“Anything that impairs the influence of the native authorities, not only impairs the efficiency of the administration of the country, but is an invitation to lawlessness and disorder.” – E. D. Morel

Radical politics and intellectual adversity have played an important role in presenting the traditional system as archaic, conservative, feudal, exploitative, backward and even reactionary. But these allegations remain to be largely proved or substantiated by the critics of the system. In the absence of a rational or empirical evidence of its supposedly outdated importance and contemporary political irrelevance, we will find it difficult to join the bandwagon of condemnation and denigration of the native or traditional authority system in Nigeria. This position is not informed by any sentimental or romantic attachment to the past, or by having any infatuation with the system. It is simply guided by the belief that the substitute arrangements that have been improvised and introduced so peremptorily by the military and civil elites in the country, have not found the settled importance that they were designed to have, or proved as efficacious as the order that they were supposed to replace and supplant.

What they have succeeded in doing in effect was to introduce unrealistic expectations in the management of the affairs of government all over the country, and create dislocation, dissonance, disconnection and discordant notes in the relationship between the governments and the people.

In 1911, the writer and political commentator, Mr E. D. Morel, after going round Nigeria and minutely observing the conditions of the country, reflected on this subject and provided his candid opinion on the traditional system of administration and land tenure system in his now classic work “Nigeria: Its People and Problems”. Nigerians will do well to read this book which is obtainable online free of charge, while it should be made mandatory for those in government and politics to do so. There is nothing new under the sun as it has been wisely asserted, and perhaps some useful insights into governance and administration might be gained through a careful perusal of this timeless book that could be relevant to correcting of our affairs today.

Knowledge is the most essential factor in any endeavour and having the advantage of history on one’s side is the most beneficial of all inquiries. A contrast was made between the systems of traditional administration in the three distinct regions of the country namely the Niger Delta and Eastern region, the Western and Mid-Western region and the Northern region, each with its own peculiarities, advantages and challenges.

The values of traditional governance were examined and defended as timeless inheritance of the people of Nigeria that should not be unduly disturbed or tampered with by the British colonial administration. If such a conclusion would be reached by an alien observer as far back as the beginning of the last century, it begs the question why Nigerians should not avail themselves of this facility in terms of rearrangement of their societies along those values that have been observed as timeless and significant in the dispensation of governance in our societies?

In a more contemporary work, Adepipe, Olawoye, Olarinde and Okediran, of the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, in their paper titled “Rural Communal Tenure Regimes and Private Landownership in Western Nigeria”, dealt with the dichotomies and abnormalities created by the enactment of the Land Use Decree of 1978.

On their part, the university lecturers examined both the statutory rights to land introduced by the Decree of 1978 and the customary rights that have been obtaining under the traditional systems, and noted the disruptions that were created by the new dispensation in terms of stated goals and unfulfilled expectations.

Of recent, the Federal Ministry of Housing has been seized with advocating an innovation or a policy that would supposedly “free up” allegedly “dead capital” worth about $900 billion that some studies claimed had been “trapped” in the current land use system in Nigeria.

Such commercially driven considerations and approaches to the land question might seem beneficial to the overall economic development of the country, their social and cultural implications however, should be carefully weighed and balanced first of all, before any drastic expropriation of land “in the public interest” would be undertaken.

It is in this light that the cautionary advice of Mr Morel quoted above, should be given serious thought. Native authority or traditional administration does not need to reinvent itself or seek legitimacy from any source or quarter. Its basis is customary law, traditional affiliation and religious belief.

The rulers hold their offices by virtue of their prestige and the respect accorded to their positions by inherited habits and traditions of their subjects. These timeless pillars have so far established and entrenched the traditional systems of government in Africa and given them the resilience and acceptance that their modern substitutes have not obtained.

Despite the existence of the modern systems of government for so many decades, and their support and reinforcement by so many trappings of power like constitutions, parliaments, police forces, law courts and other offices of state, their relevance and significance in the lives of majority of Africans have remained rather tenuous, superficial, incidental and tangential at the same time.

At the other end of the pole, the traditional systems have proved their mettle by surviving alien colonial rule, military regimes, civil wars and revolutions in several countries, thus testifying to their relevance and indispensability among the people.

The issues of land ownership, management, control and use, were central to the authority and legitimacy of the traditional systems of administration in Africa so much so that their fundamental contours were premised around offices that had to do with land matters. As such, the identification of the citizens with their localities automatically dovetailed with, and arose from, their attachment to their land as represented and held in trust for the communities by their respective traditional rulers. This attachment to the land provided the guarantees of safety, security and employment for everyone including people who came to settle from other places.

There were therefore no “social safety nets” in the traditional system outside the security provided by land tenure and citizenship in a given community. This factor is essential and indeed critical to our understanding of the timelessness of the traditional system and the need for its revival and continuity in our governance structures.

The elite takeover of power has created different sets of ethics and challenges for our country most especially in the experiences that we have in our midst of unmitigated bureaucratic corruption and massive looting of public funds by those with access to state power.

Political and bureaucratic power and not industry or honest labour are the sources of wealth creation nowadays. This situation, though not totally alien to the traditional or native authority rule, we must admit, was however not as prolific and out of control as it seems to be the case today.

The system of accountability was inbuilt and ingrained into the traditional system simply because the leaders in the various echelons were part and parcel of the communities that they supervised. They saw themselves truly as service dispensers and custodians of the trust given to them by their inherited status and the responsibilities imposed on them by their traditions, customs, cultures and even religious persuasions.

Wealth accumulation among the traditional rulers was seen as an aberration and not something to be really proud of. Any wealth that might incidentally be amassed would as much as practicable be deployed towards satisfying the trappings of their power such as in maintaining retinues of officials and dependents, entertainment, hospitality, mitigation of personal or community needs, and enhancing the status of the civil and judicial offices through the elevation of persons deemed as competent and deserving to higher offices of state at the expense of the rulers.

Today, such things are neither the norm nor the practice even if intermittently in our modern governance practices and outlooks. After more than 60 years of its emplacement and continuous practice, the modern system of administration is still finding its feet so to speak in the general Nigerian milieu and in the perception of the average citizen. This may be a rather blanket and unsubstantiated remark; it might as well be the reality when the temper of the country is taken into consideration and the mood of the people is studied dispassionately. The modern system of government is still not a permanently settled idea in the minds of Nigerians, as it is still finding its way tentatively and furtively to become accepted and legitimize itself in a transcendental way.