Should Traditional Rulers Have Constitutional Roles? Governors Renew the Push

Nigeria's debate over the role of traditional rulers in governance is not new, but it has never felt more urgent. Across centuries of colonial disruption, military rule, and democratic experimentation, one institution has remained constant in the lives of ordinary Nigerians: the traditional stool. From the Obi of Onitsha to the Sultan of Sokoto, monarchs have served as the moral anchor of communities long before the Federal Republic existed and long after its institutions have repeatedly failed. Yet today, in spite of their enormous influence, these custodians of culture and community have no formal role in Nigeria's 1999 Constitution. That legal silence, governors and monarchs argue, must end.

In October 2025, a landmark summit in Lagos brought together state governors, traditional rulers, and constitutional reform advocates in a unified call for change. This article examines what that meeting means, what the law currently says, why governors are backing this push, and what constitutional recognition could mean for the health, wealth, and community development of Nigerian families.

Why Is the Debate Resurfacing in Nigeria Now?

The Lagos Summit and the Call for Governance Reform

In October 2025, a high-profile convening of the National Council of Traditional Rulers of Nigeria (NCTRN) in Lagos marked one of the most significant moments in the ongoing push for constitutional reform of traditional institutions. Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu of Lagos State and Governor Hope Uzodimma of Imo State were among the prominent political figures who joined monarchs to advocate for the legal recognition of traditional rulers in Nigeria's governance architecture.

The summit's central theme — the "imperative of inclusion" — carried a powerful message. Traditional rulers, the conveners argued, represent the most enduring, trusted, and accessible link between the government and the grassroots. They are not elected every four years; they are enthroned for life, embedded in community identity, and answer directly to their people's ancestral values.

The "renewed push" is driven by a deteriorating security environment, widening governance gaps, and the persistent failure of centralized institutions to penetrate rural communities. Complex challenges — from farmer-herder conflicts to youth radicalisation — demand structured, culturally grounded responses. The governors and monarchs who gathered in Lagos agreed that this requires more than goodwill; it requires law.

What Does Nigeria's Constitution Say About Monarchs?

The Legal Gap and the Erosion of Monarchical Power

Nigeria's constitutional relationship with traditional institutions has undergone a dramatic reversal over the past six decades. Between 1960 and 1963, Nigeria functioned as a constitutional monarchy with a defined ceremonial head of state and a formal framework that acknowledged customary authority within the architecture of the state. The transition to a republic, followed by successive military interruptions and the eventual return to civilian rule in 1999, stripped traditional institutions of any formal constitutional recognition.

The 1999 Constitution, as currently constituted, contains no provision for traditional rulers in the governance process. Their existence is acknowledged only tangentially through state laws on chieftaincy matters, which vary widely across Nigeria's thirty-six states and offer no uniform standard of authority, protection, or empowerment.

Governor Uzodimma has described this as a "constitutional omission" — a structural gap that places monarchs in an impossible position. They are respected custodians of culture, relied upon during crises, consulted by politicians during elections, and trusted by communities in ways that elected officials rarely achieve. Yet their authority remains purely customary and carries no legal weight in courts, in policy rooms, or in budget chambers.

As Arise News reports, the contrast is stark: communities trust their traditional rulers far more than they trust most government institutions, yet the law empowers the latter and ignores the former. This disconnection, reformers argue, is not just an oversight — it is a governance failure.

Why Are Governors Uzodimma and Sanwo-Olu Backing This Push?

The Strategic Partnership Between State and Palace

The involvement of serving governors in this campaign is significant and strategic. Governor Hope Uzodimma has been among the most vocal political figures advocating for formal recognition. His argument, as articulated at the Lagos summit and in earlier public statements, is that constitutional recognition of traditional rulers is not about granting them a new privilege — it is about providing clarity for roles they already perform.

Monarchs are already mediating land disputes, counselling warring factions, arbitrating family inheritance conflicts, and serving as first responders to community crises. They do this without any formal legal backing, without budgetary allocation, and without official accountability frameworks. Uzodimma's position is that this cannot continue. The state cannot continue to benefit from the soft power of traditional institutions while simultaneously refusing to legally acknowledge it.

Governor Sanwo-Olu has framed the argument differently but compellingly. He describes traditional rulers as "moral guides" and "steadfast pillars of integrity" — figures whose cultural legitimacy enables them to communicate government policies to communities in ways that bureaucrats and politicians simply cannot replicate. In a country where trust in formal institutions is chronically low, this moral authority is not ornamental; it is a governance resource.

The Nigeria Governors' Forum (NGF) has gone further, committing to actively support the bill currently before the National Assembly. The NGF's position is that governance in Nigeria must reflect "practical realities" — and the practical reality is that traditional rulers are already governing at the grassroots level. The question is whether the constitution will acknowledge what is already happening on the ground.

This debate is particularly relevant to communities like those discussed in our analysis of the Obi-Mbieri Constitution and the question of village governance hierarchy, where the boundaries of traditional and civic authority are already contested at the local level.

How Do Monarchs Currently Impact Security and Conflict Resolution?

The Unofficial Judiciary and Peacekeeping Force

Across Nigeria's rural landscape, the formal judicial system is largely inaccessible. Courts are distant, expensive, slow, and often perceived as biased. For millions of Nigerians navigating land disputes, inheritance conflicts, and family disagreements, the traditional ruler's palace is not a last resort — it is the first and only resort. Monarchs adjudicate these cases through customary law, drawing on ancestral precedent and community consensus to deliver resolutions that are accepted by all parties involved.

Governor Uzodimma, speaking through various platforms including Channels Television, has documented this reality extensively. He notes that in communities where formal institutions are absent or dysfunctional, traditional rulers are the ones holding the line — not metaphorically, but literally.

Research published in the Nigerian Journal of Peace and Security Studies further supports this assessment. Traditional institutions serve as the first point of contact during community crises and often the last line of defence against the escalation of local conflicts into broader violence. Their effectiveness derives not from coercive power but from moral authority, deep local knowledge, and the social trust accumulated over generations.

The intelligence dimension is equally important. Monarchs maintain informal networks of community informants — not in a sinister sense, but through the natural social connectivity of traditional leadership. They know who is arriving in a community, who is agitating, and where tension is building long before any government agency becomes aware. Formalising this role could create a structured channel through which traditional rulers contribute to national security intelligence in ways that complement, rather than duplicate, government efforts.

In Imo State specifically, where Governor Uzodimma is navigating complex security challenges alongside a potential succession debate — as explored in our piece on Imo 2027 and the race to succeed Uzodimma — the integration of traditional leadership into formal governance structures could be transformative.

Can Constitutional Recognition Improve Health and Economic Development?

Bridging the Gap in Grassroots Wellness and Prosperity

The potential of formalised traditional leadership extends well beyond security and conflict resolution. Traditional rulers command the kind of cultural authority that public health campaigns desperately need but rarely access. In communities where vaccine hesitancy, poor sanitation, and resistance to modern healthcare persist, the endorsement of a respected monarch can achieve what government health workers and NGO campaigns cannot.

Governor Uzodimma has specifically cited the potential for traditional rulers to lead civic campaigns on vaccination, maternal health, and preventive care. When a monarch commands his community to attend a health fair or accept a public health intervention, the response rate is markedly higher than when the same message comes from a local government health officer.

This vision aligns closely with the Eziokwubundu "Community First" philosophy, which holds that individual wellbeing is inseparable from community strength. When traditional leaders are formally empowered to act as catalysts for local economic projects — supervising chieftaincy land allocations for agricultural investment, endorsing micro-enterprise initiatives, or partnering with state governments on rural infrastructure — the multiplier effect on community prosperity is enormous.

Academic research on the role of traditional institutions in Nigeria's development landscape, published by scholars at ResearchGate, confirms that monarchs have historically played a pivotal advisory role in local economic policy. Formalising this function would not only improve outcomes but also provide accountability mechanisms that are currently absent.

What Can Nigeria Learn from Ghana and South Africa?

International Benchmarks for Traditional Governance

Governor Uzodimma has explicitly recommended that Nigeria's National Assembly study the constitutional models of Ghana and South Africa, where traditional institutions are formally entrenched in the governance framework. In Ghana, the National House of Chiefs operates as a constitutionally recognised body with defined advisory and legislative functions. In South Africa, the National House of Traditional and Khoi-San Leaders holds statutory authority and plays a formal role in matters affecting customary law and rural communities.

These models demonstrate that it is entirely possible to constitutionally integrate traditional institutions without undermining democratic principles or creating parallel power structures. The key is legal clarity: defining the specific functions, limitations, and accountability mechanisms of traditional rulers within the democratic system.

As research on traditional institutions and nation-building for sustainable development in Nigeria shows, the absence of such clarity in Nigeria has not eliminated the influence of traditional rulers — it has simply made that influence informal, unaccountable, and inconsistent.

What Are the Risks of Formalising Monarchical Power?

The Danger of Partisanship and Lost Neutrality

Constitutional recognition is not without risk. Governor Uzodimma himself has issued a clear warning: traditional rulers must remain non-partisan if their formal roles are to have any value. The moment a monarch publicly aligns with a political party or uses their platform to advance electoral agendas, they forfeit the moral neutrality that makes them valuable in the first place.

This is a real and documented risk. In several Nigerian states, traditional rulers have been drawn — willingly or under pressure — into partisan politics, endorsing candidates and attending political rallies. The result has been community division rather than unity, eroding the very trust that makes traditional institutions powerful.

There is also the risk of autocratic overreach. If constitutional roles are not carefully defined with clear limitations, formalisation could transform community-oriented monarchs into local strongmen with legal cover. The tension between "traditional values" and "modern democratic progress" must be resolved through precise legislative drafting, not wishful thinking.

What Is the Status of the Bill in the National Assembly?

The Legislative Path Forward for the NCTRN

As of mid-2025, the bill to formally establish the National Council for Traditional Rulers of Nigeria had reached its second reading in the Senate — a meaningful milestone but still far from the finish line. The bill must pass through committee scrutiny, full Senate debate, passage in the House of Representatives, and eventual presidential assent before it becomes law.

The Sultan of Sokoto and the Ooni of Ife have both called on fellow monarchs to remain focused on promoting national unity and sustaining public advocacy while awaiting legislative clarity. Their combined moral weight adds considerable momentum to the campaign.

From the Eziokwubundu perspective, the formalisation of traditional institutions represents one of the most powerful levers available for strengthening the strategic triangle of Health, Wealth, and Community at the grassroots level. Monarchs who are legally empowered, properly resourced, and held accountable through constitutional frameworks can accelerate public health outcomes, anchor local economic development, and provide the social cohesion that Nigeria's communities urgently need.

For context on how community governance questions play out at the local level, see our reporting on the Obi-Mbieri Seplat dispute and questions of community resource accountability — a case study in what happens when traditional and modern institutions fail to coordinate effectively.

Conclusion

The question of whether traditional rulers should have constitutional roles is ultimately a question about what kind of Nigeria Nigerians want to build. The 2025 Lagos summit made one thing unmistakably clear: governors, monarchs, and community leaders are no longer content with an informal arrangement that extracts value from traditional institutions while denying them legal recognition.

The path forward requires careful legislative work, genuine political will, and a commitment to defining roles that empower without politicising. If Nigeria gets this right, it will not just be correcting a constitutional omission — it will be unlocking one of the most trusted and culturally embedded governance resources the country possesses. For Nigerian families, communities, and entrepreneurs building lives at the grassroots level, that could make all the difference.