Follow Us on Google
Who owns the Southern Nigeria Traditional Rulers Council (SNTRC)? Mark the name. It reads ‘council’. Not anything else. By definition and identification, naming a group a ‘council’ means that it is a “formally constituted body of people elected or appointed to advise, deliberate, or make decisions on behalf of a larger organisation .” This raises serious questions about the SNTRC. This is where I am curious. I am curious because in Nigeria’s cultural landscape, the traditional institution serves as the bedrock of ethnic identity, historical continuity, and communal governance. So, how does this play out for the southeast region, where traditional rulers carry with them the history and identities of their people in a manner that speaks to the people’s independent-mindedness and traditional republicanism? Is the recent creation of SNTRC not a dangerous overreach that undermines these principles, particularly for the independent and revered traditional rulers of the southeast?
I am informed that the SNTRC is framed as a unifying body for southern monarchs. A council as a unifying body? How does a council become a unifying body when its chairmanship is not rotatory, but permanent? Doesn’t the permanence of its chairmanship create a ‘council’ that blatantly disregards the distinct historical, customary, and traditional realities of southeastern kings? Does it not subjugate them to the authority of a permanent chairman? Isn’t the ‘council’ an effort, or a ploy at institutionalising domination of the traditional leadership of southeast communities and supplanting their cultural, political values and norms? Even where the council becomes a pawn on the political chessboard, should the traditional institution be seen to be herded by a council towards a political decision, and eroding their independent-minded political decisions? These questions make me think that the SNTRC is a political council that erodes inter-ethnic respect in the south, and subjects respected traditional rulers, many of whom are experts and highly-rated professionals, to the control and, perhaps, the machinations of a permanent chairman. Southern solidarity need not disregard the sovereignty of kingdoms in the southeast.
Get my drift? Okay, look at it this way! To appreciate the gravity of this situation, one must delve into the historical context of traditional rulership in southeastern Nigeria, which is predominantly inhabited by the Igbo people, a people described in many varied terms. However, unlike the hierarchical monarchies of the southwest, where kingdoms have centralised kings that come with divine mandates, the Igbo society is historically republicanist, without overarching kings but governed through decentralised village councils, age grades, and kinship networks. This republican structure emphasises consensus, meritocracy, and communal decision-making, with authority distributed among elders, title holders, age-grades, and so on rather than concentrated in a single ruler. Some historians trace the origins of Igbo governance back over 3,000 years. They also said it is rooted in egalitarian principles where leadership was earned through wisdom, achievement, and service to the community. I had also read that sacred institutions, such as the Eze Nri, considered one of the oldest monarchies in Africa, functioned more as a spiritual custodian than a political overlord, and presided over rituals and moral guidance without imposing feudal hierarchies.
However, colonialists disrupted this balance with their know-it-all approach. The British, who were accustomed to dealing with centralised authorities in the north and southwest, had to impose “warrant chiefs” in the southeast to facilitate governance. Their appointed figures often lacked traditional legitimacy, and history records that this was one of the reasons for the resistance launched as the Aba Women’s Riot in 1929. That very powerful uprising against colonial overreach highlighted the Igbo aversion to autocratic control. We read that in the post-independence era, southeastern traditional institutions evolved to reflect this heritage, with rulers like the Obi of Onitsha or Eze Aro serving as custodians of culture rather than absolute monarchs. Though these kings are deeply revered, they also embody ancestral wisdom and communal harmony. Further, they operate within a rotational or elective framework as seen in bodies like the Southeast Traditional Rulers Council, which already provides adequate representation for Igbo interests and ensures that its leadership aligns with the region’s unique customs and practices that are integral to Igbo spirituality and governance.
The SNTRC ignores this rich history by imposing a structure that centralises power under a permanent chairman. This has become a point for controversy and discord, which renders its claim of fostering unity across the southwest, southeast, and south-south regions nugatory. A council that seeks to foster unity in the southern region cannot begin by imposing a permanent chairman amid the array of experience and knowledge available within its bounds. I guess this is why monarchs like Igwe Lawrence Agubuzu of Enugu have publicly denounced it, stating there is “nothing like a Southern Traditional Rulers Council.” He also emphasised the southeast’s existing autonomous body, the Southeast Traditional Rulers Council, as paramount to preserving history, culture, traditions, and unity of the region. Groups such as the Abasi People Foundation have also rejected it outright and demanded equal representation. According to the group, permanent chairmanship is unknown to democratic legitimacy. Several voices on the social media platforms echo this sentiment and further assert that Southeast Kings must not be subordinated to the permanent guidance and direction of any other king. Many commentators also suspect that the council’s formation is tied to politics, which creates a perception of serving as a tool for national politicking rather than genuine cultural collaboration and unity. This also erodes whatever credibility the council parades, as it obviously is not primed to advance the political independence of traditional rulers in the southern divide.
These views frame the SNTRC as an attempt at cultural and political subjugation. A permanent chairman over southeastern elders, such as the Obi of Onitsha, perpetuates a narrative of hierarchy that disrespects Igbo autonomy. Southeastern kings, with their emphasis on equality and rotation, contrast sharply with the council’s style. Forcing southeastern kings into a council where one ethnic group’s monarch holds perpetual sway risks diluting Igbo customs and subjugating them. The permanent chairmanship may also invite political machinations, as traditional rulers could be co-opted for electoral gains, especially with the 2027 elections looming. The ruling administration may use the council to marshal southern support against other interests, reminiscent of the Abacha era. This may be detrimental to southeastern independence and larger interests. Such manipulations echo colonial tactics, where traditional leaders were puppeted for external agendas, which erode their reverence.
The SNTRC could also threaten inter-ethnic relations in the south. For a fact, Nigeria’s south is not monolithic. The southwest, southeast, and south-south have distinct ethnicities blessed with unique histories and aspirations. Respecting these differences fosters harmony, as seen in past collaborations without forced unification. Doing otherwise and subjugating these institutions to a council’s whims and control breeds resentment, as evidenced by online outcries rejecting any structure that symbolically elevates one ruler over others. True unity requires voluntary forums, not councils implying subordination. The southeast’s rotational leadership model should be emulated to ensure that no ethnic group dominates. Without this, the SNTRC risks exacerbating tensions, reminiscent of historical mistrusts that fueled national divisions.
For SNTRC to make any headway, sensibly, it must adapt to and uphold the mutual respect that has been the hallmark of inter-ethnic relations in Nigeria. Southeastern traditional rulers must remain independent, free from external control or political machinations. Nigeria’s strength has always been in its diversity. This diversity comes not only by way of tribal marks, culture, and traditions, but also by way of political thought and affiliation. Therefore, imposing a political thought under a council will only weaken national diversity. Southeastern kings have survived the years as autonomous, revered, and unyielding to subjugation, and never subjugated their freedom, or that of their people, to any council or political expression. Is it possible that they would now be bamboozled into trading their cultural, historical, and political independence?
