THE Ogun State government recently promulgated a chieftaincy law that seeks to remove obnoxious practices and restore dignity in the appointment, installation and internment of traditional rulers and chiefs. The law has since generated some disquiet among stakeholders.
The outset of the law, known as ‘Obas, Chiefs, Council of Obas and Traditional Council Law of Ogun State, Bill 2021’, is traceable to the sixth Ogun House of Assembly (OGHA) under the then Speaker, Right Honourable Titi Oseni, during the era of former Governor Gbenga Daniel.
The bill that culminated in the new law, initiated by the state Council of Obas, suffered a setback during a legislative process, a town hall meeting of stakeholders presided over by the leadership of the then House of Assembly. A cross section of stakeholders, including traditionalists, religious leaders, community leaders and the political class, filled the Ake Centenary Hall, Abeokuta, venue of the meeting, to the brim.
The Ogun State Muslim Council (OMC), as a faith-based organisation and the umbrella body of Muslims in the state, has said that it considered itself to be a stakeholder as the law seeks to recognise and protect fundamental human rights, especially as regards the religion of traditional rulers in state and as guaranteed by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Tthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations protects and guarantees the religious rights of every individual in the world. It, therefore, goes without saying that any law that is geared towards improving and restoring the dignity of man should be regarded as human-oriented and as such be supported. In fact, Islam places much premium on human rights.
Perhaps this explains the OMC’s commendation of the Right Honourable Olakunle Oluomo-led ninth OGHA and the state governor, Prince Dapo Abiodun, for the courage to call a spade a spade. Suffice to state that the new chieftaincy law is a product of a longstanding bill – since 2020 – courtesy of the state Council of Obas, which sought a paradigm shift in the installation and burial process of traditional rulers and chiefs.
Beyond this historical facts and analysis is the need to examine the arguments of stakeholders, the pros and cons of the new law. The argument of traditionalists, and quoting a frontline Osugbo Remo leader and the group’s vice chairman, is that “a dead person has lost his right under the law”, and nobody forced anyone to become an Oba. They described the law as an affront on the traditional institution, insisting that government was playing down culture and tradition by signing the law.
However, the government, through the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, came out boldly to state that the chieftaincy law was never intended to undermine culture and tradition but was rather aimed at abating fetish practices and doctrines that had hitherto been fashioned into the process of appointment, installation and internment of traditional rulers and certain chieftaincy title holders upon their demise.
However, adherents of Islam and Christianity have welcomed the law as a wholesome development that would protect man as a dignified creature of God. The Ogun State Muslim Council had noted that the law “is a milestone development that will abate the shroud and ambiguity in the doctrinal process of appointment, installation and internment of traditional rulers and chiefs.” It also said it would pave the way for religiously minded individuals seeking to serve their towns and communities through the traditional system and institutions to express interests in the exalted royal stools through their respective ruling houses.
A school of thought has argued, too, that religiously minded individuals should distance themselves from kingship and traditional chieftaincy if they could not condone the fetishes associated with them. This notion seems sound but the right to kingship and holding of traditional titles is not the exclusive right or responsibility of some individuals or a group. Members of a ruling house with immediate right to ascension will profess one faith or the other, that is, Islam or Christianity and this makes it pertinent that the ascension and demise of the king-designate should follow the path of the religion he professes. This is even more so since he will always be guided by the teachings of his faith, as contained in the Scriptures, as the case may be.
It should also be noted that in contemporary times, people are wont to swear by the divine book that suits their faith rather than take oath by the ‘god of iron’ or any other deity.
It is essential to know who these ‘Osugbo’ are. Who conferred them with the authority to compel traditional title chiefs to jettison their faiths or religious beliefs – under the guise of upholding and protecting tradition because they want to serve their towns and/or communities? Where did they derive that power from?
The ‘Osugbo’, otherwise called ‘Isese’, is just a like a social club with people of like minds as members. They are CAC-incorporated like all other social groups and institutions. A look at their constitution shows that their aim, among other things, is “to advocate and practise religious tolerance.”
Interestingly, most of the ‘Osugbo’ claiming to be traditionalists still profess Islam or Christianity as their faith, even in the official realm. Some answer Muslim and Christian names and embrace the teachings and tenets of the two religions.
The goal of this piece is to argue that the new law is in order as it aims at protecting human dignity and ensuring that the ‘road’ to the throne and stepping down from same should be rid of ambiguity and obnoxious or fetish practices. The process should be transparent and in tandem with modernity, and acceptable convention. After all, the days of consulting and awaiting Ifa (oracle) to determine who becomes king are gone.
Stakeholders are, therefore, urged to be on the same page while individuals and groups who may feel aggrieved should seek legal redress.
Akintunde writes from Abeokuta, Ogun State.
and then