The Sokoto state governor, Dr Aliyu Ahmed Sokoto, recently signed six new bills into law making them operational in the state. Among the new rules was the amended law on the appointment of district heads and village chiefs, which divested the office of the Sultan of Sokoto of the power to make such appointments and domiciled the same with the state government. Before this amendment, the office of the Sultan made the appointments based on nominations. Though it was understood that such appointees are considered officials of the state government, their appointment was hitherto domiciled in the office of the sultan. There is an anomaly here. The decision of the state government to streamline the nomination and appointment of these officials of the state, through the amendment of local government and chieftaincy law, had generated needless controversy leading to the unfounded allegation by the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) of Prof. Ishaq Akintola, that the state government planned to depose the Sultan.
Governor Ahmed Sokoto stated, while signing the amended law into effect that, “We note with concern the unnecessary tension created by our proposal to amend some of these laws. Some of the reactions were politically motivated while others were done ignorantly without care to inquire from the right quarters on the details and intention of the amendment. It is a known fact that in every society, laws are enacted and amended to suit the needs of time and interest of the governed in line with the circumstances at hand. Previous administrations had amended one law or the other in the state with a view to giving the state laws the needed touch that would fast-track peace and development. Let me make it clear that the just amended laws are not meant to winch-hunt any individual or group but rather to promote good governance and to remove the ambiguity and inconsistency with the nation’s constitution.”
Indeed, what has happened in Sokoto state, between the government and the office of the Sultan, is the direct outcome of the lack of constitutionally defined role(s) for traditional rulers. This is not limited to Sokoto state. It is the case in almost all states of the federation where traditional rulers tend to equate their powers with those of the state governor. In many cases, traditional rulers flex powers with state governors irrespective of the fact that they are themselves creations of the laws of the state. In the case of Sokoto state, the Sultan occupies a traditional stool that has deep religious cleavages. No doubt, the Sultan is the leader of Muslims in the country, but the office is not the creation of the heavens. It is a creation of the law and it is beholden to the laws of the state in much the same way that those of all traditional rulers are beholden to the laws of their states. It is, therefore, instructive that the state government finds something wrong with the law empowering the office of the Sultan to appoint district and village heads, who by the fact of being remunerated by the state government, are officials of the state. Correcting the law to reverse the trend can only be a way of righting an identified flaw.
This is what the governor clearly stated when he said “Whenever we come across any law that does not suit the interests of our people, we will not hesitate to replace it.” There is something unclear with a law that creates the possibility of imposition of district heads and village chiefs on the state government. The democratic process, in most jurisdictions, has always been the recommendation of some names to the appointing authority, in this case, the state government. It doesn’t seem right that the district heads and village chiefs are appointed by the office of the Sultan when the appointees are supervised by the state through the local government and chieftaincy affairs ministry.
However, the process of achieving this sort of change cannot be without pain and misunderstanding. I guess that is why it was politicized. While MURIC sought to draw religious undertones to what was a simple administrative process, some political leaders in the state sought to take advantage of the development to pitch the office of the Sultan against the governor in such a manner that the Sultanate would be seen as constituting an opposition to the government of Governor Ahmed. This is one of the dangers of pulling the traditional institution into politics. It makes traditional rulers vulnerable to the manipulative antics of politicians. Sokoto would have been turned into a new battleground between the political leadership and the traditional institution if not for the maturity of the state governor in drawing a clear line between the traditional institution and the political leadership. And, this is what many state governments have done.
As had been stated severally, the traditional institution in every state of the federation should work with the political leadership for the peaceful administration of the state. Such synergy builds trust and supports development. However, when traditional leaders lend themselves freely as appendages of an opposition political party, they run the risk of a face-off with the political leadership. In every such face-off, the political leadership always had the longer end of the stick. This is why it has become imperative that the National Assembly, in pushing through the amendment of the 1999 constitution, create and recognize constitutional roles for traditional rulers. Such roles must not be one of flexing muscles with the political leadership. Rather, it ought to make the traditional institution see itself as supporting the state to achieve purpose while being insulated from politics.
In the Sokoto situation, the office of the Sultan, while being of religious significance, also should be fatherly and see the office of the governor as one elected by the majority of the people of the state, which are, by religious inclination, also of the same faith. Therefore, it goes to state that the majority of the people of the same faith that the Office of the Sultan leads appended their thumbs to choose the current political leadership. This suggests that those who may want to draw the office into a ‘fight’ with the state government are intended to destroy the fabric that binds the people of the state together. Such persons do not mean well for the state. Their intention could only be to rupture a smooth state-traditional institution relationship that had worked well for the good of Sokoto state and its people. No progressively-minded leader would want such to become the reality under his watch. This is why Governor Ahmed Sokoto deserves commendation for maturely pulling through the amendments as proposed by the state House of Assembly and giving effect to a law that would ensure the smooth management of the process of the appointment of leaders at the grassroots level in the state. It is all in the interest of the smooth administration of the state.