A proposed bill in the Nigerian Senate seeking to establish a constitutionally recognized National Council of Traditional Rulers has triggered widespread criticism across the country—particularly over a controversial clause that elevates the Ooni of Ife and the Sultan of Sokoto as permanent heads of the Council.

While the bill—sponsored by Senator Simon Bako Lalong (Plateau South)—is intended to formalize the role of traditional rulers in national development and peacebuilding, its provision giving the Ooni and Sultan precedence over all other monarchs has been condemned as divisive, undemocratic, and a threat to Nigeria’s federal character.

The bill, which passed second reading in March and is currently before the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service, has drawn sharp opposition from several groups, including Ohanaeze Ndigbo, the Middle Belt Forum (MBF), the Alaigbo Development Foundation (ADF), and Concerned Hausa Stakeholders, among others.

---

Ohanaeze Ndigbo: “This is injustice and ethnic bias”

The apex Igbo socio-cultural group, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, rejected the bill outright, calling it unjust, ethnocentric, and a violation of equity, fairness, and federal character principles.

Dr. Ezechi Chukwu, the group’s National Publicity Secretary, stated:

“The bill threatens to marginalize traditional institutions in the South-East, South-South, and Middle Belt. It disregards the diverse ethnic makeup of Nigeria and reduces the Senate to a promoter of executive lawlessness.”

Ohanaeze insisted the bill should be reviewed to reflect ethnic diversity and promote inclusive governance, rather than institutionalizing “ethnic hierarchy.”

---

Middle Belt Forum: “Sultan has no seniority over our monarchs”

The Middle Belt Forum also issued a strong rejection, particularly the clause elevating the Sultan of Sokoto. National Publicity Secretary Luka Binniyat said the move undermines historically older and culturally distinct institutions in the region.

“The Sultan of Sokoto is junior to ancient Middle Belt monarchies such as the Attah of Igala, the Tor Tiv, and the Etsu Nupe. This bill is a distortion of historical facts,” the group stated.

The MBF also criticized the Sultan’s role as primarily religious—not traditional—arguing that assigning him national traditional authority violates Nigeria’s secular character and marginalizes Christians and traditional worshippers.

They warned that if the clause is not removed, Middle Belt traditional rulers will boycott the Council and form their own autonomous body reflecting their heritage.

---

Concerned Hausa Stakeholders: “Nigeria is not a Fulani-Yoruba federation”

In a parallel rejection, a group of Concerned Hausa Stakeholders described the bill as ethnically biased and historically misleading. The group insisted that the Sultan of Sokoto does not represent the Hausa ethnic group culturally or traditionally.

“The Sultan is the Sarkin Musulmi, a religious leader of Fulani extraction, not a traditional Hausa monarch. He cannot speak for Hausa or northern traditional institutions,” the group said.

They argued that ancient Hausa city-states like Daura, Kano, and Zaria predate the Sokoto Caliphate, and it is insulting to subordinate them under the Sultan’s authority.

They further questioned the exclusion of other prominent monarchs, including the Oba of Benin, the Shehu of Borno, and Eze Nri in the East, saying the bill entrenches ethnic favoritism and risks igniting national disunity.

---

Alaigbo Development Foundation: “A slap on Nigeria’s cultural diversity”

The Alaigbo Development Foundation (ADF) also condemned the bill, describing it as provocative and subjugative. They warned that it disrespects Nigeria’s cultural diversity and could provoke ethnic tensions.

“This bill is an insult to the Igbo people and to Nigeria’s cultural heritage. We urge all Igbo lawmakers to reject it and protect the integrity of our traditional institutions,” the group said.

---

Individual Reactions from South-West and South-South

Despite the elevation of the Ooni of Ife under the bill, some Yoruba voices also expressed disapproval.

Femi Adebowale, a university lecturer, questioned the assumption that the Ooni could speak for the entire Yoruba nation:

“Historically, the Alafin of Oyo is senior to the Ooni of Ife. So how can he be placed above all other Yoruba monarchs? This is divisive and historically inaccurate.”

Similarly, Caleb Osazuwa, a lawyer from Edo State, said the idea that the Ooni could represent southern traditional rulers—including the Oba of Benin—was laughable.

“It’s the greatest joke of the century. The Oba of Benin cannot and will never be placed under the Ooni. Nigeria must respect its ethnic and historical realities.”

---

Proposed Alternatives

In their responses, several groups and individuals offered suggestions to preserve equity and national unity:

• Rotational chairmanship of the Council across Nigeria’s six geo-political zones or ethnic blocs.
• Democratic selection of leaders by traditional rulers themselves, through an inclusive process.
• Clear separation between religious and traditional leadership to reflect Nigeria’s secular constitution.

---

Conclusion

As the Senate continues deliberations on the bill, growing nationwide backlash underscores Nigeria’s deep ethnic and historical complexities. Many fear that elevating two monarchs as permanent leaders of a national council could spark tensions, marginalize diverse ethnicities, and derail efforts toward unity.

While the creation of a national body for traditional rulers is seen as a positive step, critics argue that any structure must be inclusive, fair, and reflective of Nigeria’s pluralistic identity—not one that institutionalizes ethnic hierarchy.