administration as governor of the defunct Gongola State, Yohanna Madaki, deposed the Emir of Muri, Alhaji Umar Abba Tukur, in August 1986, and banished him to Mubi while General Sani Abacha as Head of State, also had Sultan Ibrahim Dasuki of Sokoto deposed.
Clash with politicians
Historians recall that when the military handed over power in 1999, the Constitution it bequeathed to the nation totally left out the traditional rulers.
Without constitutional protection, the lacuna enabled the new set of political leadership that came in 1999, to toe the path of their predecessors.
Then governor of Kebbi State, Muhammadu Adamu Aliero, deposed the Emir of Gwandu, Mustapa Jokolo in 2005, on allegations that he was making “reckless statements”, capable of threatening national security. He was reportedly banished to Lafia.
Several years later, Sarkin Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II (Sanusi Lamido Sanusi) was deposed by Governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje on March 9, 2020, and banished to Loko in Nasarawa State.
Push factors
Some scholars posit that the manner the colonialists constituted the Native Authorities made a clash between them and the traditional rulers inevitable.
Initially, in order to reduce the shock of appointing people outside royalty, it was suggested that people like the Sardauna, Sir Ahmadu Bello, be the Premier at that time.
“It’s one of the reasons, because it was felt that many of the emirs would be comfortable with him as an aristocrat and descendant of Uthman Danfodio. Unlike bringing in somebody who had no blue blood as leader,” a historian, who did not want to be named, told Weekend Trust.
A peep into the composition of the cabinet buttresses this point as virtually all the ministers were nominated by the traditional rulers.
“So you realise that from the executive, to the legislators, to the advisors, they were all related in one way or the other to the traditional institution,” the historian noted.
It was gathered that this arrangement was jettisoned with the coming of the military into politics and subsequent contests for political positions, which excluded the traditional rulers.
This was confirmed by a scholar, who noted that the Lugardian Philosophy of upholding the personal prestige and authority of the emirs was inverted in favour of administration involving consultation and consensus.
“Emirs who remained dogged indirect rulers faced stern disciplinary measures. Even those whose loyalty and devotion had earned them accolades of meritorious service such as the Commander of the British Empire,” he stated.
Another major source of conflict in the pre and post-independence era, according to a scholar, was when traditional rulers, who by virtue of their status, were shielded from scrutiny, began to be queried and asked to explain their expenditures. This, he said, made them uncomfortable and pit them against the political authorities.
“The alien system that was introduced where an auditor could go and audit the emir was revolting and set the stage for conflict, just as it provided reasons for the removal of traditional rulers,” the historian stated.
It was also observed that with military rule, the traditional rulers became more vulnerable because the soldiers, some of whose parents were even at loggerheads with the emirs would not support them.
“Some are the children of people who grew up in the barracks, who had little regard for tradition. They came to the throne by virtue of patronage, not through a traditional ruler like in the past,” he said.
It was observed that when the civilians took over from the military, the trend continued as most of those who won elections were not nominees of traditional rulers, but came in under various influences.
The Emir of Zazzau, Alhaji Ahmad Nuhu Bamali attributes the incessant rifts between traditional rulers and politicians to fear over control of their territories.
“The fear of politicians is that we want to have another tier of government. But that is not the case. We have made our case and presented it at different levels,” Emir Bamalli stated while speaking with some lawmakers recently.
There were also strong partisan reasons for the clashes. A commentator, who prefers not to be named, recalled when offshoots of the Malam Aminu Kano led Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) like Abubakar Rimi and Balarabe Musa became governors under the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP); they drew a line between them and the traditional rulers because they referred to the traditional rulers as offshoots of the Sardauna led Northern Peoples Congress (NPC).
Former governor of Nasarawa State, Senator Abdullahi Adamu, on his part attributes the cause to when the governors started subtle incursions into the positions of traditional rulers.
He said: “Some got involved to plant people that did not come through the accepted legal method of selection. So, their rulership, tenure, are dependent on what the person behind the appointment wanted. He who pays the piper dictates the tune.
“And the spiritual strength was diluted unfortunately. So, most of these traditional rulers lost the stronghold of their communities. The politicians were pulling their followers and the traditional rulers were trying to hold back what was theirs, what they see as their own. So, this became the centre of conflict,” he said.
Solutions
Some persons have suggested the reintroduction of the parliamentary system of government as a way out because it is assumed that the presidential system is not working well.
Some persons have suggested the implementation of the Chief Clement Ebri Committee’s Report and the Sultan Ibrahim Dasuki Committee’s Report which suggest constitutional roles for traditional rulers.
The Ebri report even suggests the expansion of the National Council of State to include chairmen of the state councils of traditional rulers.
The Etsu Nupe on his part, wants the National Assembly to use the ongoing Constitution review exercise to re-establish the roles of traditional institutions in the country, “so that we can assist governments at all levels to monitor and maintain security and peace in our various domains.”
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Abbas Tajudeen, said that the 10th Assembly, under his leadership, has taken steps aimed at actualising constitutionally recognised roles for traditional institutions and the autonomy for local governments in Nigeria.
He said it is in furtherance of the objectives that the House constituted two special Standing Committees to drive the process of actualising constitutional autonomy for local governments, as well as granting recognition to traditional institutions in Nigeria.
“The 10th House, under my leadership, will do its best to give recognition to the traditional rulers during our constitution amendment exercise. Many amendments were made in the past to grant constitutional recognition to traditional rulers, but they never saw the light of day,” he said.
President, Nigerian Bar Association, Yakubu Maikyau (SAN), urged the leadership of the 10th National Assembly to revisit all legal and legislative encumbrances hindering the realisation of the full potential of traditional institutions in the country.
He noted that for such roles to be effective and sustainable, the Constitution must also take care of the issue of job security for the traditional rulers, whom he said are currently at the mercy of politicians.
Senator Adamu said when he served as governor, he ensured that when planning his budget, he took it to the traditional council, under the leadership of the late Emir of Lafia, Isah Mustapha Agwai I, for input and gave them roles in governance.
“Some of the activities that kept them busy when the practice was on, things like public health, I gave them role as public health inspectors. Community work, I tried to reintroduce it, they have a role for mobilisation and what have you,” he stated.
Challenges
The question for many is what role should be assigned to the traditional rulers and in what way can they be made to work with politicians.
This is because they are so many in Nigeria, compared to places like the United Kingdom (UK) where you have only one family, so their demands and expectations differ.
Another challenge is how to streamline the roles because the powers and influences of traditional rulers vary according to culture, history and location.
The power of an Emir, for example, may not be the same with the power of an Obi or Oba.
This throws up the challenge that if the traditional rulers are to be assigned roles, whether it will it be across board or it should be culture-specific.
There is also the dichotomy between traditional rulers of people and ethnicity. While the Tor Tiv, for instance, is the traditional ruler of the Tiv ethnic group, and the Etsu Nupe is the traditional ruler of Nupe ethnic group and the Och’idoma is the traditional ruler of Idoma people, the Emir of Kano’s throne is not attached to his ethnicity, but the territory of Kano.
It is believed that if these questions can be answered, then the current rifts between the traditional rulers and the political class would be greatly reduced.
