A proposed bill seeking to establish the National Council of Traditional Rulers of Nigeria has come under intense fire from several ethnic groups, cultural organizations, and individuals across the country.
While the idea of institutionalizing traditional rulers through a national council was initially welcomed as a step toward recognizing the relevance of monarchs in Nigeria’s development, a controversial clause giving permanent leadership positions to the Sultan of Sokoto and the Ooni of Ife has triggered widespread condemnation.
The bill, sponsored by Senator Simon Bako Lalong (Plateau South), has passed second reading in the Senate and is currently before the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service.
It proposes the creation of a statutory body to formalize the structure and operations of traditional institutions in Nigeria. However, its provision to elevate the Sultan and the Ooni as permanent co-chairs of the council is being widely viewed as a violation of Nigeria’s federal character principle and an affront to the diverse cultural heritage of the country.
READ ALSO: Mixed reactions as RCCG host Ooni of Ife and other Royal fathers across Nigeria
Ohanaeze Ndigbo: “Unjust, Ethnocentric and Divisive”
The apex Igbo socio-cultural group, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, has rejected the bill in its entirety. According to the group’s National Publicity Secretary, Dr. Ezechi Chukwu, the clause seeking to elevate the Ooni and Sultan undermines inclusivity and national cohesion.
“We are profoundly astounded by the rationale behind such an asymmetric bill,” Chukwu said. “It disregards fairness, justice, and the principle of federal character enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution.”
Ohanaeze labelled the bill as “distasteful, ethnocentric, and objectionable”, warning that unless reviewed, it will only succeed in fostering disunity.
Middle Belt Forum: “We Reject Supremacy of Sultan”
The Middle Belt Forum (MBF) also issued a stern statement, vehemently opposing the elevation of the Sultan to a permanent leadership position. The group noted that the Sokoto Caliphate is historically younger than many Middle Belt monarchies, including the Attah of Igala, Tor Tiv, and Etsu Nupe.
According to its spokesperson, Luka Binniyat, “To ask that the Tor Tiv permanently defers to the Sultan in council matters is a gross distortion of historical facts and a violation of indigenous dignity.”
The Forum also warned against conflating religious leadership with traditional authority, arguing that the Sultan’s position as the spiritual head of Muslims makes him unsuitable for a secular leadership role over traditional rulers of various faiths.
“If passed, we will mobilize ethnic nationalities across the Middle Belt to boycott the Council. We’ll form our own autonomous Council of Traditional Rulers,” Binniyat warned.
They proposed a rotational chairmanship of the council or an election process led by traditional rulers themselves to ensure inclusiveness.
READ ALSO: There’s no attempt to dethrone Sultan of Sokoto, Aliyu replies Shettima
Concerned Hausa Stakeholders: “Bill is Ethnically Skewed”
A group identified as Concerned Hausa Stakeholders has also spoken out, describing the bill as ethnically biased and historically misleading.
The group emphasized that the Sultan of Sokoto does not represent Hausa cultural leadership and holds legitimacy primarily as a religious and Fulani figure, not as a Hausa monarch.
“If religious leadership is the basis, then Christian leaders should also be included. If it’s about traditional authority, where are the Hausa, Kanuri, Igbo, and others?” the group asked.
They reminded lawmakers that Daura, not Sokoto, is the cradle of Hausa kingship and that monarchs such as the Oba of Benin, Shehu of Borno, and Eze Nri deserve equal recognition if traditional leadership is to be fairly represented.
“This bill promotes ethnic hierarchy, not unity,” the group said. “We reject any structure that elevates two ethnic groups at the expense of others.”
Alaigbo Development Foundation (ADF): “Insult to Cultural Diversity”
The Alaigbo Development Foundation also condemned the bill, describing it as a provocative insult to Nigeria’s cultural diversity. The group warned President Bola Tinubu against allowing such a divisive move to gain traction.
“A million Tinubu cannot subjugate Ndigbo,” the ADF said in a scathing statement, urging all Igbo lawmakers to reject the proposal and defend the region’s interest.
READ ALSO: Benin groups knocks Bill seeking to name Ooni, Sultan as permanent traditional council heads
Criticism from the South-West: “Ooni Can’t Represent Yoruba”
Not all criticism came from outside the Yoruba-speaking South-West. Femi Adebowale, a university lecturer from Oyo, argued that even within the Yoruba nation, the Ooni of Ife does not hold supremacy over other monarchs like the Alaafin of Oyo or the Alake of Egbaland.
“The Ooni can speak for Osun State, not the entire Yoruba nation. Even if other tribes accept the Ooni, we from Oyo kingdom will not. It is a historical insult,” Adebowale said.
Similarly, Caleb Osazuwa, a lawyer from Benin, described the bill as a joke, saying no one in Benin would accept the Oba of Benin playing second fiddle to the Ooni.
“If we’re talking about traditional authority, then all ethnic nationalities must be equally represented,” he said.
National Unity at Risk
Critics argue that the bill, as it stands, threatens national unity by entrenching an ethnic and religious hierarchy that contradicts Nigeria’s pluralistic identity.
The call from various stakeholders is clear: either restructure the proposed council to reflect rotational or elective leadership that honors Nigeria’s ethnic and cultural diversity—or risk plunging the nation into further division.
The bill’s fate now rests with the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service and, eventually, with President Bola Tinubu. But as it stands, the backlash is loud, fierce, and national in scope.