The emirates and politicians
Recently, the Kaduna State government announced its decision to disengage 4,766 district and village heads in the state. In Kano state, two attempts were made to probe the Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II. In this piece I will try to put the relationship between traditional rulers in the emirates of Northern Nigeria and politicians […]
Recently, the Kaduna State government announced its decision to disengage 4,766 district and village heads in the state. In Kano state, two attempts were made to probe the Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II. In this piece I will try to put the relationship between traditional rulers in the emirates of Northern Nigeria and politicians in perspective.
There is nothing new or personal in the misunderstandings between traditional rulers and politicians in Northern Nigeria. It is power relations. For instance, Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna who was the District Head of Rabah and scion of the legendary Usman Danfodio, with all the potentials to be the Sultan, had to send signals to the traditional rulers, as the Premier of Northern Region, on the power and determination of his republican government to assert itself, in an address to the House of Chiefs in 1962.
He said: “Let me make it quite clear that this Government intends to rule and intends that its policies and lawful directives shall be carried out. The Government has the power and shall not seek it from anywhere… We are determined to carry out that responsibility and duty which history and circumstances have imposed upon us. Anyone who tries to prevent us does so at his own peril”
To walk his talk, the Sardauna had to, at a time, establish the Muffet Commission which led to the abdication of his ally and confident, Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi I. The emir was the highest paid public officer in the region. He was earning a total emolument of 12,004 pounds per annum which more than doubles the 4,800 pounds per annum of the Sardauna as Premier. Also, the emir was Acting Governor of Northern Region at a time which made all traditional rulers in the region answerable to him, including the Sultan. Even the son of the emir, Wamban Kano, who married the daughter of Premier, Ahmadu Bello, Hajiya Inno diyar Amadu, was powerful. The legendary Hausa singer, Mamman Shata captured the power of Wambai when he said “abun su Habu na Habu ne, kayan su Habu na Habu ne, ku basu abunsu a san lafiya, ku basu abunsu mu sha duniya (whatever belongs to the Habus’ is for Habu, give them what belongs to them so that there will be peace, give them what belongs to them so that the world will be ours). The emir was also the pillar of the ruling Northern People’s Congress (NPC) in Kano, the stronghold of the opposition led by the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU). No wonder when the emir abdicated, some of his supporters pulled out of the NPC and created Kano People’s Party (KPP), in whose manifesto it was clearly stated that the mission of the party was to liberate Northern Nigeria from “mulkin mutum daya” (the rule of one man). No prize for guessing their target correctly.
There has been a gradual removal of traditional rulers in the constitution. For example, the 1979 constitution specifically mentioned Council of Chiefs which was assigned the following responsibilities:
“To advise the Governor on any matter relating to cultural law or cultural affairs, inter-communal relations and chieftaincy matters… to advise the Governor whenever requested to do so on (a) the maintenance of public order with the state or any part there of (b) such order matters as the governor may direct”
From the above roles that were considered nominal, the 1989 Constitution mentioned Council of Chiefs without mentioning its concrete responsibilities. The 1999 constitution and its subsequent amendment are silent on Council of Chiefs talk less of its responsibilities.
Some Nigerians attribute the decline in the power of traditional rulers to politicians. Listen to Malam Isa Waziri, the late Wazirin Kano: “We should definitely sympathize with them. They were not like this before. It is the politicians that destroyed the prestige and esteem of traditional institutions in the North. Some politicians called them unjust, thieves etc. But as it turned out, the politicians became the worst elements in the society. They even did what the traditional rulers never did. They organized the murder of opponents,”
There are three major waves in the history of northern emirates. However, before we examine the waves, let us briefly trace the experience of other countries with traditional rulers in the world. Broadly, five groups can be identified. First, countries that never experienced traditional institutions, therefore, had none to contend with in their democratization process i.e. United States of America. Second, countries that had traditional institutions but abolished them to assert democratic culture i.e. France. Third, countries where traditional institution is dominant but some semblance of democracy and political participation are allowed, to a limited extent i.e. Saudi Arabia. There are ministers and bureaucracy in such countries but the ministers are from the royal family or their associates. In such instances traditional institution is merciless with democracy, in the same manner democracy treat the institution elsewhere. It is power game. Fourth, countries where agreeable terms were reached between monarchy and democracy i.e. Britain. Although all the four categories are relevant to our understanding of the relationship of “power and diplomacy” between traditional rulers and politicians in Northern Nigeria, the fifth group is the most relevant i.e. countries where democratic or other modern political systems i.e. military rule are dominant, but the traditional rulers are in perpetual struggle to remain relevant. Virtually all African countries, other than Morocco and Lesotho, where monarchy is the dominant political system, belong to this group.
The three waves of the emirate system in Nigeria are: pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial. In the pre-colonial period, the emirs had nobody to contend with because they were the absolute rulers without legislature or independent judiciary. With their conquest by the British, they became answerable to the Queen of England. Three levels of government were created as a comprise i.e. Native Authority, Regional Government and Federal Government. The emirs were allowed to run the Native Authority system in their localities with limited interventions. But generally, the relationship was not smooth. It started with resistance to the British conquest and later British administration. This accounts for the deposition of some emirs. However, a compromise was always reached to keep the system going.
The major problem was after independence when emirs considered it unfair to be subordinated to officials of the regional government who were their subjects. This has been the challenge, and a compromise is always reached to keep the system going, with occasional casualties. Nobody gives up power easily. This is why Che Guvera said that socialism will not arrive in a form of royal decree counter- signed by two ministers. At a point the emirs opposed the creation of ministry of local government so that they will not be subordinated to the minister of the ministry, who could be anybody. The Emir of Gwandu, Sir Yahaya ibn Haliru (1938-54), made their position clear.
“We did not oppose having Minister of Local Government who would tour around and inspect the progress of various local administrations … We really do not like the north to be behind, what we do not like is to reduce the dignity and authority of the Chiefs, and that the Minister would be above them. That is our only objection.”
Ultimately, the ministry was created with a compromise that it should be under the Sardauna who they had no problem deferring to as a descendant of Danfodio. He had to combine the ministry with the post of the Premier. But Sardauna had to go extra mile to protect the ministers by making his office to issue a circular that no minister will remove his shoes or sit anywhere other than in a chair in the palace of any traditional ruler in the region . And that it was a tall order.
For some people, the best way out is to provide a role for traditional rulers in the constitution. Professor Nuhu Yakubu, a First Class Political Scientist and former Vice Chancellor of University of Abuja and Sokoto State University share this view.
“One would say that there is a good prospect for the institution to still continue to exercise its relevance. But it will have to understand and accept the fact that time has changed and therefore they will have to go with the tide… I think it is wrong to sideline the traditional rulers from a role they can perform very comfortably in the Nigerian setting. Let them be given a role as they were defined to be given in the Second Republic”
Actually, royalty is now a challenge, all over the world. For example, Prince Harry, number 5 in the succession ladder of British royal family, said: “we are not doing this for ourselves but for the greater good of the people…Is there any one of the royal family who wants to be king or queen? I don’t think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time.” (The Nation Newspaper, Friday, June 23, 2017, page 45).
Be that as it may, there is no alternative to consultations and negotiations between traditional rulers and politicians in the emirates because they will continue to co-exist. I sympathize with the traditional rulers in the emirates because they are the stabilizing force and the rallying point. Islamic scholars may appear credible alternative, but while there is only one Emir in Zazzau Emirate to whom virtually everybody in the emirate defer to ,for example, there are many independent Islamic scholars in the emirate, some of whom may not be necessarily on good terms with one another. Also, there is hardly anybody in the North other than the Sultan, who will announce the siting of a new moon and many people will believe him. But it is really not easy for the emirs to function around the triple heritage of Islam, Democracy and Hausa culture. How can you, for instance, make an emir custodian of Hausa culture and ask him to account for whatever has been entrusted to him. Undoubtedly, this is against Hausa culture.