Backlash may force withdrawal of traditional rulers’ bill 

A constitution alteration bill currently before the Nigerian Senate seeking to institutionalise the Sultan of Sokoto and the Ooni of Ife as permanent co-chairmen of the proposed National Council of Traditional Rulers has provoked widespread outrage, with prominent ethnic, regional, and socio-cultural groups condemning the move as divisive, illogical, and ahistorical. 

From the South East, the Middle Belt to the Niger Delta and Benin Kingdom, a chorus of opposition has greeted what many perceive as a veiled attempt to entrench the supremacy of two regions – the North West and South West – in Nigeria’s already fragile political architecture.

However, indications have emerged that the bill may suffer a fatal fate as a result of this opposition, which may have been unexpected by its sponsors. The fear is that such opposition could be transferred to political agitations by the different regional groups, which could fray the already fragile politics. Sources hinted that the bill, which is also before the House of Representatives, has been stepped down pending further developments.

The bill, sponsored by Senator Simon Bako Lalong, a former governor of Plateau State and current Senator representing Plateau South, has passed its second reading and is before the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service.

Advisory Constitutional Role

According to its text, the bill aims to formalize the advisory role of traditional rulers in national affairs. However, one contentious provision proposes the designation of the Sultan and the Ooni as permanent co-chairs of the council, a move critics argue flies in the face of Nigeria’s secular constitution, political history, and federal character.

The outrage the Bill has triggered is rooted not just in its immediate content but in the broader historical context of Nigeria’s political and ethnic relations. The perception of the bill as an attempt to institutionalize Northern and South-Western dominance sits atop a long trajectory of perceived marginalization.

Historically, traditional rulership in Nigeria is an entirely regional and cultural construct, not one that lends itself to uniform national representation. The Ooni of Ife and the Sultan of Sokoto are no doubt leading monarchs, revered within their respective cultures. But they are not and have never been the sole representatives of Nigeria’s diverse traditional institutions.

The attempt, therefore, to enshrine them permanently as co-chairs of a national traditional rulers council is viewed by many ethnic nationalities as a form of historical revisionism. Groups such as the Middle Belt Forum (MBF) have argued that it is precisely this kind of structural favouritism that fueled past agitations and continues to threaten national unity.

This is not the first time that Nigerian laws or political arrangements have been manipulated to favour particular sections. The historical trajectory of federalism in Nigeria has seen Northern hegemony consolidated through disproportionate state and local government structures, census rigging, and control of the military.

Structural Imbalance

The post-colonial political arrangement had already given undue advantage to the North through the use of land mass, population and equality of States as revenue-sharing benchmarks, rather derivation, and the disproportionate number of states and local governments in one part of the country.

Southern minorities, particularly, the oil-bearing communities, have since borne the brunt of exploitation with little say in national affairs.

The fear now is that this bill, under the guise of recognizing traditional institutions, is another subtle maneuver to cement symbolic power structures in favor of some regions.

Barrister Chidi Anthony, an Abuja-based lawyer, did not mince words in expressing his dismay:  “I think the bill is insulting and an affront to the rest of Nigeria. There is nothing else to see in it rather than an attempt to cement the dominance of the North West and the South West in the polity.”

“For us from the East, it is completely unacceptable, and I know a lot of other Nigerians feel that way and have roundly rejected the bill. Those behind it should throw it away in the interest of peace. It is an unnecessary, yet absurd bill to propose.”

Nigeria’s traditional institutions are highly diverse and historically autonomous. In the South-East, the Igbo people traditionally operate a decentralized leadership system, where the Obi, Igwe or Eze is first among equals, often governed by a council of elders. This contrasts sharply with the monarchical structure in the North or even the Yoruba South-West where titles like Ooni, Alaafin, and Oba preside over structured royal dynasties.

For the Ohanaeze Ndigbo, the foremost Igbo socio-cultural group, the bill is not only an insult but a provocation. “Why must it be the Sultan and the Ooni? What moral or historical right do they have to lord it over others as permanent co-chairs of a so-called national council?” an Ohanaeze spokesman, Dr. Ezechi Chukwu, queried.

Ohanaeze described the bill as “ethnocentric, distasteful and discriminatory,” noting that, “It lacks all the ethical considerations and objective metrics required for national unity and social justice in a pluralist state like Nigeria.”

According to Ohanaeze, the bill not only undermines Nigeria’s federal character principle, but also tramples on the dignity of other ancient institutions across the land. Any national council that does not ensure equitable representation of Nigeria’s diversity is dead on arrival,” Chukwu added.

Among the most vocal in rejecting the bill is the Middle Belt Forum (MBF), which described the proposal as an “attempt to institutionalize religious and ethnic dominance” in a multi-religious and multi-ethnic nation.

“The Sultan of Sokoto cannot supersede the Aku Uka of Wukari, the Attah of Igala, the Tor Tiv, or the Etsu Nupe,” said Luka Binniyat, the MBF National Spokesperson. “These kingdoms predate the Sokoto Caliphate and are historically autonomous. The Sultan is a religious leader, not a national monarch.”

Hegemonic Agenda

The forum cited colonial-era favoritism as the root of the present attempt to elevate the Sokoto Caliphate. “British indirect rule imposed the Sultanate on other communities. Sixty-five years after independence, we will not accept this subordination,” Binniyat added. The MBF has vowed to boycott the council entirely and form a parallel regional council if the bill is passed in its current form.

The Ijaw National Congress (INC) also condemned the proposal, calling it “a continuous infringement on traditional rulers in Nigeria.” According to Chief Nengi James, Second Vice President of the INC, “No monarch from another tribe or religion is superior to another. The National Assembly should step down the provocative and dehumanizing bill that will cause a serious rift and breach of peace in Nigeria.”

Equally scathing was the Niger Delta Congress (NDC), which described the bill as a “flagrant assault on equity and inclusivity.” Spokesperson Mudiaga Ogboru said, “This is a deliberate attempt to entrench a lopsided power structure and marginalize traditional institutions in the Niger Delta.”

Ogboru further insisted that several Niger Delta monarchies predate the Ooni and the Sultan in antiquity and political importance. “To relegate these esteemed institutions is an affront to our collective dignity. Unity in diversity must not remain a slogan — it must reflect in all national institutions.”

Similarly, the Ogbakha-Edo, a Benin sociocultural group, condemned the bill as “logically flawed, culturally offensive, and historically unjustifiable.” In a statement by its chairman Prof. Sam Guobadia, the group insisted that the Oba of Benin, whose dominion once extended across present-day Edo, Delta, parts of Lagos, and even into Benin Republic, could not be subordinated by legislative fiat.

“The Oba was not just a king but an emperor,” Guobadia noted. “This bill seeks to erase centuries of historical fact in favor of contemporary political convenience.”

Legal Objections

Beyond cultural objections, the bill has attracted sharp legal criticism. Michael Aondoakaa, a former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, dismissed the bill as “unconstitutional” and “absurd.”

“The way it is being proposed will not meet legal expectations,” Aondoakaa argued on Arise TV . “You cannot create fixed leadership roles for traditional rulers when the constitution provides no such model even for political offices. The constitution does not assign ethnic groups to presidency or vice presidency. Why then create ethnic permanency in a traditional council?”

Aondoakaa further argued that unless the bill is a constitutional amendment, the National Assembly lacks jurisdiction. “If it’s just a private member’s bill, then it’s clearly unconstitutional. The federal government has no power to legislate on traditional institutions. It’s a wasteful and academic exercise that will fail.”

He also questioned the bill’s viability in terms of political support. “You already have the South-East opposed. The South-South won’t back it. North Central is unlikely. You may not even get North East. Two-thirds of states won’t support it. It’s dead on arrival.”

Beyond historical inaccuracies and structural distortions, many argue that the proposed legislation carries the stench of cultural subjugation, an imposition of selective identities on a country whose ethnic and traditional configurations defy simple binaries.

The Oyo Alaafin in Diaspora Foundation (OAD), a Yoruba group, warned against the move, describing it as an attempt to rewrite history and dishonor the legacy of the Alaafin of Oyo, historically the supreme sovereign of the old Oyo Empire. “The Alaafin, not the Ooni, was and remains the head of the traditional council in Yorubaland. Anything to the contrary is not just inaccurate, but a calculated attempt to distort Yoruba history,” the group declared in a statement, noting that the move could reopen old wounds even among Yoruba people.

In the same vein, the Middle Belt Forum (MBF), through its president, Dr. Bitrus Pogu, pointed out that the bill was reflective of a deeper agenda to institutionalize Northern and Western dominance. “This is not about traditional rulers. This is about power. It’s a backdoor approach to ethnic colonisation,” Pogu said, describing the bill as “dead on arrival.”

Bill Doesn’t Provide for Permanent Co-chair – Lalong

Meanwhile, amid the growing outrage, Senator Simon Lalong, sponsor of the bill, attempted to clarify its intent, saying the council was merely advisory and non-binding, while also dismissing suggestions that the bill seeks to make the Ooni and the Sultan permanent co-chair of the council.

He declared in a rebuttal signed by his Media Adviser, Dr. Makut Simon Macham, that the allegations are completely untrue, deceptive, and unsubstantiated, and that nowhere in the text of the bill is such a provision contained.

He explained that the bill simply provides that the Chairman and two Vice Chairmen (representing North and South) shall be appointed from among the members of the Council, adding that the process remains open, inclusive, and in line with democratic principles.

“For clarity, the Bill provides that the Chairman and two Vice Chairmen (representing North and South) shall be appointed from among the members of the Council. The process remains open, inclusive, and in line with democratic principles.”

According to him, the bill, having passed second reading, is currently with the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Services, adding that a public hearing will be held soon to allow citizens and stakeholders to provide input and contribute to its refinement.