No Sitting Eze for More Than Three Consecutive Months. No Palace.

Across Imo State, many Autonomous Communities are increasingly concerned about the absence of their Eze. This is not about a missing person, but about a traditional ruler who holds the title yet is rarely present in the community he is meant to lead. The Eze's palace often remains empty for extended periods. Cultural festivals proceed without their custodian, and Community Governing Councils address security and development issues without the required presence of the Eze. Despite this absence, the title remains.

This issue is not only cultural; it is a legal violation. The Imo State Traditional Rulers, Autonomous Communities and Allied Matters Law No. 15 of 2016 is clear on this matter. It is time for this provision to be enforced in daily governance.

Traditional rulership holds a vital role in Imo State's governance. Beyond ceremony, the Eze is responsible for preserving the community's history, culture, customs, security, peace, and development. This office is a position of responsibility, requiring the Eze to be physically present among the people.

To ensure accessible and accountable traditional leadership, the Imo State House of Assembly enacted Law No. 15 of 2016. This law defines the responsibilities of traditional rulers and sets clear standards for every recognised Eze.

What the Law Actually Says

Section 33 of the law is clear: every Eze in the State must reside in his Autonomous Community. This is a statutory obligation, not a suggestion or matter of personal preference, and is as mandatory as other legal duties.

Subsection (2) then supplies the consequence for defying that obligation: if an Eze resides outside his Autonomous Community for more than three consecutive months, it shall be a ground for suspension. Three months. Not three years, not an indefinite grace period contingent on goodwill — three consecutive months. Beyond that threshold, the law does not merely frown; it opens the door to suspension from office.

Subsection (3) further strengthens the residency requirement: an Eze must obtain written approval from the Governor before travelling outside his community or state for more than seven days. If a seven-day absence requires approval, longer absences are clearly not permitted. The law includes these safeguards to prevent Ezes from relocating away from their communities.

Why Residency Was Written Into Law, Not Left to Custom

The law's emphasis on physical presence is directly linked to the Eze's statutory duties, which require him to be present in the community to fulfil them effectively.

The law requires the Eze to preside over cultural festivals, serve as custodian of the community's culture and traditions, and advise on these matters. He must assist State and Local Governments in maintaining law and order, and participate in security discussions with the Community Governing Council. These responsibilities require his direct, physical presence.

The law also requires the Eze to support community development projects, assist in collecting taxes and levies, and promote stability and peace. He must attend meetings called by the Local Government Chairman or Governor and maintain strong relationships with the Community Governing Council and community members.

These are not ceremonial roles that can be fulfilled remotely. They require a leader who lives among his people, understands community needs, and is available to address issues as they arise. Only a present and engaged Eze can perform these duties, which is why the law mandates residency.

Residency is a Legal Duty, Not an Option

Section 33(1) uses mandatory language:

"Every Eze in the State shall reside in his Autonomous Community."

The legislature deliberately used the word "shall."

In legal drafting, "shall" ordinarily imposes a mandatory obligation rather than a suggestion or recommendation.

This means residency is not optional.

It is not dependent on convenience, personal preference, business interests, or overseas residence.

An Eze accepts the office with all its accompanying responsibilities, including the duty to remain accessible to his subjects.

The law recognises that emergencies and legitimate travel may occur. That is why Section 33(3) permits travel but requires written approval from the Governor for prolonged absence.

This demonstrates that the lawmakers carefully balanced personal liberty with public responsibility.

Leadership Demands Presence

History consistently demonstrates that effective leadership requires presence.

Whether in government, religion, business, or traditional institutions, leaders earn public confidence by remaining close to the people they serve.

Communities experience numerous challenges requiring immediate attention:

• land disputes;
• family conflicts;
• youth unrest;
• security threats;
• communal projects;
• cultural ceremonies;
• emergency consultations.

These matters often arise without notice.

If an Eze resides permanently elsewhere, decisions become delayed, misunderstandings increase, and leadership gradually becomes disconnected from the daily realities of the people.

The law seeks to prevent this institutional vacuum.

The Three -Month Rule Is Deliberate

The legislature did not prohibit all travel.

Instead, it established a reasonable threshold.

Section 33(2) provides that residence outside the Autonomous Community for more than three consecutive months constitutes a ground for suspension.

The phrase "ground for suspension" is significant.

It means prolonged absence is considered sufficiently serious to justify disciplinary action against a recognised traditional ruler.

The provision exists to protect the institution rather than punish individuals.

It ensures that communities are not left effectively leaderless while their traditional ruler permanently resides elsewhere.

Public Office Requires Personal Sacrifice

Every public office imposes certain limitations on personal convenience.

Judges must remain available for the courts.

Governors must reside within their jurisdictions.

Public servants must report to their duty posts.

Similarly, traditional rulers accept obligations that accompany the honour of wearing the crown.

Those responsibilities sometimes require sacrificing personal convenience for public service.

Residency is one of those sacrifices.

The Cost of an Absentee Throne

Prolonged absence of an Eze has direct, daily consequences for the community.

First, a governance vacuum occurs. Community Governing Councils are intended to work with the Eze. Without his presence, decisions on security, development, and disputes either stall or proceed without the required traditional authority, weakening both the decisions and the institution.

Second, there is a cultural cost. Festivals and traditional observances lose significance without the Eze's presence, and younger members see the palace as a monument rather than a living institution, undermining traditions.

Third, there is a security cost. The Eze is central to local security deliberations, serving as the community's eyes, ears, and moral authority. An absentee Eze cannot fulfil this role from a distance.

Fourth, accountability to the State is compromised. The law links the Eze's recognition and privileges to active, resident service. An absent Eze continues to receive benefits while delegating responsibilities to others or leaving them unaddressed.

“No Palace" Is Not an Exaggeration

The phrase "no sitting Eze, no palace" reflects the law's intent: a palace without a resident Eze is not functioning as intended. Section 33 was designed to prevent absentee leadership by making prolonged absence grounds for suspension.

This is significant because Imo State communities have mechanisms to enforce the law. Section 34 empowers the House of Assembly and the Governor to investigate allegations of grave misconduct, including prolonged, unexplained absence from the community.

The Palace Is Not Merely a Building

Many people mistakenly view the palace as only a physical structure. In reality, it is the seat of traditional authority.

It is where:

disputes are settled;

elders meet;

customs are preserved;

visitors are received;

festivals are coordinated;

security concerns are discussed;

community development is initiated.

A palace without its traditional ruler gradually loses its role as the centre of community leadership.

For this reason, the law requires the Eze to reside within the community he governs. Leadership cannot be effectively exercised from another location. Traditional rulership is fundamentally a people-centred institution.

A Call for Enforcement, Not Just Awareness

Section 33 is clear, but its enforcement is often lacking. Community Governing Councils, town unions, and concerned citizens have the legal right to report prolonged absenteeism, document it, and petition authorities when the three-month limit is exceeded without proper approval.

This is not a personal attack on any Eze or a call to revoke legitimately conferred titles. It is a call to uphold the law that grants state recognition. The Eze's position comes with privileges, but also with a clear obligation to reside among the people.

Communities deserve traditional rulers who are present, engaged, and accountable. The law supports this expectation; what remains is consistent enforcement.

No sitting Eze for more than three consecutive months means no palace. This is not a break from tradition; it is compliance with the law.

Click here to download a section of the Imo State Law No 15, 2016 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Act