Give traditional rulers constitutional role
The ongoing review of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) presents yet another opportunity to decisively address the longstanding issue of the role of traditional rulers in Nigeria’s governance framework. This opportunity must be seized and effectively utilised if we are truly committed to enabling these important leaders to contribute meaningfully to society, beyond their cultural […]
The ongoing review of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) presents yet another opportunity to decisively address the longstanding issue of the role of traditional rulers in Nigeria’s governance framework. This opportunity must be seized and effectively utilised if we are truly committed to enabling these important leaders to contribute meaningfully to society, beyond their cultural significance, flowing robes, and ornamental palaces.
In May, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, assured traditional rulers that they would be granted a formal role in Nigeria’s governance structure by 2026 through the ongoing constitutional amendment process.
A year earlier, Abbas had pledged that the 10th House, under his leadership, “will do its best to give recognition to the traditional rulers during our constitution amendment exercise. Many amendments were made in the past to grant constitutional recognition to traditional rulers, but they never saw the light of day.”
According to him, “Because most of us in the House honestly believe that traditional institutions are the backbones of our society, we believe that the welfare of our people will be more enhanced with a legal role for the traditional institutions.”
- 5 months after: Probe of alleged B/Haram funding drags in N/Assembly
- Osun 2026: Confusion in PDP, unease in APC as Adeleke mulls defections
He added that they “also believe the security of our country will be more enhanced if the traditional institutions are given better roles. That’s the reason from the onset we decided to create two different committees. One of them is the Committee on Traditional Institutions to drive the process of giving legal recognition to the traditional institutions in this coming constitutional amendment. The second one is the Committee on States and Local Governments.”
Beyond the House Speaker’s pledge, the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) and the National Council of Traditional Rulers of Nigeria (NCTR) also disclosed, at the start of the review, that they were working together to formally assign responsibilities to traditional institutions.
This effort aims to acknowledge traditional rulers not just as custodians of culture and history but also as key advisers on customary law, inter-communal relations, and, crucially, security and public order. It seeks to involve traditional rulers more directly in the governance and management of rural communities.
The proposed amendment would formally integrate traditional institutions into the governance structure. It recognises monarchs as vital partners, particularly in matters of security and community cohesion.
Recognising the urgency of this reform, we believe stakeholders must move beyond rhetoric. It is time to act decisively and prove whether we want traditional rulers to remain as mere cultural symbols and tourist attractions or whether we genuinely seek to involve them in governance in a structured and efficient manner.
For decades, the traditional institution in Nigeria has been at the mercy of elected officials, who decide when, how, and for whom traditional rulers’ function. Many observers trace the root of the problem to the 1976 Local Government Reform, which redefined the role of traditional rulers and placed them under the control of local government councils.
As a result, traditional rulers were stripped of executive or legislative powers and relegated to ceremonial roles. Their participation, through traditional or chieftaincy councils, became subordinate to local government authorities. Their stipends, palace maintenance, and administrative expenses, once funded through direct budgets, were now handled by local councils.
This funding was not constitutionally guaranteed and became subject to state and local government discretion. It was only during the regime of the late General Sani Abacha that a semblance of stability was introduced through the “5% statutory allocation” from each LGA’s monthly revenue. Even so, traditional rulers still had no legal or constitutional claim to these funds.
Some argue that beyond funding, the core issue has always been political. Traditional institutions have been manipulated or sidelined for political convenience rather than societal well-being.
Nonetheless, if for no other reason than their deep cultural roots, the role of traditional rulers should be clearly defined and respected.
Another key problem lies in how rulers emerge. In most cases, selection processes, regardless of traditional protocols, are subject to the whims of state governors. This has led to rulers who are beholden not to their people, but to political authorities. We urge governors and ruling families to respect established customs in the selection process and to reduce political interference, which over time has bred subservience.
As stakeholders rally behind this laudable reform, traditional rulers themselves must uphold the dignity of their stools. When they engage in partisan politics, through speech or action, they not only undermine their personal credibility but also damage the age-long respect accorded to their institutions. They must strive for impartiality, integrity, and adherence to cultural values.
We, therefore, urge the National Assembly to dispassionately revisit the grey areas of the 1976 Local Government Reform and address its problematic consequences. From North to South, there are numerous examples of traditional institutions being subjected to ridicule or political manipulation.
Rather than engage in power struggles with these institutions, governments should work to properly situate traditional rulers within the governance structure for the benefit of all.