A bill seeking to establish the National Council of Traditional Rulers of Nigeria—intended to formally recognise and strengthen the role of traditional institutions in fostering peace and development—has ignited a storm of controversy over a contentious clause that permanently positions the Ooni of Ife and the Sultan of Sokoto above all other monarchs.
The proposed law, sponsored by Senator Simon Bako Lalong (Plateau South), passed its second reading in March and is currently before the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service. While its promoters argue that it will formalise traditional leadership roles nationwide, critics say the provision for two permanent co-chairmen undermines Nigeria’s federal character, fuels ethnic divisions, and marginalises other royal institutions.
The strongest opposition has come from prominent socio-cultural organisations including Ohanaeze Ndigbo, the Middle Belt Forum (MBF), Concerned Hausa Stakeholders, and the Alaigbo Development Foundation (ADF), among others.
Ohanaeze Ndigbo, in a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Dr. Ezechi Chukwu, described the proposal as “unjust, ethnocentric and a direct affront to equity, fairness and national unity,” warning that it could erode inclusiveness and cohesion. The group called for the immediate withdrawal of the bill, urging lawmakers to review it in a way that respects Nigeria’s ethnic diversity and geopolitical balance.
The MBF also rejected the clause, describing it as historically inaccurate and constitutionally flawed. National spokesman Luka Binniyat argued that the Sokoto Caliphate is younger than many Middle Belt monarchies and that elevating the Sultan amounts to “a gross distortion of historical facts” and an affront to indigenous dignity. The Forum stressed that the Sultan is primarily a religious leader, not a secular traditional ruler, warning that his proposed role risks alienating non-Muslims and upsetting Nigeria’s secular framework.
Similarly, the Concerned Hausa Stakeholders said the bill is “ethnically biased, historically misleading, and constitutionally indefensible,” pointing out that the Sultan does not represent the Hausa people in a traditional sense. They also argued that excluding other major royal institutions—such as the Shehu of Borno, Obi of Onitsha, and Oba of Benin—undermines the nation’s multi-ethnic heritage.
From the South-East, the ADF branded the bill “an insult to Nigeria’s cultural diversity” and urged Igbo lawmakers to reject it outright. Even in the South-West, dissenting voices have emerged. Femi Adebowale, a university lecturer, argued that the Ooni cannot claim supremacy over other Yoruba monarchs such as the Alaafin of Oyo and the Alake of Egbaland. Likewise, Lagos-based lawyer Caleb Osazuwa questioned how the revered Oba of Benin could be placed under the Ooni’s authority, calling the move “the greatest joke of the century.”
Across all regions, critics insist that if the council is to be created, its leadership must be either rotational across geopolitical zones or elected by the monarchs themselves. Anything short of that, they warn, would entrench ethnic favouritism, provoke division, and weaken national unity.
The bill remains under Senate consideration, but given the breadth and intensity of the opposition, its future now appears uncertain.
