A bill seeking constitutional roles for traditional rulers passed its second reading as long ago as December 2020. Coupled with the recent consensus between the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF) and the National Council of Traditional Rulers in Aso Villa, it appears as if the stage is set for the anomaly of non-elected rulers wielding power in a democratic republic! Although they do not have formal political power and many traditional rulers continue to command respect amongst the older generation, truth be told most youths largely scorn and mock traditional rulers and no longer regard them as worthy of respect.

Quite understandably after the British decided on democracy as the best form of government for an independent Nigeria, traditional rulers were not given an active role in governance. Subsequently, their status declined under both civilian and military governments as government officials became increasingly involved in their succession, appointment and removal. In some cases, government even went as far as merging or splitting their domains.

It is fallacious to argue that traditional rulers play useful roles in mediating between the people and the state, enhancing national identity, resolving minor conflicts and providing an institutional safety valve for inadequate state bureaucracies, indeed, the truth is the opposite. The current scant regard for traditional institutions stems for the manner in which they have become subservient to elected political paymasters.

In truth traditional rulers can never be truly independent as long as there are laws empowering elected governors to suspend or dethrone them. Indeed, quite lamentably, so many have been removed, suspended or re-instated at the whim of state governors for a variety of offences.

Massively populated nations like Nigeria cannot be ruled properly by unelected leaders. The nation must be governed by properly elected serious political figures that have the interest of the populace at heart. In India after independence the influence of Maharajs (their traditional rulers) was reduced when all 600 of them lost their royal grandeur and position, and became obsolete, out-of-work, ordinary citizens in a new democratic state. For thousands of years Maharajahs were the kings of the world wielding despotic power from peacock thrones made of gold while their poor subjects suffered. Now they reign nowhere. If they want power they have to depend on democratic processes for any office they want. Their children must seek gainful employment.

Their former sumptuous royal palaces and guest houses were converted into training centres, public museums, government colleges, movie theatres, and office buildings. Of course, the image of traditional rulers as “self-centered parasites” should not be applied to all of them, but there is good reason why youths of today only speak of traditional rulers in terms of flashy cars, displays of affluence and young wives, so it simply makes no sense to believe that granting them constitutional roles will improve governance in the future.

The question arises that if traditional rulers are given constitutional roles, should it be at local government, state government or federal government level? The one advantage that Nigerian traditional rulers have is that they are not regarded as having anything to do with the poor governance and mismanagement of resources that has bedeviled the nation since independence.

That aside, it is fallacious to believe that turning them into institutions will make governance more effective because the truth is that too many of the problems with our democracy arise from the ignoble role of traditional rulers in aiding and abetting election malpractice, involvement in criminal activities and land grabbing, and failing to confront elected officials over the hardships being endured by their “subjects”.

Paradoxically the Nigerian Constitution does not recognise “subjects”, only citizens with equal rights. After independence, each federating unit of the country had a House of Chiefs whose main job was to provide a public voice for ethnic groups. There were enough good reasons for the House to be abolished and replaced by powerless traditional councils. Giving traditional rulers constitutional roles will only to promote ethnicity and lead them into more disrepute than is currently the case.

One question remains unanswered; exactly how many traditional rulers are there in Nigeria? The most highly regarded Nigerian six traditional rulers derive their titles from the rulers of independent states or communities that existed before the formation of Nigeria.  However, in 2010 Akwa Ibom State had 116 traditional rulers with official certificates from the state government. To lump such glorified landlords who preside over a few square kilometers with traditional rulers of former pre-colonial empires will only serve to increase agitation for secession from Nigeria.

It is posited that if a referendum was held the majority would vote for reinstating monarchies in order to put an end to the “wazobia” mentality offends so many ethnic minorities in Nigeria. As far as giving traditional rulers constitutional roles in a democratic republic is concerned, it will only multiply the calls for secession from Nigeria. Government should let sleeping dogs lie!