Senate’s move to elevate Ooni, Sultan divides Nigerians
yarkarkara
Ordinarily, the proposed bill to create the National Council of Traditional Rulers of Nigeria should be a welcome development, as it seeks to constitutionally recognize the roles and importance of traditional rulers for the overall peace and development of the country.
However, the clause that empowers the Ooni of Ife and the Sultan of Sokoto to be over and above other traditional rulers in the country has subjected it to widespread criticisms, attacks and rejection, particularly from the Middle Belt Forum, Ohanaeze Ndigbo and Middle Belt Forum, among others.
These groups, as well as several individuals from across Nigeria, have described the move as divisive, undemocratic, and a threat to Nigeria’s federal character.
The bill, sponsored by Senator Simon Bako Lalong (Plateau South), passed its second reading in March and is currently before the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service. Although it is intended to formalise the structure of the country’s traditional leadership, its provision assigning permanent leadership roles to the two monarchs has ignited outrage across Nigeria’s multi-ethnic landscape.
A statement by the apex Igbo socio-cultural body, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, rejected the proposal out rightly, describing it as unjust, ethnocentric and a direct affront to the principles of equity, fairness, and federal character enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution.
According to the National Publicity Secretary of Ohanaeze, Dr. Ezechi Chukwu, the clause threatens to marginalise other prominent traditional institutions in the South-East, South-South, and Middle Belt, undermining inclusiveness and national cohesion.
“We are profoundly astounded by the rationale behind such an asymmetric bill by the Senate, with its utter disregard for fairness, equity, justice and the principle of federal character.
“The Senate, in this vein, has failed in its capacity as the highest legislative carrier and custodian of the nation’s democratic mandate,” Chukwu said.
Further describing the bill as inequitable, ethnocentric and objectionable, the Igbo group insisted that such a law has no place in a pluralistic nation like Nigeria.
“This bill is not only inequitable, discriminatory and ethnocentric; it is also distasteful, reprehensible and objectionable. It lacks all the ethical considerations, objective metrics and unbiased categories for national unity and social justice.
“Ohanaeze Ndigbo, therefore, calls for the urgent withdrawal of the bill and the need to review it in consideration of ethnic differences, cultural sensitivity, geopolitical balance, inclusive governance and equitable representation.
“It is only by doing so that the bill can foster national unity, peaceful co-existence and social stability,” he submitted.
Similarly, the Middle Belt Forum, MBF, equally opposed the clause that elevates the Sultan of Sokoto to such a position in the proposed traditional rulers’ council. The group noted that its southern counterparts were free to determine the fate of the Ooni of Ife but it clearly rejected and condemned the elevation of the Sultan of Sokoto as a permanent co-chairman of the proposed Council.
A statement by its national spokesman, Luka Binniyat, said the rejection was anchored on strong historical, cultural, constitutional, and moral grounds, which includes the fact that the Sokoto Sultanate is historically junior to Middle Belt monarchies
“Historically, the Sokoto Caliphate is a relatively young institution compared to ancient kingdoms and confederacies in the Middle Belt, for instance, the Kwararafa Confederacy, which flourished for centuries, predates the Caliphate,” the statement noted.
The group also argued that the Attah of Igala ranks higher in historical and traditional status than the Sultan of Sokoto.
“The Attah of Igala, whose kingdom flourished well before and after the 14th century, occupies a higher pedestal in terms of history, cultural roots and legitimacy.
“The Igala Kingdom never came under the caliphate’s domain and continues to represent deep-rooted indigenous authority that is much older and more authentically Nigerian than the Sokoto Sultanate,” it also stated.
The group also argued that both the Tor Tiv of Tiv Kingdom and the Etsu Nupe of Nupe Kingdom represent powerful, independent cultural identities that predate the sultan of Sokoto.
“So, to ask that the Tor Tiv permanently defers to the Sultan in council matters is a gross distortion of historical facts and a violation of indigenous dignity. In the same vein, ino logical or historical context can the Caliphate claim seniority or supremacy over Nupe tradition,” the argument continued.
The group is also saying that the Sultan is primarily a religious leader, not a secular traditional monarch. “In Nigeria today, the Sultan of Sokoto is widely acknowledged as the spiritual head of all Nigerian Muslims, particularly across the 19 Northern states and the FCT. His spiritual leadership role is fundamentally religious.
“It is not secular. Therefore, his institutionalised leadership over a national council of traditional rulers would alienate Christians, traditional worshippers, and other faiths, violating the secular spirit of Nigeria’s Constitution. It would also skew the balance of representation in favour of Islam, thereby promoting religious supremacy under the guise of traditional unity,” the group protested.
The group categorically stated that 65 years after Nigeria’s independence, it cannot continue to accept a subordinate position to the Sultanate of Sokoto or any traditional institution that does not reflect its history, culture or aspirations.
Still fuming about the move, the group went down memory lane, saying, “Historically, the diverse ethnic nationalities of the Middle Belt resisted the incursions of Usman Dan Fodio’s jihadists.
“While Hausaland fell under the control of Dan Fodio’s forces in the early 1800s, the Middle Belt remained largely unconquered, preserving its distinct identity and sovereignty.
“The imposition of the indirect rule system by the British colonial administration altered this dynamic. By forcefully placing our autonomous communities under the control of Emirate systems, most notably the Sokoto Caliphate, the colonial authorities created an artificial hierarchy that granted undue privilege and influence to Fulani-dominated Emirates over the indigenous peoples of the Middle Belt and beyond.
“More than six decades after the end of colonial rule, it is unacceptable for any traditional authority to be elevated above others, particularly in a democratic Nigeria that champions equality, justice and federal character.”
The group made its position known concerning the proposed law, saying, “In light of the above, the Middle Belt Forum hereby states emphatically tha if the Senate passes this bill with the contentious clause and it is assented to by the President, we will mobilise all ethnic nationalities across the Middle Belt to boycott participation in the Council.
“Traditional rulers of the Middle Belt will neither recognise nor attend meetings of a Council whose leadership is permanently skewed in favour of a non-indigenous, religiously aligned and a lesser monarch status to our traditional rulers.
“We shall, in accordance with constitutional liberties, form our own autonomous Council of Middle Belt Traditional Rulers, which shall reflect the historical, cultural and moral values of our people.”
The equally proposed that to preserve national unity, equity, and fairness, the Chairmanship of the Council should be rotational so as to cut across all geo-political zones or ethnic blocs.
“It should also be tenure-based in a manner that gives all traditional rulers and their peoples a sense of belonging and dignity. Another alternative is for traditional rulers themselves to democratically choose their chairperson(s) through a transparent, inclusive process that reflects Nigeria’s pluralism. Such a Council must reflect the values of equality, justice, and historical truth,” it submitted.
In the same vein, the Concerned Hausa Stakeholders have equally rejected the bill describing it as ethnically biased, historically misleading, and constitutionally indefensible. It argued that Nigeria is not a two-ethnic federation of Fulani and Yoruba but a multi-ethnic republic where equal representation, historical truth and federal character must be respected.
The group also argued that the Sultan of Sokoto is a religious leader and not a traditional ruler; therefore, he cannot represent the Hausa people in that cultural sense.
“The Sultan of Sokoto is officially recognized as the Sarkin Musulmi, the leader of Muslims not as a traditional king in the ethnic or cultural sense. His legitimacy is thus religious and Fulani-specific, not cultural or ethnic. He does not represent the Hausa people, or the broader traditional institutions of northern Nigeria.
“If religious authority is the basis for this elevation, then Christian leaders, such as the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), should equally be considered, since both Christians and Muslims exist across North and South Nigeria.
“If This Bill is truly about traditional leadership, where are the Hausa, Igbo, Kanuri, and others? If the bill is about traditional rulership, then it is unacceptable to exclude other major and historically grounded ethnic civilizations:
“The Hausa, with ancient city-states like Daura, Kano, Zaria and Katsina, has a royal tradition predating the Sokoto Caliphate;
“The Igbo, with time-honored institutions like the Obi of Onitsha, Eze Nri, and many others; the Kanuri, with the Shehu of Borno, one of West Africa’s oldest dynasties, all predate the Sultan of Sokoto.
“So, to recognize only the Sultan of Sokoto and the Ooni of Ife is a deliberate marginalization of other Nigerian civilizations. It also ignores the fact that Daura, not Sokoto, is the traditional cradle of Hausa kingship. Sokoto is the capital of the Fulani Empire, not an indigenous Hausa kingdom,” the group stated.
The group equally alleged that the bill threatens national unity and institutionalises ethnic favoritism. It said: “This bill promotes ethnic hierarchy, not unity. By elevating only two monarchs from two ethnic groups of Fulani and Yoruba, it risks entrenching resentment, division and institutionalized injustice.
“No single monarch, no matter how respected, can represent entire regions or religions. The Ooni of Ife cannot speak for the Igbo, Ijaw, Urhobo, Ibibio, or others in the South.
“The Sultan cannot speak for the Hausa, Kanuri or Tiv in the North. This is not just about titles; it is about historical truth, ethnic dignity and equal citizenship in the Nigerian project.”
Like its MBF counterpart, the group also suggested that if the bill is religious in nature, then equal leadership must be given to the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) and Muslim leaders, reflecting Nigeria’s religious diversity.
“If the bill is traditional in nature, then it must reflect ethnic equity, including the Hausa, Igbo, Kanuri, Ijaw, Tiv, Urhobo, Ibibio, and all other indigenous nations.
“Any national traditional leadership must be based on historical legitimacy, federal character, and inclusive dialogue, not political favoritism.
“We will not accept any structure that seeks to overwrite or erase the historical presence, sovereignty and dignity of the Hausa nation, and we will also not condone the exclusion of other ethnic nationalities,” it stated.
Also, the Alaigbo Development Foundation, ADF, has equally kicked against the proposed bill describing it as an insult to Nigeria’s cultural diversity.
“This bill is not only provocative but also subjugative. President Bola Tinubu should note that there is a limit to provocation. A million Tinubu cannot subjugate Ndigbo,” the group warned.
The ADF urged Igbo lawmakers in the National Assembly to reject the bill and take decisive steps to defend the interests of the region. It also called for a reversal of what it described as illegitimate measures threatening national cohesion and fairness.
However, apart from sectional groups kicking against the bill for its divisive nature, individual voices from the South West are equally condemning the move, insisting that Ooni of Ife cannot speak for the entire Yoruba nation.
Leading this vanguard is Femi Adebowale, a university lecturer, who insisted that the move is not only divisive but insulting to the Yoruba nation.
“First, the Ooni of Ife is not higher than or superior to the Alafin of Oyo; so, he can’t speak for the entire Yoruba nation. He can only speak for the people of Osun State but not the entire Yoruba land. What happened to the revered Alafin of Oyo, the Alake of Egba land and other first class monarchs in Yoruba land?
“What I am saying is that even if other tribes in the South like the Igbo, Benin, Itsekiri, Ibibio, Urhobo and others accept the Ooni as their leader, we the Yoruba, especially those of us from Oyo kingdom can never accept that because historically, the Alafin is above the Ooni. So, it will be an insult for the Alafin to be subjugated under the Ooni,” he stated.
Also speaking, a Lagos lawyer from Benin, Edo State, Caleb Osazuwa noted that the Ooni cannot speak for the entire monarchs in Southern Nigeria, describing the move as the greatest joke of the century.
“How can anybody in his right frame of mind think that the great Oba of Benin will be subjugated under the Ooni of Ife? It is not possible.
“See, if they want to create a traditional rulers’ council that will be constitutionally recognized, all ethnic nationalities in Nigeria must be represented equally.
“That’s the only way to ensure equity, justice, fairness and peaceful coexistence. Anything short of that will bring division and chaos rather than unity and peace,” he warned.
