Challenges Facing the Southern Nigeria Traditional Rulers Council: Navigating Unity and Legitimacy

The Southern Nigeria Traditional Rulers Council was launched with much optimism, yet mere promises do not forge unity; rather, it is structure that accomplishes this. When a well-respected monarch publicly denounces the council's existence, it signals more than mere dissent; it warns of the risks tied to an optional approach to unity. For legitimacy to be established, it must be cultivated through inclusiveness, transparency, and shared objectives.

During the National Traditional and Religious Leaders Summit on Health in Abuja on February 17, attended by President Tinubu, unexpected divisions arose. The Enugu monarch and the Ooni of Ife engaged in a public disagreement regarding the existence of the Southern Nigeria Traditional Rulers Council.

At the summit, Eze Ogbunaechendo I of Ezema Olo, a seasoned diplomat and former Chairman of the Enugu State and South-East Council of Traditional Rulers, disputed references to the Southern Nigeria Traditional Rulers Council. He pointed out, "While discussing the Southern Traditional Rulers Committee on Health, the well-respected Professor Pate mentioned that this will be an annual event if I understood him correctly." He continued, "The reality is that there is no entity known as the Southern Traditional Rulers Council. It is misleading to give funds to individuals under this premise. The South is distinct from the North; we have our own systems and require unity in our diversity. Therefore, any resources should directly benefit us in the South East and not be handed to those claiming representation without proper authority. Democracy dictates genuine representation, and anyone who presents themselves without their community's backing is neither democratic nor traditional. Let’s get this right."

His assertions were stark and firm, contrasting sharply with the atmosphere from merely eighteen months prior when the Southern Monarchs’ Council was inaugurated on July 30, 2024, a ceremony hosted by Governor Hope Uzodinma and presided over by President Tinubu, represented by the Secretary to the Government, George Akume, promoting southern regional cohesion.

However, a more pressing question arose months later: does the council operate beyond ceremonial appearances? Initially inaugurated with substantial political weight, its existence now raises questions about actual institutional relevance. While public ceremonies grant visibility, legitimacy stems from collective agreement.

The dissent voiced by the former South-East Council Chairman indicates a fundamental weakness within the council. When a prominent figure declares, "there is no Southern Traditional Rulers Council," the issue transcends mere organizational concerns to touch on the essence of representation.

The Ooni of Ife attempted to reinforce the council’s legitimacy by stating, "Membership is optional." However, if membership is truly up for debate, can true unity or cohesive regional identity be similarly optional?

The July 2024 inauguration had involved esteemed figures, including the Ooni of Ife, Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi, appointed as chairman, with Cletus Ilomuanya and Jaja of Opobo as co-chairmen, accompanied by Benjamin Ikenchuku Keagboreku as secretary. The aim was clear: to establish a cohesive Southern entity, akin to, but not duplicating, the more centralized systems often associated with northern leadership.

At the ceremony, Governor Uzodinma urged collaboration with their northern counterparts and support for President Tinubu, while George Akume reiterated the president’s respect for traditional rulers as important custodians of Nigeria’s cultural heritage. The Ooni framed it as heralding a new chapter of unity among the Southern protectorate.

Nevertheless, the inauguration featured some southern governors but excluded several key figures, casting doubt on the level of consensus fueling the initiative. Their absence may be indicative of inadequate consultation, concerns over the inclusivity of the council, and questions regarding sub- regional representation. Likewise, the non-attendance of several notable traditional rulers reflected apprehensions regarding the processes, political perceptions, and rightful representation.

Institutions earn legitimacy through consent and acceptance. What seemed to be a historical unification in July 2024 was openly disputed by February 2026. The public denial by Igwe Ambassador LOC Agubuzu, whose career blends ancestral respect with modern diplomacy, not only contradicted previous claims but also undermined the assumed collective authority of the council.

Agubuzu’s remarks warrant serious consideration rather than dismissal. His caution against individuals acting as representatives of Southern traditional rulers without broad consent underscores a critical issue of legitimacy; he emphasized that the South is not the North, and its strength derives from its diversity, firmly asserting that both traditional and modern democracies hinge on genuine representation rooted in the populace.

These concerns are substantial, resonating with longstanding fears over the centralization of traditional institutions and the dominance of specific regions. They illuminate a historical skepticism towards externally imposed structures that claim to represent a unified viewpoint.

Yet, while diversity can represent strength, it does not inherently produce it. When revered traditional leaders dismiss the legitimacy of a council inaugurated by the Nigerian President, the issue slips from politics into structural confusion. A council can hardly operate effectively under such defined ambiguity.

Why does optional membership undermine the council's integrity? Firstly, authority cannot be selectively recognized. A council that some influential traditional leaders disregard will struggle to gain respect on both national and international fronts, especially in a political context where access and representation matter.

Secondly, true legitimacy necessitates completeness. Governments are more likely to engage with institutions that convincingly represent a diverse array of leadership voices. Optional membership fosters parallel claims and confusion regarding representation.

Thirdly, effective conflict resolution demands comprehensive support. Traditional rulers play a crucial role in managing identity-based tensions, but a council lacking full representation of traditional voices will lack the moral authority to mediate across various sub-regions.

Moreover, preserving culture is a collective endeavor. No single ruler can safeguard the rich traditions of Southern Nigeria alone. A coordinated platform is essential to prevent selective acknowledgment or marginalization of diverse traditions.

Finally, the longevity of institutions rests upon their cohesiveness. A voluntary council risks becoming a mere ceremonial entity, beneficial for appearances but undermined in substance and significance.

While it is naïve to ignore the political influences surrounding the council's establishment, with Governor Uzodinma playing a pivotal role signaling alignment with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress, the existence of consequential institutions must transcend political moments. If the Southern Traditional Rulers Council is viewed primarily as a political construct, it risks fading with changing political dynamics. Conversely, if it evolves into a well-regulated, inclusive, and representative body, it can transcend its political origins.

The onus is now on the newly appointed chairman, the Ooni of Ife. His role is not only symbolic but also strategic; the surrounding disputes require dialogue rather than presumptions, and persuasion rather than declarations. Engaging directly with dissenters is paramount, as is establishing a formal charter to clarify representation, decision-making, membership obligations, rotating leadership, and joint initiatives across regions.

In conclusion, while the Southern Nigeria Traditional Rulers Council commenced with potential, mere promises do not create unity; it is structure that achieves this. The public denial by a respected monarch signifies more than opposition; it exemplifies the significant cost associated with optional unity. Legitimacy is not a given; it must be attained through inclusivity, transparency, and shared resolve. To effectively represent Southern Nigeria in the evolving political landscape, its most esteemed traditional institutions must be both unifying and binding. Unity cannot be optional; it must be institutionalized.