A word in favour of ‘Native Authority’ (I)

“People who concentrate merely upon effects are unsound guides when constructive measures are required.” – E. D. Morel There is no single Nigerian today who, for better or worse, is not under some form of allegiance to the traditional system of administration in our country. Regardless of the villages, communities, ethnic groups, local governments, or […]

“People who concentrate merely upon effects are unsound guides when constructive measures are required.” – E. D. Morel

There is no single Nigerian today who, for better or worse, is not under some form of allegiance to the traditional system of administration in our country. Regardless of the villages, communities, ethnic groups, local governments, or states that they belong to, every Nigerian must fall under the canopy of one traditional ruler or another and is identified by the filial or inherited attachment to such an institution. Tenuous though such attachments may be in some cases, they nevertheless form the umbilical cords that link us with our land and also between our past and present.

The traditional rulers offer us the incontestable, settled and defined identities that make each and every one of us to claim to be Nigerians in the first place, thereby locating the issues of identity and belonging in their unstated but manifest domain of importance. It is quite possible that if wisdom and better judgment are allowed to prevail, the traditional institutions may also be the harbingers of a better and more assured future for all of us.

A genuine and honest introspection towards finding solutions to problems is a rewarding effort in its own right. It is, therefore, in this sense that this three-part article is placed before the discerning Nigerian public to ponder upon whether it is not expedient and timely that the relevance of the so-called “traditional” system of government is openly discussed in our evolving arrangements and governance system.

Our estimation of progress so far made, and perception of opportunities so far missed or not taken, would insensibly tug at the heartstrings of our beings, as to whether we should have done some things differently, such as adhering to a dual system of government consisting of the “modern” and the “traditional” working side by side, each assisting the other by moderating the excesses or enhancing the advantages, as the case may be, of the other.

Alas, such thoughts may be reflective and transient only, under the present conditions, and perhaps regrettably speculative, in the light of the passage of time and continually changing circumstances. Change and adaptation are in essence the evolutionary traits of all societies, but as Joseph Conrad warned, there is no evolution out of the grave. In this sense, there is no point in advocating for a role for the traditional system of administration if we have decided to consign it to the grave of insubstantiality.

However, if we realise that there is indeed room for more effective participation of the traditional rulers in the governance of our country, then space should be allocated to them to do so meaningfully and constructively within the appropriate governance frameworks.

Ambiguity about their status, role and contributions in the governance of our country is an escapist attitude that tenders no room for improvement of our conditions. Only a frank and frontal approach to this issue can result in a fruitful dialogue and present an opportunity for reaping the fruits of the wisdom and integrity of this class of eminent Nigerians.

There is no reason why the mere act of belonging to a political party and contesting for offices should provide the most ordinary of people with the right to participate in governance while those who have proven themselves equally capable or more in the advancing of the public interest, should be barred from some form of meaningful participation in the same scheme.

Innovation and change are the core attributes of dynamism in governance. Where there is no change there cannot be any possibility of adaptation or movement, and where there is no movement there cannot be progress.

In this regard, we should have the courage to admit that Nigeria needs an innovative assessment of the utility of the age-old practice of traditional administration to bring back some sort of continuity and integrity into the governance of our country. This should call for our understanding and proper estimation of what governance is all about and what it should actually be like. Much as governments are the useful instruments of managing both dynamics of change and progress in any society, it should be noted that they need not necessarily be both effective and efficient simultaneously.

Efficiency belongs to the realm of science, technology and industry while effectiveness is an essential requirement of government. With effective administration, the seeds of efficiency can be planted in certain aspects like administration of justice, community policing and management of landed resources and public finances. These are areas today that require sober consideration and redefinition of our values and objectives and the instruments of their realisation in our country.

It is in this wise that the question arises whether the “modern” systems of government and administration that are obtaining in Nigeria should somehow be remodeled to accommodate the “traditional” system of government that was seemingly alienated by succeeding dispensations in the country after independence?

The consolidation and strengthening of the “Native Authority” system was the fundamental thrust of the British effort in the establishment of colonial rule in some parts of Africa. This was particularly so in the case of Northern Nigeria where an already established system of government led by emirs, chiefs and their appointees had been in place for hundreds of years in some cases.

A slightly modified form of this system of administration was also in practice in parts of South Western Nigeria. The system was simply incorporated into the British colonial rule by modifying its operations and codifying aspects of it to conform to the economic, legal and administrative systems that the colonial government introduced.

Having made some changes in the format of local administration, most of the functions of the native authorities were allowed to continue to be exercised by the traditional rulers under British official oversight. This system, which came to be known as “Indirect Rule”, continued for a short while after the British had left and was effectively terminated with the changes that were introduced by the military republican governments that succeeded the first civilian administration in the country.

Various attempts at coping with the challenges of modernization and governance were made between 1966 and 1978 in Nigeria, especially through the creation of states and local governments. Other modifications were also introduced towards addressing emerging or apparent crisis in the system of administration in Nigeria including issues related to local governance, communal unrests, land use, the administration of justice and revenue mobilization among others.

The most critical material challenge that confronted almost all administrations in Nigeria had to do with the judicious control, allocation and administration of resources, especially land in the country. Land has been the central factor in all human civilizations. Its ownership, control and utilization have formed the reasons for progress, conflicts, migrations and other human induced alterations to the modes of existence of all peoples in history.

Nigeria was not and cannot be an exception to this general rule of social evolution. At the core of the identity crisis in Nigeria and the seemingly intractable challenges besetting the country’s unity and purposeful and confident strides into the future, is the question of land ownership and administration, which seems to have defied various attempts at amelioration.

This dilemma might have been lessened in extent and scope if the system of “Native Authority” rule had not been so prematurely and unceremoniously terminated by the post-colonial administrations in the country. No doubt, the antiquity and seemingly incongruous existence of the “old” system side by side with the apparently “modern” form of government, might not have admitted the possibility of a significant role being granted to the traditional system of government in the country.

Be that as it may, it was a capital mistake to have taken the radical decision to abrogate the authority of traditional rulers in a terminal fashion as was done by the 1978 Land Use Decree and other normative processes in the country like the reform of the Native Authority system.

Elite mistrust and the antagonistic perceptions of the emerging civil and military classes in the country towards the traditional system might have largely informed the decision to down-play its significance and consign it to some residual and largely ceremonial tasks and duties. But like the legendary Phoenix, the traditional system has refused to die or be killed. It rises from time to time to silently and indignantly assert its significance even in modern society and claim the part that it could play in addressing the myriads of challenges confronting Nigeria today.