By: Jude U. Ugonna, Esq.
[Author, Attorney, Legal Philosopher]•••••••••••••••••
• HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
After the warlike dethronement of kings within the Niger Coast, followed by the tripartite amalgamation treaty of 1900, involving the British, the Northern Caliphate and the Royal Niger Company, warrant chiefs were subsequently appointed – to enable the colonial masters rule the almagamated regions together using the ‘Indirect Rule System’. The international best practice was to recognize that ‘the King Reigns’ but he does not rule – meaning that although the kings’ government apparatus could be surrendered to the colonial masters, the respective kingdoms must be consulted and the latter constitutionally obligated to follow the government’s advice. That brought about the derogatory expression – ‘Igbo Enwe Eze’ when no such kingdoms properly so-called were in existence anymore to be consulted in Igbo land; Hence, the operation of two legal systems in Nigeria: The English Common Law System in the south (which subjected Customary Laws to validity/repugnancy test) and the Islamic Civil Law System in the North.
It was the attempt to bring both the South and the North into one legal system by Aguiyi Ironsi that primarily brought about July 1966 coup d’etat and subsequently the Biafran Civil War of 1967 -1970. Since then, no suitable governing model for both has been found. The recent attempt to bring the South at par with the North via the resurrection of Customary Courts and Codification of Customary Laws has not been 60% successful, and will never be. The peoples’ Native Law and Custom differs significantly amongst the pre-colonial communities – And the Chieftaincy Laws of various states still retain the ‘warrantcy clauses’ of the colonial masters, bespeaking kings without kingdoms. Instead of ‘Reigning’, they ‘rule’ with any government in power. Hence, the further move to resurrect the ancient monarchical kingdoms called the EZEs, retaining the Igwes in mimicry of ‘Sarkin Kasar’ of Northern Nigeria; as government moves again to take over the regulation of traditional religion and practice in the South East, Nigeria.
• THE IMPERATIVE OF REINING INSTITUTIONS IN IGBO LANDS:
In his classic work, De Legibus Cicero, the greatest of Rome’s jurists and legal philosophers, set forth this proposition: “The safety of the people shall be the highest law”; And all nations of the world have held to this. The idea of ‘social contract’ is not one that evolved with Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau. They were mere refiners of the idea, particularly in the western world. They were western philosophers espousing the concept of ‘kingdom’ which is ‘a tacit agreement that the king will protect and govern, and the subjects will obey and provide support ‘. So, much as a king may accede to or seek alliances, it is only to the extent of ensuring the ‘safety and welfare of his subjects’.
Under the Nigerian rioteous legal transplantations, it is dangerous – always to copy without reservation, the modern democracies like the United States that operate on the principle of ‘Community Without Kings’. The agitation from 1960 to this day is that in this grotesque Nigerian calculus, the giant and the dwarf are assumed equal to be governed by the same rules in a game of heights.
The law that guarantee people’s security and welfare is one defined by Prof. O.P O’Connell as ‘a spontaneous generation from the needs and aspirations of man in the community’; and in establishing Modern Democracy, Rousseau added “where the individual is subject to no other individual but to the volente generale.
Nigeria cannot follow Sukarno, Alexander Hamilton and Usman Danfodio (whose leadership philosophy is a mere adaptation of the old system in the south east, now sought to be destroyed) at the same time under Rousseau’s volente generale (The Constitution). For Igbos to survive under this arrangement, therefore, is to find the Usman ideal in Igbo land – which is THEOCRACY (either under African Traditional System or Synchronized System thereof); Otherwise, we oil our guns to keep following Thrasymachus, Niestche and Hobbes as had been in practice since 1960 (if not 1900).
• THE ILLEGALITY AND UNETHICALITY OF DERACINATING IGBO COMMUNITIES WITH OPTION A4 IN IGWESHIP ELECTIONS.
Since the world began, the concept of the King as a divinely appointed ruler has in no small measure contributed to the idea of security. The King’s authority is believed to be derived from God, making him the ultimate protector of the people and the kingdom. The King’s position, unlike the president, the Governor, a Senator, etc , is often associated with symbols of divine power and authority, such as a crown, scepter and throne. These symbols were designed to instill a sense of order and to remind the populace that the king is their protector against internal and external aggressions.
The King’s primary responsibility is to ensure the safety and well-being of the people, often symbolized by the scepter and/or sword (of war/justice). They enforce laws, punish criminals and settle disputes, all of which contributes to the overall security and stability of the kingdom. It is in this sense, I believe, that the Enugu State Traditional Rulers Law, Cap 151, LESN,2004 (as in other states in the South East) used the word “appoint” or “select”, and apparently avoided using the word “elect”. It’s Section 4 provides thus:
4: “The governor shall not recognize any person as a traditional ruler of a town or community unless the governor is satisfied that such a person –
(a) was selected or appointed in accordance with the –
(i) Customary Law of the town or community concerned, or
(ii) Town’s or Community Constitution, where documented.
The present practice in Enugu State in particular where parties interested in vacant traditional stools indicated such interest to the state, pay quantum sums and subjected to campaign and ‘compulsory option A4 election’; and thereafter, entertain and keep petitions that would take contested parties to the deepest part of the sea in search of ‘warrant’ or ‘justice’ (as the case might be) is not only antithetical to the spirit and wordings of the Law, but also negatively disruptive, deeply anarchical and deracinating.
I have not seen a community that went through this that remained stable and or in peace. Some have had either the winner or the Town Union President assassinated. In some other places, the winner tried to take all, and the battle continued as if no king ever emerged. Insecurity and heightened tension pervaded the supposed kingdoms – even to the extreme extent of having the elected king accused of hunting down his own people.
•CONCLUDING REMARKS
Where possible, the warrantcy clauses in the States’ Chieftaincy Laws should be removed. The implication will be that Traditional Rulers (Igwes) shall cease to hold their offices or any other position incidental thereto at the pleasure of the Governor.
Once the Kings reign in the proper sense of it in Igbo land, then, the needs and aspirations of an Igbo man will begin to gain resounding recognition in the Nigerian volente generale. They will begin to command others’ respect, and no longer be killed like fugitives.
From of old, Traditional Rulers in Igbo land had always emerged by consensus or secret modes to wit: divination, Oha-Ezue or Ohajiobodo; not by option A4 election. In fact, in most cases, open campaigns were banned.
Jude U Ugonna, Esq. had been circulating personal letters in this regard to South East Governors, Heads of Traditional Institutions, Heads of Courts, Bishops, etc since 2016.

Happy 2025 Anniversary Celebration of Nigeria Democracy.