Behind the Cloak of Chieftancy

Founding members of the Abonnema Council of Chiefs

Note: This article was first published on 28/08/2011

Chieftaincy institutions will continue to evolve. More so in some communities in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria where the prerequisites for an individual's elevation to that erstwhile revered position has changed quite significantly recently. Recent key changes we are experiencing are not the type that strengthens a community because they occur in violation of the constitution of these communities with respect to the way individuals are accepted as members of the council of chiefs.

The chieftaincy institution is the most important one in the social and political life of these communities and its strength or weakness, therefore, reflects the fitness of the community. A community's fitness is its ability to create and manage positive change and/or its ability to withstand and manage changes that are not favourable to its long term survival.

To be fit, a community needs strong, committed and progressive leaders. Fit communities are those that are led by progressive and God-fearing leaders. Leaders are as good as the people they lead which is why a community that respects and values their culture and traditional political systems are better organised, adaptable and stronger than those that have no defined cultural and political values. Culturally loose and politically naive communities are easily taken hostage by a bunch of thugs with money; whether ill-gotten or legitimately acquired, parading as chiefs.

The role of a progressive chief is that of leadership with fear of God. He is the protector of his people in times of peace, war, famine, and prosperity. The personal wealth of any chief or chieftaincy candidate is an advantage but the overriding qualities required of an individual who aspires to become a chief are integrity, honesty, vision, valour and a very strong sense of justice. That is why a chief is not necessarily required to be a materially rich person.

On balance, individuals who possess sterling character with wisdom and a sense of fairness are the constitutionally qualified candidates to be given the honour and responsibilities of a chief. This is because such individuals are trustworthy and better placed to manage the resources of the community for the benefit of all. Trusted individuals are less likely to resort to the barefaced act of pillage and unbridled exploitation of the very people they swore to protect.

A chief with the welfare and progress of his community on his mind will sacrifice rather than thrive on the exploitation of his people. He leads from the front with vision, strategy, and confidence backed by the community. He is an individual capable of commanding the respect of a cross-section of the community. Individuals of questionable characters had never dared to even nurse the ambition to become chiefs in the days our cultures and traditional political systems were respected. Not any more. The councils of chiefs in our communities have evolved into cocoons of economic mercenaries with a mission to plunder and waste the community's commonwealth. No one is perfect; there are good chiefs but they are losing grounds to the bad apples.

We now live in times in which anyone can crawl from under any stone, cave or cranny to buy a sit for themselves and perhaps their sidekicks in the council of chiefs. Sadly, we are getting all bent out of shape to fit into this dystopian reality.

In the Kalabari-Ijaw communities of the Niger Delta area there are two classes of chiefs: the hereditary and the acquired classes. The Kalabari society is a patriarchal one in which chieftaincy title is usually passed from the father to the first male child in line to the chieftaincy  stool. This describes the hereditary class of Kalabari chiefs in which the person next in line is genetically determined and not nominated or otherwise. These are the class of chiefs who may be also be described as the "war canoe chiefs".

The acquired class are those that qualify, usually as a result of the individual's social standing, based on their good character and contribution to community welfare backed by their personal wealth. In some cases, people with outstanding character and social standing who are not materially wealthy may be nominated and sponsored by wealthier chiefs as part of their stable as a reward. 

This approach has wider implications, especially, in cases where matters are required to be settled by voting within the council of chiefs. This is perfectly constitutional. These days anyone, irrespective of their character or criminal past, can be picked and installed as chief at the whim of some money bag as a show-off.

Modernisation is great as a key component of change but the type of changes we have experienced recently in the way chiefs are installed including the quality of individuals forcing themselves onto the council of chiefs in our various communities is worrying. Questionable characters have infiltrated the council of chiefs in communities across Kalabari land. Sadly, what qualify these characters to be conferred with chieftaincy titles with default responsibility as leaders is affordability rather than merit.

Nowadays, anyone can become a chief if they can afford to make the stipulated down payment, provide entertainment for the council of chiefs, show up and present their right hand to be raised and declared a chief. Clearly, the Naira test has relegated the usual character test to insignificance. Effectively, behind the chieftaincy cloak, a questionable character could be walking around as a bogus leader.

Sitting around the table of the council of chiefs are some who feed fat from their community's commonwealth. A wise man once told me that the best way people retire with assured comfort nowadays is to save up the down payment and buy a chieftaincy title; that way you can be certain of a share of the monthly community's pie these chiefs cut and share among themselves at the expense of their people who are desperate for decent standards of living. For these merciless folks, their right to access and abuse their community's commonwealth (mostly contribution from oil companies operating in their communities) lies in the cloak of chieftaincy.

We are aware that things are not right but we are too disorganised or afraid to do something about it. These chiefs may be our relatives one way or another and the bond of this relationship is undoubtedly strong but we are beginning to choke by their acts of sabotage. We need a breathing space. We need to stop this culture of impunity and irresponsibility. We must stop to give ourselves the chance to be able to plan and create the environment in which our chiefs and political leaders will be made accountable for their actions.

Chieftaincy is not just a privilege or a right; it also comes with responsibilities. To what extent do these chiefs recognise their responsibilities? A sizeable, perhaps quite significant chunk of these chiefs are political jobbers whose stock in trade has become the trading of their community's future for paltry pieces of silver. Some of them are quite close to their natural shelf-life which may well be the reason why they do not have any desire to look too far ahead into the future of their communities.

In reality, is it up to these chiefs to decide the direction they are taking their communities? Why is the majority silent? There is only one death but when we keep silent in the face of tyranny, we die twice - Wole Soyinka.