Urhobo News

By

Prof. O. Igho Natufe

President General, OKPE UNION.

January 19, 2022

*_INTRODUCTION_*

Let us forget, for a moment, that Nigeria is a Republic where it is incongruous to have monarchies in any part of the country. Let us pretend, for a moment, that Nigeria is *_“a parliamentary monarchy”_*, like the United Kingdom is.  In this pretentious situation a Monarch, like the Orodje of Okpe, is to *_reign_* but not to *_rule_*, just like the Queen (or King) is in the United Kingdom. The various levels of parliaments rule/govern by enacting laws for the administration of the federal, state and local governments, respectively.

As is well known, it is contradictory for a *_monarchy_* to coexist with a *_republican system_* in the bowel of the same polity. This contradiction is exacerbated when a monarch attempts to *_rule_* a polity in which he possesses no defined constitutional authority to *_rule._*  When Nigeria became a Republic on October 1, 1963 it retained a House of Chiefs in each of the then four federating regions, in an attempt to replicate the British House of Lords, as the upper house in each of the regions. This gave the chiefs who were traditional rulers in their respective domains, a constitutional role as parliamentarians. Thus, they saw themselves as both parliamentarians in the House of Chiefs and as monarchs in their respective kingdoms. This admixture was a conceptual blunder infused into the political system by the Nigerian political leaders in 1963. This blunder has been aggravated by the continuous failures of succeeding political leaders to resolve the contradiction resolutely by deciding on this crucial issue:  Remain a *_Federal Republic of Nigeria_* and abolish traditional rulership *_OR_* declare the country a *_United Kingdoms of Nigeria._* In the former, traditional rulers will be extinguished as their existence contravenes the diktat of a Republic, while the latter recognizes their constitutional role as heads of states of their respective kingdoms.

Even as a head of state of a given kingdom, if we were in a *_United Kingdoms of Nigeria,_* the role of a Monarch, like the Orodje of Okpe, will be defined by whether the system is a *_constitutional monarchy_* (like the United Kingdom) or an *_absolute monarchy_* (like Saudi Arabia). If Okpe Nation were a *_constitutional monarchy_* the Orodje will *_reign_* but cannot *_rule._* Conversely, if Okpe Nation were an *_absolute monarchy_* the Orodje will possess and exercise an unquestioned political and legislative power and authority to *_reign_* and *_rule_* as he pleases in accordance to the mediaeval concept of the “divine right of kings”, whose pronouncements are considered law, final and binding on all citizens.

Constitutionally speaking, Nigeria is not a monarchy. Therefore, it is severely injurious to the political system to speak of monarchies in the polity. This injury is exemplified by the way several political leaders have used and abused traditional rulers across the country since 1960.  The intent of this piece is to provoke a scholarly debate based on reason and logic on how to get out of this quagmire.

*_GOVERNANCE AND THE ORODJESHIP_*

A monarch is the symbol of a given nation under a monarchical regime. This is equally true of the Okpe monarchy as it is a symbol of the Okpe Nation that unifies the Okpe people. The concept of democratization of a system implies some inadequacies or absence of democratic norms in the given system. Some might ask: why democratize the Okpe monarchy?

In the preceding section we agonized over the contradictory construct of the Nigerian polity where a *_republican_* political system is forced to share the same space with an assemblage of *_monarchies._*  Instead of rectifying this blunder that defies reason and logic, we are being urged to democratize the incongruity.  Since the collapse of the First Republic, monarchy (or traditional rulership) has been a non-recognized element in the governance of Nigeria by its absence in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). However, at every election circle politicians of all political stripes promise a role for traditional rulers in the constitution, if elected. They have failed repeatedly. This failure leaves traditional rulers in a limbo.

The purported dissolution of the democratically elected National Executive Council (NEC) of the Okpe Union, by HRM Orhue l, Orodje of Okpe on October 3, 2020, has introduced a divide in Okpe Nation. Note that the Orodje’s purported dissolution took place 42 days before the scheduled Annual General Assembly/Meeting of the Okpe Union to elect a new NEC. It was a stratagem to convert Okpe Union to an administrative arm of the Palace under the Orodje’s control. This became evident in August 2021 when the head of the interim regime he imposed decline to participate in a mediation process on the ground that he would only participate if instructed by the Orodje.

The Orodje’s purported dissolution is challenged by the Okpe Union as an illegal action that violates the Constitution of the Okpe Union, while a group of fellow Okpe endorsed the Orodje’s action, arguing that the Orodje must be obeyed and that his word was final. They compared the Orodje of Okpe to the Oba of Benin whose decrees are alleged as final by the Binis. The comparison is based on false historical premises. Let us consider the following: –

1.    The Oba of Benin and the Orodje of Okpe are products of two contrasting legitimacies. While the former emerged from absolute monarchy, the latter emerged from a democratic prism.

2.    The Bini monarchy is hereditary and constructed on the concept of *_absolute monarchy._*

3.    The Bini monarchy derives its authority from conquest as exemplified by the coronation ceremony whereby a new Oba engages the youngest male child of the Ogiamien family in a wrestle match.

4.    The Okpe monarchy, irrespective of the fact that the four founding brothers – Orhue, Orhoro, Evbreke and Esezi – were grandsons of Prince Igboze of Benin, deviated from the hereditary principle and rejected *_absolute monarchy_* by adopting a democratic framework in electing an Orodje of Okpe.

5.    The Orodje is democratically elected by accredited representatives of the Okpe people.

6.    Recall that a prominent Okpe national sued HRM Orhoro l for allegedly misappropriating Okpe land.

Thus, the action of the Orodje on October 3, 2020 is akin to the action of an *_absolute monarch._*

Unfortunately, very unfortunately, the first Orodje of Okpe, Esezi l abandoned the democratic structure and embraced *_absolute monarchy,_* an action which led to his demise and ushered in a period of almost 200 years interregnum of the Okpe monarchy.

HRM, Orhue l’s action of October 3, 2020 is a throw-back to the medieval concept of the “divine right of kings” which challenges the fundamental thrust of democratic practice in Nigeria. It also ridicules the basis of the democratic election process that the Orodje cultivated during his campaign for the Orodjeship in 2004-2006.

This prompted a prominent Okpe Scholar/Journalist to lament:

“I worry for Africa and Nigerians. More for the Okpe who are still buried in the womb of medieval mentality.” (An Okpe Scholar/Journalist, January 15, 2022.)

The Orodje’s purported dissolution of NEC of the Okpe Union in October 2020, and the banning of its leaders from contesting future elections has created a huge schism in Okpe Nation. While the Orodje’s action is challenged by a group of *_pro-democracy_* Okpe nationals, a *_pro-absolute monarchy_* group is propagating the deceased medieval concept of the “divine right of kings.” This division caused by the Orodje’s unprecedented intrusion into the administration of the Okpe Union has facilitated an inimical atmosphere injurious to peace, law and order in Okpe Nation. Several Okpe belonging to the *_pro-democracy group_* are being harassed and intimidated by some members of the *_pro-absolute monarchy group_* whose source of authority is left to conjecture. This is reminiscence of events in the (then) Soviet Union when scores of Soviet citizens, at the minutest of criticism framed in Marxist-Leninist prism, were labeled “dissidents and revisionists”, arrested and incarcerated in the infamous gulag system of imprisonment scattered across the Soviet Union. Interestingly, the Udogun Okpe has categorized the Okpe Union as “mischievous” and “dissidents” for speaking truth to power.

*_IN LIEU OF A CONCLUSION_*

Traditional rulership is part of the poor governance crisis that has bedeviled the development of Nigeria for decades. Writing in 1947, Obafemi Awolowo recognized this conundrum when he stated:

“There is a mutual distrust verging on antagonism between the educated few and the Chiefs in Nigeria. The latter fear that the former are out to oust them from their privileged positions.” (Obafemi Awolowo, Path to Nigerian Freedom, London, 1947, p.32.)

Unfortunately, Nigerian governments have not been able to resolve this problem since independence. All they have done so far is to employ traditional rulers as mere tools in their respective competing policies, similar to the role traditional rulers played under the colonial regime.

A vexing phenomenon is the proliferation of traditional rulers by political leaders across the country since 1960. Recently, the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Adeyemi lll condemned this senseless proliferation of traditional rulers, who are glorified bales or village chiefs, a phenomenon which has corrupted the value of traditional rulers.  (*_A CONVERSATION WITH THE ALAAFIN OF OYO, OBA LAMIDI ADEYEMI lll,_* Sunday, October 24, 2021. 5:00 PM Nigeria. ZOOM Platform. 50th Anniversary of the Coronation of Oba Lamidi Adeyemi lll.)

Prof. Tony Afejuku aptly captured this troubling trend when he wrote:

“Our high chiefs who are out of wisdom are the wisest animals in their heights of folly. This makes them the most dangerous animals in our every land and every kingdom. They are more dangerous than the serpent in each and every one of us. How do we rightly dub them?”

He continued:

“Our chiefs and high chiefs, the majority of them, are a pack of foxhounds. They know that our politics, like our local culture, currently is run by those riding to hounds.” (Tony Afejuku, “Of chiefs and high chiefs,” The Guardian, Lagos, Nigeria, January 14, 2022.

How do we make sense out of this incongruous contraption? It is instructive to note that, the only serious attempts made by any Nigerian government to grapple with this issue occurred under the military regimes of General Muhammadu Buhari in 1984 and General Ibrahim Babangida in 1986, respectively.  In 1984 General Buhari’s government sponsored a national conference on the theme “THE ROLE OF TRADITIONAL RULERS IN THE GOVERNANCE OF NIGERIA” which was organized by the Institute of African Studies at the University of Ibadan in September 1984, while General Babangida established a Political Bureau to, inter alia, “review Nigeria’s political history and identify the basic problems which have led to our failure in the past and suggest ways of resolving and coping with these problems.” (Federal Republic of Nigeria, Government’s Views and Comments on the Findings and Recommendations of the Political Bureau, Lagos, 1987, p.3. (Hereinafter referred to as the Political Bureau).

The Political Bureau, chaired by S. J. Cookey, comprised of some prominent academics as members.  Concerning tradition rulers, the Political Bureau recognized the significant role of traditional rulership in Nigeria’s political system, a view which was accepted by the Ibrahim Babangida military Government (The Political Bureau, p.4.), but recommended contending options vis-à-vis traditional rulership that the Babangida regime and subsequent Nigerian governments have failed to address. The Political Bureau submitted the following options: –

1.    “outright abolition of the institution”;

2.    “co-optation in government”;

3.    “democratisation to conform with process of modern government”;

4.    “maintenance of status quo”; and

5.    “the determination of their relevance and future by the people.”

The Political Bureau made the following assertions on traditional rulers:

•    “traditional rulers should have no specific role to play in government beyond the local government level, where they have relevance.”

•    “it is a misnomer, considering the scope and character of the contemporary Nigerian state to call them traditional ‘rulers.’”

Therefore, the Political Bureau argued that, it

•    “will make no sense to install in the political system, people whose primary qualifications is ascribed to status at a time when the people are demanding a truly democratic polity.” (Ibid. p.50.)

Even though the Political Bureau recommended that “traditional rulers should have no specific role to play in government beyond the local government level, where they have relevance”, the concluding section of its recommendations is more telling when it declared:

“They possess no special qualities to enable them to be used in enriching the political system or instilling moral rectitude in public life.”

As reasoned by the Political Bureau, traditional rulers are of no use to contemporary *_federal republican political system._*

The failure of Nigerian governments, including the Babangida regime, to implement the recommendations of the Political Bureau has significantly worsened the relationships between traditional rulers and political leaders. The political leaders are aware of the incongruity of having traditional rulers in a *_republican polity,_* but it serves their contending interests to disregard the anomaly. It benefits political leaders to opt for a “maintenance of status quo” where traditional rulers are treated as their vassals to be exiled and punished as they deem fit, while no politician is advocating for an “outright abolition of the institution.” On the other hand, the option of “co-optation in government” will formally convert traditional rulers to agents or warrant chiefs of the government as in the colonial era.  Since the 1979 elections several traditional rulers have expressed their preferences for contending candidates, thus positioning themselves as partisan politicians. Is it wise for traditional rulers to inject themselves in partisan politics? What impact would this have on their constituencies if their preferred candidates are defeated? These are some of the troubling questions that must be grappled with by the traditional rulers and the political elites.

The recommendations of the Political Bureau that are of interest to us are: *_“democratisation to conform with process of modern government”_* and *_“the determination of their relevance and future by the people.”_* Regarding the Okpe Nation, how do we “democratise” the Orodjeship to “conform with the process of modern government?” How do we determine the “relevance and future” of the Orodjeship? These are vital questions which Okpe nationals of all political and ideological persuasions are invited to wrestle with.

These are tough questions to grapple with under the framework of a Republic. But since there seems to be no appetite to rename Nigeria as the *_United Kingdoms of Nigeria,_* or to abolish traditional rulership as one of the recommended options of the Political Bureau, then we have to accommodate traditional rulership in the *_Federal Republic of Nigeria_* under the guise of a *_constitutional monarchy._*  Under this pretentious framework, the Orodje will *_reign_* but not *_rule_* in Okpe Nation. Like the Queen of the United Kingdom, the Orodje is a ceremonial head of the Okpe Nation, while the two local government councils, currently in Okpe Nation, are to *_rule_* without any interference from the Orodje and/or the Udogun Okpe. This applies to all civil societies and Okpe organizations, including the Okpe Union. As Nigeria is a federation, implying that each federating unit is free to develop at its own pace, including the establishment of traditional rulership, it is reasonable to postulate that each federating unit and components thereof are to determine the utility and stipend of their respective traditional rulers.