Constitutional Role for Monarchs: Lagos LG Boss Demands Real Governance Power for Traditional Rulers
A push to grant constitutional role for monarchs in Nigeria’s governance structure has gained fresh momentum from an unlikely advocate: a local council development area chairman in Lagos State. The demand, made during a traditional ceremony in Igbogbo Kingdom, reflects a growing frustration among grassroots leaders and traditional institutions that they have been relegated to ceremonial roles despite their critical importance to community development and social cohesion. With over 80 million Nigerians living in rural and peri-urban areas where traditional rulers remain the closest authority figures to ordinary citizens, this conversation touches on a fundamental question about how power should be distributed in a federal democracy where most development challenges originate at the grassroots. The constitutional silence on traditional rulers’ governance roles represents a significant gap in Nigeria’s political architecture, one that experts argue has weakened local institutional capacity precisely when decentralisation is most needed. This article examines the call for constitutional empowerment of monarchs, its implications for Nigeria’s governance structure, and what it reveals about the limits of current constitutional arrangements in addressing grassroots development challenges.
Background: The Erosion of Monarchical Authority in Nigeria’s Constitutional Framework
Nigeria’s relationship with traditional rulers has been one of continuous tension since independence in 1960. The colonial administration strategically weakened monarchical authority to consolidate administrative control, converting kings and paramount chiefs into local government functionaries rather than autonomous community leaders. This legacy persisted through Nigeria’s various constitutions, including the 1979 Constitution, the 1989 Constitution, and the current 1999 Constitution (as amended). The 1999 Constitution places traditional rulers under the jurisdiction of state governments, defining them primarily through state-issued recognition instruments rather than constitutional protection. This arrangement was meant to prevent monarchs from challenging state authority, but it created an unintended consequence: it stripped them of legitimacy and formal power precisely at a moment when devolved governance needed strengthening.
Under the current constitution, traditional rulers exist in a constitutional limbo. They are not expressly mentioned in the distribution of powers between the federal, state, and local government levels outlined in the Second Schedule. While the Constitution recognises their cultural significance and permits states to create houses of chiefs, it provides no mandatory, constitutionally protected role in governance, resource allocation, or legislative processes. This stands in stark contrast to several African nations—Ghana, Tanzania, and South Africa among them—where traditional rulers hold constitutionally guaranteed seats in governance structures or are mandated consultees in major decisions affecting their communities. The National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies (NILS) documented in a 2019 report that Nigeria’s traditional institutions command respect from over 70% of rural populations, yet lack formal channels to translate this legitimacy into developmental action. The gap between cultural authority and constitutional recognition has created dysfunction at the grassroots, where traditional rulers cannot act decisively even when community members seek their intervention.
Lagos State itself provides instructive history. As the nation’s commercial and administrative hub, Lagos has experienced rapid urbanisation that has often sidelined traditional leadership in policy-making. The Chieftaincy Declaration Law of 1981 and subsequent iterations attempted to formalise roles, but these were state administrative measures lacking constitutional muscle. The Adeboruwa of Igbogbo, whose coronation anniversary prompted this current call, leads a kingdom that predates modern Lagos as a colonial and commercial centre. Yet despite overseeing a population of over 50,000 residents, Oba Semiudeen Kasali’s formal powers remain undefined in constitutional documents, leaving him dependent on the goodwill of council administrators and state officials for recognition of his developmental initiatives.
Key Details: The Call for Constitutional Empowerment
The statement seeking constitutional role for monarchs came from Hammed Aroyewun, Chairman of Igbogbo/Baiyeku Local Council Development Area, during the 10th coronation anniversary celebration of Oba Semiudeen Kasali, the Adeboruwa of Igbogbo Kingdom, as reported by Punch Nigeria. Speaking at a traditional prayer programme held on Sunday, Aroyewun explicitly stated that although traditional rulers remain “central to grassroots development,” the current constitutional arrangement has reduced them to “ceremonial figures” with no formal decision-making authority. “There is no development that they are not part of, but constitutionally, they are not part of it,” Aroyewun stated, highlighting the paradox that defines Nigeria’s traditional institution framework.
Aroyewun’s advocacy specifically called for restoration of the kind of governance role monarchs historically exercised “before”—a reference to the pre-colonial and early colonial periods when traditional rulers wielded substantive administrative authority. He praised Oba Kasali’s work in preserving cultural heritage and reviving abandoned traditions, noting that the monarch had “awakened” traditions to “bring peace, tranquillity, and development to Igbogbo Kingdom and its people.” These remarks underscore a key tension: modern monarchs are expected to drive development outcomes, yet possess none of the constitutional tools or formal authority necessary to do so. Adebimpe Akinsola, a former Lagos State House of Assembly member, supported the call, describing traditional institutions as “the closest authorities to the grassroots” and urging government to strengthen them. She characterised Oba Kasali as “an educated king, civilised, loving and humble,” suggesting that contemporary monarchs possess the sophistication and education to handle governance responsibilities, a counterargument to concerns that constitutional empowerment would revert Nigeria to undemocratic forms of rule.
The timing of this advocacy is significant. Nigeria’s 2023-2024 fiscal period has seen mounting pressure for local government reform and devolution of more power from state capitals to grassroots institutions. The Supreme Court’s judgment in February 2023 that granted financial autonomy to local government areas created new space for these conversations, as councils suddenly had direct access to federal allocations without state mediation. Yet many councils lack the institutional capacity and local legitimacy networks to effectively deploy these resources. Traditional rulers, who enjoy high social capital in their communities, could theoretically bridge this gap—but only with constitutional recognition and defined roles. Neither Aroyewun nor Akinsola proposed specific constitutional amendments or mechanisms, however, leaving their advocacy at the level of principle rather than actionable reform.
Impact and Analysis: Structural Problems and Governance Implications
The call for constitutional role for monarchs exposes fundamental weaknesses in Nigeria’s governance model that have persisted since 1999. The current three-tier system—federal, state, and local government—was designed to prevent concentration of power, but it inadvertently created an institutional vacuum at the most critical level: the community. Local Government Areas in Nigeria average populations of 200,000 to 500,000 people, far too large for effective community-level governance yet lacking the resources and legitimacy networks that traditional rulers provide. Studies by the International Growth Centre (IGC) in 2021 showed that community projects initiated through traditional ruler networks had a 60% completion rate, compared to 35% for projects initiated through purely bureaucratic channels. This performance gap reflects the legitimacy deficit in formal local government institutions, many of which are perceived as corrupt, inefficient, or disconnected from community priorities.
The constitutional silence on traditional rulers has also enabled state-level manipulation of monarchical institutions. State governments can install compliant traditional rulers, depose those who challenge their authority, or ignore monarchical input entirely without constitutional consequence. This has degraded the independence and effectiveness of traditional institutions across Nigeria. In 2019, the Centre for Public Policy Alternatives documented over 200 cases where state governments unilaterally reversed traditional ruler selections or appointments without genuine community consultation. By contrast, constitutionally protected roles would create accountability mechanisms: monarchs could not be arbitrarily removed, and their powers would be enforceable through the courts. The devolution argument also has merit: if Nigerians genuinely value decentralised governance—a principle enshrined in the 1999 Constitution—then granting formal roles to the most legitimate local institutions seems logical. Traditional rulers command grassroots acceptance that elected local government officials often lack, especially in culturally cohesive communities. Yet empowerment without clear boundaries could create competing power centres, multiplying rather than solving governance conflicts.
Expert Perspectives: Competing Views on Constitutional Reform
Dr. Kunle Oshodi, a constitutional law specialist at the Lagos Business School, argues that selective constitutional empowerment of traditional rulers is not merely advisable but essential to Nigeria’s federal project. “The 1999 Constitution attempted to centralise power in the elected government at all levels, but this has created a legitimacy crisis at the grassroots where traditional authority remains the primary reference point for most Nigerians,” Oshodi explains. “If we want devolution to succeed—and federalism demands it—we must formalise the role of institutions that already exercise de facto authority. Traditional rulers in most communities are making consequential decisions about land disputes, community security, and resource distribution without constitutional protection or accountability mechanisms. Empowerment would not create new power; it would simply recognise existing reality and make it transparent.” Oshodi suggests that constitutional amendments could define specific roles—perhaps seating monarchs on local government security committees, land administration boards, or development planning councils—without reverting to pre-colonial authority structures.
However, Dr. Chinyere Adeyemi, a senior policy researcher at the Centre for Democracy and Development, warns against romantic notions of traditional governance that ignore gender, accountability, and democratic principles. “The challenge with constitutionalising traditional ruler authority is that most monarchical systems across Nigeria operate on patriarchal principles with weak transparency and accountability mechanisms,” Adeyemi cautions. “If we grant formal power to traditional rulers without simultaneous reforms to ensure women’s participation, merit-based advancement, and documented decision-making processes, we risk entrenching inequality at the grassroots level. Additionally, many communities have competing claimants to traditional authority, and constitutionalising one claim could exacerbate conflicts rather than resolve them.” Adeyemi suggests that rather than full constitutional empowerment, Nigeria should explore hybrid models where traditional rulers hold advisory roles with defined influence over specific domains—land administration, customary dispute resolution, and cultural preservation—while elected officials retain executive and fiscal authority. Both experts agree, however, that the current constitutional vacuum serves no one: neither traditional rulers nor elected officials nor communities themselves.
What This Means for Nigerians: Practical Ground-Level Implications
For ordinary Nigerians struggling with governance failures at the grassroots, this debate about traditional rulers’ constitutional role has direct, tangible implications. Consider a typical scenario in Lagos or any Nigerian state: a community experiences chronic flooding that affects dozens of households, damages property, and disrupts commerce. The local council official may lack funds, authority to requisition drainage work, or political will to prioritise that specific neighbourhood. The traditional ruler, who lives in the community and has deep knowledge of drainage patterns and local needs, cannot formally mobilise resources or direct action because he holds no constitutional position. He can petition the council chairman or state government, but his appeals carry no institutional weight. If traditional rulers held constitutionally recognised roles—say, on environmental management committees or infrastructure planning boards—their input could translate into action. For business owners, this matters: poor community infrastructure affects property values, increases operating costs, and deters investment. For students, it affects school accessibility and safety. For women traders in local markets, governance failures mean insecurity and lack of basic services.
Constitutional empowerment of traditional rulers could also strengthen informal dispute resolution systems that are vastly more accessible to ordinary Nigerians than courts. Land disputes, inheritance conflicts, and minor criminal matters that clog Nigeria’s courts often find satisfactory resolution through traditional mechanisms when properly resourced and formalised. The Law Development Centre reports that customary courts in states where they are constitutionally recognised handle over 60% of civil disputes while maintaining high satisfaction rates. Yet in states where traditional rulers lack constitutional standing, these mechanisms operate in a grey zone, sometimes exploited for corruption or favouritism. Formalisation could improve transparency and appeal mechanisms. However, this also creates risks: if traditional rulers gain power without corresponding accountability, they could exploit vulnerable populations—particularly women and minorities with less cultural voice. The critical question for ordinary Nigerians is whether constitutional empowerment of traditional rulers will come with safeguards: independent ombudsman mechanisms, mandatory transparency in decision-making, and formal appeal processes.
Editor’s Take: What the Silence Reveals About Nigeria’s Governance Crisis
At NaijaBreaking, we believe that this call for constitutional role for monarchs reveals something uncomfortable about Nigeria’s political elite: they have never truly reckoned with the legitimacy crisis plaguing governance at every level. For over two decades, the 1999 Constitution has attempted to build a purely representative, secular, elected system while ignoring the parallel governance structures that actually function in most Nigerian communities. The result is not a clean divide between traditional and modern governance; it is a messy overlap where traditional rulers exercise real power without accountability, and elected officials lack the social capital to implement decisions even when they have constitutional authority. Rather than engage in proper constitutional reform to formalise traditional roles with clear boundaries and accountability mechanisms, Nigeria has allowed this ambiguity to persist. What is being overlooked in mainstream coverage of this story is that advocacy from a sitting local council chairman for empowering traditional rulers signals a profound loss of confidence in the electoral system itself. Why would an elected official voluntarily delegate power to a non-elected monarch unless he recognised that his own legitimacy and effectiveness were insufficient? This should alarm democrats—but it should equally alarm those who believe tradition alone provides governance solutions. Real reform requires both: constitutionalising traditional roles while simultaneously strengthening democratic accountability, transparency, and inclusivity.
What to Watch Next: Key Developments and Timelines
Three critical developments will determine whether this advocacy translates into constitutional reform. First, monitor whether Lagos State’s government—currently led by Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu—formally responds to the call or incorporates traditional ruler empowerment into any planned constitutional amendment proposals. Lagos, as Nigeria’s political and economic centre, often sets precedent that other states follow. Second, watch for action by the National Assembly as it approaches the next round of Constitution Review processes scheduled for 2025-2026. Will they include provisions for traditional ruler roles, or will the current constitutional silence persist? Third, observe whether any of Nigeria’s 36 states implement pilot programmes granting formal roles to traditional rulers in specific governance domains—land administration, community security, or local development planning—before waiting for federal constitutional change. These state-level experiments would provide evidence about whether empowerment improves development outcomes or creates governance conflicts. The key question now is: will Nigeria’s political leadership embrace genuine power-sharing with traditional institutions, or will this call remain rhetorical advocacy that changes nothing?
Conclusion: A Nation at a Crossroads on Governance Authority
The call by the Igbogbo/Baiyeku Local Council Development Area chairman for constitutionalising the role of traditional monarchs in governance represents far more than advocacy for a specific institutional change; it signals that Nigeria’s current three-tier constitutional system has exhausted its capacity to address grassroots governance needs. A nation where traditional rulers command the respect of over 70% of citizens yet possess no constitutional standing is a nation that has not genuinely resolved how to balance modernity with tradition, elected authority with customary legitimacy, and centralised bureaucracy with community agency. Whether constitutional empowerment of traditional rulers would solve development challenges or create new governance problems depends entirely on how carefully such reform is designed—with what safeguards, what accountability mechanisms, and what protections for vulnerable populations. What this story reveals is that Nigerians at all levels—local government officials, community leaders, and citizens—are increasingly impatient with a constitutional arrangement that few believe is working. The 1999 Constitution was a historic achievement, but nearly 25 years later, its silence on institutions that matter most to ordinary Nigerians suggests it is time for serious, comprehensive reform that addresses not just which institutions have power, but how those institutions serve the people they govern.
Share your thoughts in the comments below: Do you think traditional rulers should have formal constitutional roles in governance, or would this undermine democratic principles? What would you want to see protected if such reform happened?
