Constitution’s missing institutions (I)
When I read that Kaduna State had reviewed the salaries and allowances of its traditional rulers and introduced a dedicated security allowance for its emirates and chiefdoms, I found myself thinking about a question much larger than remuneration. Why does Nigeria continue to rely on traditional institutions for some of the most difficult work of […]
Governor Uba Sani's decision to introduce a comprehensive package for traditional rulers in Kaduna State, including a dedicated security allowance, prompts the question of how Nigeria continues to integrate traditional institutions into governance. Precolonial Nigeria featured diverse political systems, with traditional institutions such as the Sokoto Caliphate, Yoruba kingdoms, Benin monarchy, and Igbo communities playing significant roles in governance, dispute resolution, and social order maintenance.
The British colonial administration incorporated elements of these systems into their administrative structures, resulting in a blend of indigenous and colonial governance. Upon gaining independence, Nigeria's constitutional arrangements tried to accommodate traditional institutions. The 1960 Constitution established Houses of Chiefs at regional levels and included the Oba of Lagos as an ex-officio member of the Senate.
However, subsequent reforms in 1976 shifted administrative responsibilities away from traditional authorities and towards elected local councils, leaving traditional councils with advisory roles. This shift aimed to create a more representative and uniform system of local governance. While the intentions behind these reforms were understandable, the appointment of Alhaji Ibrahim Dasuki as chair of the reform committee, a prince of the Sokoto ruling establishment, sparked debates about the role of traditional rulers in modern governance.
Written by urgent.news from Daily Trust's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
