Traditional rulers don’t need constitutional role to perform

The renewed clamour by traditional rulers for constitutional provisions to enable them function is as unnecessary as it is irrelevant, given the high pedestal in which the monarchs are already situated in the scheme of things in the country.

By doctrine and custom, traditional rulers are revered and respected by virtue of their being custodians of community values; and also for their elderly and stabilising role in communal affairs.

They have no need for stipulations in the constitution for them to perform these roles effectively; rather, they need to strive to continue to be above board, remain impartial, and non-partisan; and acquire wisdom and knowledge to reign. By so doing, they are guaranteed the continued patronage, trust, confidence and respect of their subjects, even beyond any formal declaration.

The debate whether or not to grant a constitutional role to traditional rulers resurfaced again recently when their representatives paid a visit to the Senate President Godswill Akpabio. Led by the Etsu Nupe, Dr Yahaya Abubakar, the kings requested, in the words of Akpabio, a “constitutional role in governance.” The Senate president was favourably disposed to the request for the reasons that firstly, he is the grandchild of one of the warrant chiefs who in the colonial days of indirect rule “effectively tackled issues of safety and security in their various domains.” Secondly, he believed that “if traditional rulers are constitutionally engaged in governance at the grassroots, the myriad … security challenges facing the country [will] be curtailed.”

Obviously, Akpabio only expressed his personal opinion on this important matter. Traditional rulers were assigned constitutional roles in the 1960 and 1963 constitutions, houses of chiefs were created for them, they even held titular political positions as regional governors. Opinions are divided on whether the institution discharged itself creditably or not in the service of the collective good as opposed to their class and personal interests.  Nonetheless, there is, at least within the elite circle, sympathy for the demand of traditional rulers.

In 2007, Senate President, David Mark, promised the Shehu of Borno that “we shall find specific roles for [traditional rulers] when we finally review the 1999 Constitution.”  Late President Musa Yar’Adua was a proponent of a constitutional role for traditional rulers.

The Report of the 2014 National Conference was in support and indeed detailed five recommendations that: 1) the role of traditional institutions be recognised in the constitution’; 2) the establishment of a National Council of Traditional Rulers (NCTR); 3) the proposed council should exist at the Federal level and its terms of reference should include the involvement of traditional rulers in matters of tradition, culture, and dispute resolution; 4) the membership of the proposed NCTR  should consist of  chairmen of State Council of Chiefs, two traditional rulers from each state including the FCT’; 5) Traditional rulers should keep out of partisan politics.

The result of a survey published in 2010, in the book, entitled: Traditional Rulers in Nigeria, by S.J. Cookey et al showed that 79.1 per cent of 5,995 persons questioned agreed that traditional rulers should be given a role in the Constitution; only 21 per cent disagreed. Furthermore, most of the respondents agreed with the suggestions to grant them the following specific duties within a constitutional framework: a) advise government on cultural matters; b) be represented in the local government councils; c) advise government on the allocation of lands in their domain; d)  advise government on religious issues; e) assist government in the collection of taxes and levies; f) be represented in the various commissions and boards dealing with cultural and chieftaincy affairs.

However, 62 per cent opined that ‘there are no effective mechanisms for making traditional rulers responsible or accountable to their people’ the way that elected officials can be. And this is a crucial issue in modern governance generally, and in a constitutional, representative democracy in particular. An African saying is that a king is a king by the grace of his people. The principle that underlies this wisdom is that even in a monarchical system of government, the king rules for only the good of, not himself, but the people, the subjects. If this was so in the past, it cannot be said to be so in recent times.

The only permanent feature of life is change that has, over time, affected the institution of traditional rulership. The reality of the modern system of government subjects traditional rulers to the authority, power, and even the whims of higher powers namely the local government chairman, and the state governor. So their power, authority, and influence have been substantially eroded. Besides, as society becomes increasingly cosmopolitan, an increasing number of citizens lose direct contact with or have decreasing need for their traditional rulers.

Traditional rulers are, by the very nature and context of their position in the community, used to regard the rest of the community as their subjects and this they take for granted. How can the monarchical institutions advance the fundamental tenets of democracy such as basic freedoms, fundamental human rights, equality of all citizens under the law, separation of powers among different arms of government, gender rights, and land and property rights?

Whereas most respondents in the Cookey et al survey wanted a constitutional role for traditional rulers, 72.7 per cent opposed the suggestions that communities instead of government should pay the salaries of traditional rulers. But, another tier of governance such as a house of chiefs will certainly add to the burden that public resources must bear.  This is especially intolerable at this time that the call is increasingly loud against the cost of governance and not a few Nigerians even suggest that the country needs only one federal legislative house and far less number of legislators.

In any event, traditional rulers are already receiving more than stipends from state governments under the various ministries of local governments and chieftaincy affairs. As proved in other climes, it is neither the number of layers of government, nor  the number of public officials but the quality – character, commitment, competence, courage, and more of persons entrusted with leadership at any level – that determine good governance.

Clearly, the system of checks and balances, sensitivity to the yearnings of the people, accountability of the powerful to the people, right to fair hearing, and other concepts akin to democratic principles always existed as part of the monarchical system of governance in Africa. To indigenise western-type democracy requires attitudinal not a structural adjustment to governance. Both public officials and the people they serve must imbibe and indigenise universally accepted tenets of democracy.

Traditional rulers are natural high public officials with enough duties and responsibilities to serve their areas of jurisdiction meritoriously. But, the point must be made that some have, unwisely, got themselves involved in partisan politics (often because of temptation or pressure from desperate politicians) or such greed-driven dishonourable acts as illegal seizure and sale of ancestral land. Others tend to an arrogant, insensitive display of wealth amidst the poverty prevalent in their communities. These behaviours do not advance socio-cultural values; they alienate leaders from their followers and earn the disdain of traditional rulers.

Notwithstanding these observed failings, about 87 per cent of the respondents in the survey mentioned above still considered them relevant to the development needs and cultural life of their respective communities. This is to say that the institution enjoys wide acceptance as a purposeful aspect of community life. The sentiment that informs this is well taken. But not all desirable ideas are feasible; especially so a constitutional role for traditional rulers in the current state of the country.

If the intention is relevant in the scheme of things, traditional rulers can still perform such functions as suggested in the National Conference Report and other publications without needlessly becoming a formal and unbearable tier of government. If any natural ruler desires a constitutional position and role, he should descend from his throne into the race for political office as provided for in the extant constitution.