In furtherance of my argument that the Nigerian constitution should be amended to enshrine the powers and autonomy of traditional institutions, I feel obliged to write another piece on this topical issue to explain why this amendment would be beneficial to Nigeria.
I strongly believe that, for the arrangement to be successful, there are some key considerations that must be carefully balanced when enshrining the powers of traditional institutions alongside the authority of the state government in Nigeria’s constitution.
One of the primary considerations is clearly delineating the specific powers, responsibilities, and jurisdictions of traditional institutions versus the state government. This would involve defining the areas where traditional leaders have exclusive or primary authority, such as in matters of culture, tradition, and community-level dispute resolution. It would also need to clarify the limits of state government interference in the affairs of traditional institutions.
To prevent the concentration of power and abuse of authority, there must be robust checks and balances between traditional institutions and the state. This could include mechanisms for oversight, accountability, and the ability for either side to appeal or challenge decisions made by the other. The constitution should enshrine the principle of separation of powers and mutual respect between these two spheres of governance.
It is crucial that the constitutional framework ensures adequate representation and participation of traditional leaders in the broader decision-making processes of the state. This could involve reserved seats for traditional rulers in the legislature or formal consultative mechanisms on issues that affect their communities.
The constitution should guarantee a certain degree of autonomy and control over resources for traditional institutions, allowing them to effectively fulfill their roles and maintain their independence. This may include provisions for funding such as a first line charge 5% monthly allocation from the federation account, control over land and property.
The constitutional framework should be designed with sufficient flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and evolving needs over time. This may involve provisions for periodic reviews, amendments, or the ability to devolve additional powers to traditional institutions as deemed necessary.
Given Nigeria’s cultural and ethnic diversity, the constitutional provisions must be inclusive and representative of the various traditional institutions across the country. This would help ensure that the interests and autonomy of all communities are protected, rather than favoring certain dominant traditional rulers.
Indeed, striking the right balance between the powers of traditional institutions and the state government will be a complex and delicate task. It will require extensive consultations, careful legal drafting, and a deep understanding of the historical and contemporary roles of traditional leadership in Nigeria. However, if done effectively, it could help strengthen the country’s system of governance, preserve its cultural heritage, and foster greater social cohesion and stability.
However, there will be several obstacles and significant challenges that may arise in implementing a constitutional balance between the powers of traditional institutions and the state government.
Some politicians, elites and state government officials may be reluctant to cede powers and autonomy to traditional institutions, fearing a diminution of their own authority and influence. There may be a push to maintain a highly centralized system of governance, which at the end would auger well for the country.
Clearly delineating the specific powers, responsibilities, and jurisdictions of traditional institutions versus the state government may prove challenging. There is a risk of overlap, ambiguity, and potential conflicts that could undermine the implementation of the constitutional framework coupled with the fact that
Nigeria’s traditional institutions are highly diverse, with significant variations in the size, influence, and recognition of different traditional rulers and their communities.
In addition, some minority groups or historically marginalized communities may view the empowerment of traditional institutions with suspicion and skepticism, fearing that it could reinforce existing power structures and inequalities within their societies.
And, most significantly, many traditional institutions in Nigeria may lack the administrative capacity to effectively exercise the powers and autonomy granted to them under the constitution.
The biggest challenge will be the presence of vested political interests, patronage networks, and corruption within the state apparatus who may seek to undermine or circumvent the constitutional provisions, limiting the ability of traditional institutions to function independently.
Overcoming these challenges will require a comprehensive, inclusive, and well-designed constitutional framework, accompanied by robust implementation strategies and a shift in the political culture towards greater respect for the autonomy of traditional institutions. It will be a complex and potentially contentious process, but one that could yield significant benefits for Nigeria’s system of governance and social cohesion.
There are a few successful case studies of traditional institution-state government collaboration that could serve as useful models for Nigeria.
In Botswana, the constitution recognizes the role of traditional institutions, known as the House of Chiefs, in the country’s governance structure. The House of Chiefs has the power to advise the national government on matters of culture, tradition, and community affairs. This collaborative approach has helped preserve the influence of traditional leaders while ensuring their integration into the broader system of governance.
The traditional institutions are formally recognized in the southern African nation’s constitution and are known as the House of Chiefs (Ntlo ya Dikgosi). The House of Chiefs plays an important advisory role to the national government on matters related to culture, tradition, and community affairs. It has the power to advise the national government on any matter relating to culture, tradition, and the administration of customary law. This includes providing input on legislation, policies, and development programs that may impact local communities.
Also, the House of Chiefs oversees the administration of customary law within their respective tribal jurisdictions. This includes presiding over customary courts, resolving disputes, and ensuring the preservation of traditional norms and practices.
Traditional leaders in Botswana play a significant role in the allocation and management of communal land under their jurisdiction. They work closely with the national land board agencies to ensure equitable and sustainable land use.
The House of Chiefs is equally involved in the planning and implementation of community development projects, such as the construction of schools, clinics, and infrastructure, in collaboration with local authorities and the national government.
The traditional institutions are responsible for the preservation and promotion of cultural heritage, including the protection of sacred sites, the management of cultural festivals, and the transmission of traditional knowledge to younger generations.
Similar arrangement is also obtained in other democratic African countries such as Ghana and South Africa.
In far away New Zealand, the government has established formal partnership arrangements with the indigenous Maori people, known as the Treaty of Waitangi. This has involved the co-management of natural resources, the recognition of Maori customary rights, and the incorporation of traditional knowledge into policymaking and service delivery. The model has helped foster greater collaboration and trust between the government and Maori communities.
In central America, to be more precise, in the Mexican state of Oaxaca, the government has recognized the authority of indigenous community-level governing bodies, known as usos y costumbres. These traditional institutions have been granted the power to manage local affairs, including the administration of justice, resource allocation, and the selection of community leaders. The state government has provided financial and technical support to strengthen the capacity of these traditional institutions.
Before the distortions of the late 1960s which culminated with the obnoxious Local Government reforms of 1976 which stripped the Emirs and Chiefs of all powers and authority, Nigeria had a vibrant, progressive and effective traditional institution. During the colonial and post-colonial period, the Northern Council of Chiefs worked closely with both the regional and central governments to identify priority areas, mobilize community participation, and ensure the execution of developmental projects such as schools, primary health clinics and construction of roads and railroads in their domains,
In areas where pastoralism was prevalent, traditional rulers worked with the government to establish communal grazing areas, watering points, and animal health services. This has helped improve the productivity and resilience of the local livestock sector.
In those days, the management of forests, rangelands, and other natural resources fall within the jurisdictions of the traditional institutions which saw the establishment of community-based natural resource management committees and the enforcement of customary conservation rules.
These examples demonstrate the pivotal role that traditional institutions played in tandem with the sub-national and national government to address the development needs of our communities before their powers were eroded in 1978. We need to re-enact a similar collaborative approach to drag Nigeria out of the doldrums.
