Ohanaeze, Middle Belt Forum, reject bill to make Sultan, Ooni permanent co-chairmen of traditional rulers’ council

Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide, and the Middle Belt Forum (MBF) and  have strongly opposed a controversial bill in the Senate seeking to institutionalise the Sultan of Sokoto and the Ooni of Ife as permanent co-chairmen of the proposed National Council for Traditional Rulers of Nigeria.

The bill, sponsored by Senator Simon Bako Lalong (Plateau South), a prominent Middle Belt leader and the Gwad-Goemai of the Goemai ethnic nation, has already passed its second reading and is currently before the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service.

In a strongly worded statement issued in Abuja on July 27, the MBF, through its National Spokesman Luka Binniyat, described the bill as “an attempt to institutionalise religious and ethnic dominance,” declaring that the Middle Belt would neither accept nor participate in any council led by the Sultan.

‘Sultan cannot chair over Middle Belt monarchs’

According to the MBF, the proposal is historically, culturally, and morally unacceptable.

“The Sokoto Sultanate is a relatively young institution compared to ancient kingdoms and confederacies in the Middle Belt, such as the Kwararafa Confederacy, which dates back to between 800 and 1700 AD,” the statement said.

“The Sultan of Sokoto cannot supersede the Aku Uka of Wukari, the Attah of Igala, the Tor Tiv, or the Etsu Nupe, whose kingdoms predate the Sokoto Caliphate.”

The MBF also argued that the Sultan, being primarily a religious leader, cannot preside over a national council representing a multi-religious and multi-ethnic country.

“It is on public record that the Sultan is the permanent patron of the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association (MACBAN), a group closely associated with violent Fulani herdsmen who have wreaked havoc in the Middle Belt,” the statement added.

“Making him a permanent co-chairman would insult the memory of thousands of victims of these attacks.”

The group further noted that British colonial rule artificially elevated the Sokoto Caliphate over Middle Belt communities through indirect rule.

“Sixty-five years after independence, we will not accept a subordinate position to the Sultanate of Sokoto or any traditional institution that does not reflect our culture and aspirations,” it declared.

Middle Belt threatens boycott

The MBF vowed to resist the bill if it passes into law, threatening to boycott the council entirely.

“If this clause is retained, we will mobilise all ethnic nationalities across the Middle Belt to withdraw from the council and establish our own autonomous body of traditional rulers,” Binniyat warned.

The forum proposed that the leadership of the council should be rotational and tenure-based, or democratically chosen by traditional rulers to reflect Nigeria’s pluralism.

Ohanaeze calls bill ‘ethnocentric, distasteful’

In a similar vein, the Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide condemned the bill, describing it as discriminatory and a violation of Nigeria’s federal character principle.

Dr Ezechi Chukwu, National Publicity Secretary of Ohanaeze, said in a statement issued in Enugu on Sunday that the Igbo apex body was “astounded” by the rationale behind such an “asymmetric and ethnocentric” proposal.

“This bill is not only inequitable, it is also distasteful, reprehensible and objectionable,” Chukwu stated.

“It lacks all the ethical considerations and objective metrics required for national unity and social justice in a pluralist state like Nigeria.”

Ohanaeze urged the Senate to urgently withdraw and review the bill to ensure fairness, cultural sensitivity, and geopolitical balance.

“It is only through such inclusivity that the bill can foster national unity, peaceful coexistence, and social stability,” Chukwu added.

The National Council for Traditional Rulers of Nigeria (Establishment) Bill, 2024, seeks to formalise the role of traditional rulers in governance and national cohesion.

However, the proposal to permanently designate the Sultan of Sokoto and the Ooni of Ife as co-chairmen has triggered widespread backlash from various regions.

With mounting opposition from both the Middle Belt and the South-East, the fate of the bill now hangs on the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service, which is expected to review public submissions before making recommendations.