By Bizibrains Festus Okpeh
Introduction
In similitude to the great epiphany
of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo in his much-publicised “personal” letter to the
former Emir of Kano, many Nigerians woke up on the morning of March 9, 2020, to
be greeted with the sordid news that Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi (Muhammadu
Sanusi II), the 14th Emir of Kano in the order of the Fulani dynasty has been
deposed/dethroned as a result of what the government of Kano State, under the
governorship of Ganduje described as “total disrespect to lawful instructions
from the office of the governor and other lawful authorities, including
persistent refusal to attend official meetings and programmes organised by the
government without any lawful justification which amount to total
insubordination.” This was the Governor’s final act in the over three
years of continual confrontation between the number one citizen of and the most
powerful man in Kano State on one hand, and the most ceremonious traditional
ruler on the other hand that has also ensured the banishment of the latter from
the state.
Since the news of Emir Sanusi’s
dethronement, many have taken to various platforms to express divergent
opinions. While to some, and these include official echoes from the Presidency,
Emir Sanusi’s dethronement was (is) in order as every Governor is empowered by
law to literally appoint and remove traditional rulers, to others, it was
undeserved and illegal and a disrespect to the person of the former Emir, and a fortiori, the traditional institution.
Thus, many have described as mere cosmetics and eye-service the purported kind
gestures Nigerian Governors make to traditional rulers in the name of homage
and courtesy. This sanctimonious relationship between Government (Governors)
and traditional rulers, which pre-dates the birth of Nigeria and has been
continually oxygenated with the instrumentality of law has become the
proverbial colonial gunboat in the hands of fourth republican politicians with
which they cajole and shoot out of the throne any traditional ruler who
patently refuses to come under their self-acclaimed good books and
“protection.” The question may be asked; how did we get here?
This write-up generally presents an
historico-legal view of the state of the relationship between Government and the
traditional institution in Nigeria. It further argues that the formal
politicisation of the traditional institution, the legal consolidation of
colonial-traditional politics post-independence, and the consequent
proliferation of traditional rulers constitute the three most important factors
that undermined (and continue to undermine) the sanctity of the institution of
kings and chiefs in Nigeria.
Finally, while this writer is
inclined to the notion that the existing legal mechanism supports the
dethronement of traditional rulers by Governors, if and only if proper
procedures as laid down by law are followed, the consequential banishment of
the dethroned ruler more or less presents real constitutional crisis.
Pre-colonial
Traditional Institution
In its most traditional and strictest
sense, and according to a pre-colonial definition as offered by Bello-Imam, “a
traditional ruler is defined as a person who by virtue of his ancestral
position occupies the throne or stool of an area and who has been appointed to
it in accordance with the customs and traditions of the area and whose throne
has been in existence before the advent of the British in Nigeria.” This
definition presupposes that a traditional ruler emerges out of the national
consciousness, rooted in the customs and traditions of the area and/or people
over whom he exercises authority, such authority being complete, total and
conclusive and free from any external influence. Hence, the traditional stool
must have been in existence before colonialism. This was traditional
institution in its purest unadulterated form.
Before the British colonisation of
the area now referred to as Nigeria, many autonomous rulers existed in various
clans, chiefdoms, emirates and kingdoms. Although many of these rulers had
considerable influence in their spheres of operation, some had complete and
total control of the areas they administered. They were too powerful so much so
that they could afford to embark on military expeditions, conquering smaller
kingdoms and dethroning weaker kings and forming great alliances, caliphates
and empires. And in the process, many established long-ruling dynasties (e.g
the Dunama ruling dynasty, the Fulani ruling dynasty, etc) which survived them.
Some of these 18th Century empires included the Kanem-Borno Empire,
the Old/New Oyo Empire, the Benin Empire and the Sokoto Caliphate of Uthman Dan
Fodio which became the forerunner and firmly established the ruling Fulani
dynasty in the northern part of Nigeria till date.
It is important to note that these
centralised “states,” kingdoms, emirates and empires operated generally in the
northern part of Nigeria, except the case of the Oyo Empire which also
comprised areas of the south west. They had well-defined structures and
administrative strata with the “Mai,” “Emir,” “Alaafin” or “Caliph,” as the
case may be, at the centre. It was this set-up, more than anything, that
endeared the northern emirs to and gave them seats at the table of colonial
administration; a bromance which also became the undoing of northern
emirateship. The communities of the southern and central Nigeria were generally
“stateless.” They operated a decentralised system that may be likened to a
modern-day democracy. There was no one ultimate ruler or ruling dynasty as the
people collectively chose their leaders as times and occasions demanded.
In the final analysis, the point
being made here is that pre-colonial traditional institution was largely
autonomous with its own judiciary, executive and legislature. It controlled its
own finances and dealt with its property how it pleased. It commanded reverence
and respect from its followers, including the kingmakers irrespective of the
age, status and overall personality of the ruler. In fact, in some climes, the
rulers were seen as gods, celestial and immortal, so that if deposed, they were
required to voluntarily offer themselves to death (or exile/banishment) to
perpetuate their immortality. Although this was abolished by the colonial Lords
for being against human conscience, and rightly so, colonialism further robbed
the traditional institution of its much cherished independence and reverential
flavour, subjecting it to the facades and “goodwill” of the colonial State; a
phenomenon which became the Coronavirus (Covid-19) of the traditional
institution to which no cure has been found till date.
And as the traditional institution
continues to shiver from the cold of this “colonial virus,” a new definition
has been found, one that evolved from the exigencies of political gluttons who
continue to meat from whatever that is left of the traditional institution.
Cookey succinctly captured who a traditional ruler is today thus; “a
traditional ruler is the traditional head of an ethnic unit or clan who for the
time being the holder of the highest traditional authority whose title is
recognized as a traditional ruler’s title by the government of the state.” (underline
mine for emphasis). This sums up the nature and character of a contemporary
traditional ruler; a ruler chosen, recognised and installed by Government
(Governors) as opposed to the
convictions of the people. Several factors are responsible for this state of
affairs and they include but not limited to:
.
- Colonial-Traditional Politics and the
Subjugation of Traditional Institution to the Powers of the Colonial State
Following the Berlin Conference of
1884-85 at the behest of Otto Bismarck, the plan was perfected by the Europeans
for the partition of Africa. Every European colonial power was to take
effective control of the areas of Africa where she held the greatest trade influence.
It was to implement the outcome of this conference that Britain took effective
control of Nigeria (or the area now so called), the Royal Niger company having prepared
the ground with its numerous trade treaties and treaties of “protection” with influential
traditional rulers in the coastal cities and the hinterland. Consequently, from
1879 up to 1900 when it handed over to the British Government, a vast area of
the territory now referred to as Nigeria had been conquered. And so Nigeria
became a colony of Britain under the “protection” of the Queen with Lord Frederick
Lugard as the first High Commissioner of the Northern Protectorate. And in
other to effectively administer the vast area of the North, he introduced the
indirect rule system, whereby northern Emirs were brought into colonial
administration as Paramount rulers under the Lordship of Lugard, as the representative
of the Queen, the Head of Government. In the decentralised communities of the Southren
Protectorate, Lugard appointed Warrant Chiefs who acted as Paramount rulers,
thus distorting the original traditional structures in those communities.
In fact, in some communities in
central Nigeria, which were also decentralised communities and hitherto had
never had any form of effective central traditional institution, the colonial
master created for and imposed one on them. One of such instances is the Tiv nation where the colonial State
created the traditional stool of the Tor
Tiv in 1947 and installed Makere Dzakpe as the first Tor Tiv (Dudly:1968). Needless to say that this traditional stool
had little or no ancestral bearing to the Tiv
nation before its creation. At the time independence was attained in 1960,
following the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates, traditional
rulers absolutely lost their power to the Government which became even more
influential in traditional and chieftaincy affairs.
A traditional institution is supposed
to be sacred and originate from the common national consciousness and
convictions of the people and not an arbitrary creation of Government or the State.
This would help strengthen the “national spirit” and the willingness to respect
and subject to the authority of the traditional institution. This is what Carl
Von Savigny referred to as the “Volkgeist.” According to the erudite historical jurist in
his essay “Of the Vocation of Our Age
for Legislation and Jurisprudence,” every community or nation has a common “spirit”
or “folk-spirit” rooted in its customs and traditions, from where comes its
strength and which is formed internally and instinctively. Hence, any
institution, including a traditional institution, “grows with the growth and
strengthens with the strength of the people.” While colonial politics co-opted
traditional rulers in its administration, it ensured that they remained stooges
to the colonial Lords. And those traditional rulers who refused to yield their
communities and powers were deposed in favour of the rulers who were ready to
do the bidding of the colonialists. Many traditional rulers were dethroned and
exiled in this fashion.
As colonial politics reigned supreme at
the fall of the 19th Century, one of the traditional rulers who was
vehemently opposed to British rule was King Jaja of Opobo, Jubo Jubogha.
However, using “gunboat diplomacy” he was dethroned in 1887 and exiled to St.
Vincent, West Indies. Another of such traditional ruler was King Dosunmu of
Lagos who was also dethroned but later became the Oba of Lagos. Nigerian politicians
have since followed in the footsteps of their colonial mentor to dethrone
traditional rulers who they perceive are opposed to them. According to the Nation
Newspaper(https://thenationonlineng.net/monarchs-and-tales-of-deposition/),
the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Adeniran Adeyemi, was deposed by the old Western
Regional Government headed by Chief Awolowo in 1953 following a dispute between
him and Bode Thomas. Upon the death of
the latter, he was banished to Oshogbo and ended up in Ijora, Lagos. Also, the Emir
of Kano, Alhaji Muhammadu Sanusi I (the grandfather of Mallam Sanusi Lamido
Sanusi) was dethroned in 1963, and banished to Azare in the present day Bauchi
State.
Again, Alhaji Ibrahim Attah, the
Attah of Ebiraland, was deposed in the sixties and banished, never to regain
his throne. Also, Oba Olateru Olagbegi, the Olowo of Owo, was suspended, and later,
deposed by the military government of Western State. Oba Raji Adebowale, the
Aseyin of Iseyin, was deposed by the Akintola government because of his
sympathy for Action Group. Likewise, For travelling out of the country to
Israel without permission, the late Ooni of Ife Oba Okunade Sijuwade and the
late Emir of Kano Alhaji Ado Bayero were restricted to their respective palaces
for six months by the Buhari/Idiagbon military regime, without recourse their
right to freedom of movement and such other associated rights. In the same
vein, The Emir of Gwandu, Major Mustafa Jokolo, was deposed by the Kebbi State
government in 2005 and banished to Loko, a Fulani town in Nasarawa State. Oba
Adepoju Adesina, the Deji of Akure was dethroned by the Ondo State government
following his alleged unruly behaviour which ridiculed the throne. Records also
show that the Sarkin of Suleja, Awwal Ibrahim was deposed by the late military
ruler, General Sanni Abacha. And the latest of it all, the dethronement of Mallam
Sanusi Lamido Sanusi (Muhammadu Sanusi II), the Emir of Kano by the Kano State
government.
Still, the dethronement virus continues
to spread, as it was reported on March 12, 2020, by Rasaq Ibrahim of the Nation
that Oba Rufus Adejugbe, the Ewi of Ado-Ekiti alongside ten other traditional
rulers might be dethroned by Fayemi, the Governor of Ekiti State.
- Legal Consolidation of Colonial-Traditional
Politics Post-independence
We have made the case that questions
of traditional institutions are essentially questions of customary law. This is
because traditional rulers derive their powers from customs and traditions, in
which lies the consciousness and convictions of the people, their behaviour and
habits from time immemorial. Thus, the import of the case of Lewis
v Bankole (1908)1 NLR 81 is that one of
the fundamental characteristics of customary law is its unwritten
nature. This is because it is flexible and dynamic and continues to grow. It
comprises the actual behaviour and tenets of the people as against statutes or Legislation.
Eugene Ehrlich described it as “the living law.” In his book “Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of
Law” Ehrlich buttressed the importance of custom found in actual societal
behaviour thus, “The centre of gravity of legal (or indeed institutional) development
lies not in legislation nor in juristic science, nor in judicial decision, but
in society itself.” The colonial Judges, including native Judges
trained in colonial Britain, in undertaking their judicial and interpretative
functions, subjected the validity and enforceability of customary law (which is
the bedrock or superstructure of the traditional institution) to the English
law, rightly or wrongly.
This means that for any rule of
customary law to be valid and enforceable “it must not be repugnant to natural
justice, equity and good conscience, nor incompatible either directly or by
implication with any (written) law for the time being in force, nor contrary to
public policy.” (see Laoye v Oyetunde (1944) AC 170; Esbughagi Eleko v Officer
Administering the Government of Nigeria; Re Adadevoh (1951)13 WACA 304). Again,
by virtue of section 36(8) of the Constitution, no act or omission is a crime
except, prior to the commission of the act, it was written down to constitute
such a crime and punishment provided therefor. Also, in the case of Tofi
v Uba (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 62) 707 the court held that adultery was not a
crime in Benue State because at the time it was not so find in the customary
statute (the Tiv Declaration of
Native Law and Custom) of the state. The above, coupled with the difficulty in proving
oral evidence and the tendency of confusion that may arise from multiplication
of rules of custom, means that customary law has largely lost its unwritten
nature and is now (largely) subject of legislation. Hence, he who alleges any
rule of custom must prove that the custom actually exists, sometimes not in the
regular habits of the people, however prevalent or far back in time, but also
in a statute, except the court has taken judicial notice of the existence of such
custom (see sections 16, 17, 18 and
122(2)(L) of the Evidence Act, 2011).
Therefore, all the states of the federation
now have there customary laws legislated upon and enacted into the declaration
of native law and custom of the various states. In the same vein rules of custom
relating to kingship, emirship and chieftaincy are enacted into laws by the
various states. The real danger here is the tendency of state Governors, who
usually control the State Houses of Assembly to introduce articles into the customary
statutes that make it easier for them to manipulate traditional institutions.
For instance, this was exactly the case in Kano State, where the Kano Emirates
Council Law 2019was quickly amended
by the Kano State House of Assembly at the behest of Governor Ganduje to make
for the creation of four new emirates just to settle scores with Emir Sanusi
(since dethroned).
In the final analysis, the British colonialist,
having weakened the traditional institution, imported their laws and justice
system to Nigeria and subjected our customary law to them. This further
consolidated the deterioration of the traditional institution. And this
colonial sentiment against the traditional institution, and customary law upon
which it stands and finds meaning has been sustained even after independence.
It has become more or less our national sentiment.
- The Proliferation of Traditional
Rulers
God forbid that one day we would wake
up to the reality of a more traditional Nigeria; the one where there would be a
traditional ruler to every family. Of course, this might sound outrageously
hyperbolic. But unlike Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken,” it is the road
already taken by our Governors, where they are sprinting in full and outright
overdo vis-à-vis their colonial
counterparts. At the height of colonial rule in the 19th century and
in a bid to tighten their hold on power and exercise much more control on their
new found tenants (albeit tenants in their own land), the colonial Landlord,
apart from using Emirs already in power in the North, created traditional rulers
as it pleased them. The traditional stool of the Tor Tiv was (is) one of
such stool created out of colonial administrative necessity and/or expediency
in 1947. Likewise, Paramount rulers were appointed in the South in the form of
Warrant Chiefs.
Fast-forward to post-independence and
many traditional rulers have been created by successive Governors in Nigeria. According
to Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_traditional_rulers retrieved 11
March, 2020), Yobe State was created with just four emirates, but in early 2000
it was increased to 13 at the behest of Bukar Abba Ibrahim, who was then the
governor. Also, in August 2010, Bukola Saraki, the then governor of Kwara state
appointed three new monarchs. It has also been reported that by June 2010, Akwa
Ibom State had 116 traditional rulers with official certificates from the
state. And fairly recently, in a move that literally dismantled one of the
oldest and strongest traditional stool in Nigeria, the government of Kano State
created four new Emirs in the state in addition to the Emir of Kano, an act
that quaked the Kano emirateship to its founding ancestors.
As the saying goes, too many cooks spoil
the broth. While this saying may have become a cliché, it has never lost its truism. It is axiomatic that the
obsession of Government (Governors) with creation of titular kings, chiefs and
traditional ministers, sometimes as sheer political settlements and at other
times as arbitrary manifestations of their grip on power, has somewhat crippled
the effectiveness of the traditional institution as the bearer of the
collective conscience of the people. There are now so many traditional rulers all
over the federation that one may be forced to lament that the essence, beauty
and importance of many of them lie only in their colourful regalia (with utmost
respect to them). Yet, this is not entirely their making. Is it then the making
of their creators? Permit me to kindly adopt your guess as mine.
The
Emir Sanusi Question
The Emir Sanusi question is a million
Naira question not because his deposition as the Emir of Kano was too difficulty
an algorithm to draw, given his frosty relationship with Governor Ganduje, but
because any attempt at enquiring into why the widely celebrated bank expert and
economist would venture into traditional politics sends one into infinite
imagination. Lost in such ocean of wonder and imagination, Olusegun Adeniyi,
writing for Thisday on March 12, 2020 could not help but reveal his
helplessness; “This is somebody that has all the attributes of a president. He has
the clout and capacity to reinvent Nigeria if he had jumped into the political
fray. It is very difficult for me to discern how blue bloods think.” Mallam
Sanusi did jump into the political fray; the traditional political fray.
The rift between Governor Ganduje and
the former Emir of Kano, HRH Sanusi Lamido Sanusi survived over three years amidst
irregular manifest and public intervention by some prominent Nigerians, not
including President Buhary. The happenstances between the two from 2017 was well
chronicled by Raymond Mordi, the Deputy Editor of the Nation (https://thenationonlineng.net/the-ding-dong-affair-between-ganduje-sanusi/).
Why the public is still absorbing the shock of Emir Sanusi’s dethronement, it
is his detention and banishment firstly to Loko and now Awe towns of Nassarawa
State that presents real constitutional conflicts. Now, I take great care not
to overreach or preempt the possible decision of the court as this matter is
currently pending before a Federal High Court in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
However, apart from the fact that
this practice was hallowed in pre-colonial and colonial States, as our
Constitution stands, it is unconstitutional to detain, confine, restrain or
forcibly eject or otherwise exile or banish a citizen of Nigeria from any part
of the country. This is because by virtue of Sections 35, 40, and 41 of the
Constitution, every citizen of Nigeria has the right to personal liberty, peaceful
assembly and association and freedom of movement respectively. And except as
provided under the Constitution, these rights cannot be derogated from. This
are the purports of Sections 35(1), 40(2) and 45 of the Constitution. The above
position of the law was given judicial enforcement by the Court of Appeal in
the case of AG Kebbi State v HRH Alhaji Al Mustapha Jakolo (2013) LPELR 22349
Thus, notwithstanding that Emir
Muhammadu Sanusi I, the grandfather of the deposed Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II, was
exiled to Azare (in present day Bauchi State) where he remained for some time before
returning to Kano where he died in 2002, it is highly unlikely, given the
circumstances already stated above, that the banishment of the latter by the Kano
State Government would legally stand.
Conclusion
To draw the curtain to a close, the insincere
relationship between Government and traditional rulers and the incessant
meddlesome interloping of Governors in traditional affairs are rooted in
history, backed and perpetuated by law
and the Constitution, which inter alia, vests
in the Governor of a State the sole/chief executive power (see Section 176(2)
of the Constitution). Perhaps the Constitutional framers did not envisage the intractable
politics of the fourth republican politicians. Perhaps they should have known that
there is something called the “Nigerian factor.” Whether we know or claim not
to know, wanton dethronement of and disregard to traditional rulers in Nigeria are
positive symptoms of “colonial (dethronement) virus.” It has permeated our
politics; it is part of our laws; in fact, it may survive for generations to
come. We can only hope for saner politicians or genuinely retrace our very
existence as a political unit.
************************
Bizibrains, also known as Festus
Ikechukwu Okpeh is a public commentator, a disability rights advocate and a
Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria who specialises on general
legal practice, especially in the area of energy law. You can reach him on
07061096037 or bizibrains@gmail.com