The Legality Of The Dethronenement And Banishment Of Traditional Rulers In Nigeria: Sanusi Lamido Sanusi Of Gwandu Emirate As A Case Study Mahmood Abdulbasit Adewole Esq.

With independence in 1960, followed by alternating democratic and military governments in Nigeria, the status of the traditional rulers in the country has become subservient to the government administration. In fact, the traditional rulers have little or no formal role to play in the democratic structure unlike the political office holders. For instance, the military ruler General Sani Abacha in May, 1994 deposed Awwal Ibrahim, Sarkin Suleja, although he was subsequently reinstated in January 2000. The case of former Governor Ajimobi of Oyo State with Olubadan and the recent case of Governor Wike of Rivers State who addressed the traditional rulers in his State in a derogatory manner are pathetic and typical examples to this effect.

There is no gainsaying in the fact that the current setting of Nigeria gives more power to the political class than the traditional rulers and the former can do anything to proof this fact. The dethroned Emir Sanusi Lamido Sanusi of Kano State was seen as a reformist and had been critical of some government policies – a stance that frequently put him at loggerheads with ruling the politicians in the State. The dethroned Emir was never shy about voicing his opinions on pressing issues within and outside the country, this seemed like a break with the tradition that an Emir can only be seen and not heard. More so, since the seat is not adequately protected by the Nigerian law, the norm has always been that even if a traditional ruler does not like the government in power, he exercises patience and act like he does; till the government’s tenure elapses, so as to protect his traditional seat.

More so, since the traditional rulers have also accepted the salary system from the government, rather than keeping to their earnings from agriculture and trading (as they were in the pre-colonial era), it then becomes herculean, if not impossible to speak against and/or attack any government in power because “he who pays the piper dictates dictates the tune.” In this contemporary era, although traditional rulers in Nigeria are still highly respected in many communities and they exert significant influence; for they are seen as custodians of both religion and tradition, but their traditional power is limited by the extant law of the land.

The present authorization and/or removal power of the government has made the traditional rulers who ordinarily, ought to be neutral and seek the best for their people; subservient of government in power to the detriment of good governance and even sometimes, the rulers’ integrity. It is therefore suggested that the powers of the government to appoint and/or remove traditional rulers from office be abolished, so that the powers will revert to the inherited traditional approving authority in every locality. This is to ensure that the glory and honour of the traditional institution in Nigeria is restored.

On the issue of the dethroned Emir Sanusi’s banishment from Kano State to Nasarawa State in Nigeria, that is not only an archaic and barbaric tradition, but also unconstitutional. No doubt, the deportation of deposed traditional rulers in Nigeria by government is an age-long practice, and in this regard, we have the cases Oba of Benin, Ovonranwen Nogbaisi, who was deported to Calabar in 1987; the Emir of Kano, Ado Sanusi; the Alake of Egba-land, Oba Ademola; the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Adeyemi; the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Ibrahim Dasuki, and the Emir of Gwandu, Alhaji Jokolo, among others.

The Government of Kano State has no right to act outside the clear and unambiguous provisions of the  Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (applicable to this case); even while acting under the State’s law, because Section 1 (3) of the 1999 Constitution provides for the nullity to the extent of the inconsistency of any law that contradicts the provisions of the Constitution. Section 35 (1) of the said Constitution guarantees the personal liberty of every citizen of Nigeria, except in the circumstances stated thereof. Section 41 (1) of the Constitution guarantees the right of every citizen to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereby or exit therefrom. In the instant case, the Kano State Government has not been able to establish that the banishment of the dethroned Emir Sanusi from Kano State and his deportation to Nasarawa State were in accordance with the clear provision of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. The Court of Appeal has settled this in the case of Government of Kebbi State vs. HRH Mustapha Jokolo (2013) LPER.

In holding the view that the banishment was unconstitutional, we are not oblivious of the fact that Section 45 of the Constitution provides that “nothing in Sections 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society – (a) in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health, and (b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons.” Be that as it may, it is still our contention that the said Section 45 does not cover Section 35 of the same 1999 Constitution which guarantees the right to liberty. It is relevant at this juncture to state that the laws contemplated by the said Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution regarding the right to freedom of movement are no more than laws allowing the restriction of movement of the citizenry and imposition of a curfew during the threat or actual outbreak of war, violence, breakdown of law and order or an epidemic; or such laws allowing people suffering contagious diseases or psychiatric ailments to be confined to hospitals or psychiatric homes, while the instant case of the dethroned Emir does not fall in any of these categories.

In conclusion, the competent court of law is the only recognized enforcer of any law that seeks to restrict the enjoyment of any constitutional right or freedom of any citizen in order to protect the right of that citizen and other members of the society. Therefore, no executive order of banishment or deportation can be justified under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution, notwithstanding the rehash of the phrase “is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society”. Hence, the dethronement of the Kano monarch by the Kano State government can be said to be legal without reservations; had it been the dethroned Emir was given right to fair hearing on the allegations that led to his dethronement (even though there were political undertone), but the banishment was completely illegal, for no provision of a State law can test its strength against the provisions of the grundnorm, else, the former becomes a nullity to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution.

Mahmood Abdulbasit Adewole Esq., LL.B (UDUS), B.L (NIGERIAN LAW SCHOOL), abdulbasitadewole@gmail.com