Southern Nigeria’s traditional rulers council and the burden of optional unity, By David Ugwunta

The Southern Nigeria Traditional Rulers Council was inaugurated with promise. However, promise does not create unity. Structure does. The public denial of its existence by a respected monarch is not merely opposition; it is a warning about the cost of optional unity. Legitimacy cannot be assumed. It must be earned through inclusivity, clarity, and shared commitment.

At the National Traditional and Religious Leaders Summit on Health held in Abuja on 17th February, attended by President Tinubu, an unexpected institutional fault line surfaced as an Enugu monarch and the Ooni of Ife openly disputed the existence of the Southern Nigeria Traditional Rulers Council.

Speaking at the health summit, the revered Eze Ogbunaechendo 1 of Ezema Olo in Ezeagu Local Government Area of Enugu State, a former Chairman of the Enugu State and South-East Council of Traditional Rulers, seasoned diplomat, and elder statesman, challenged references to a Southern Nigeria Traditional Rulers Council. He stated: “Now again, they were talking about the Southern Traditional Rulers Committee on Health, and the eminent Professor Pate was saying that this will be an annual event – what we are doing today – if I heard him correctly.” “The truth of the matter is that there is nothing like a Southern Traditional Rulers Council. If you come here and give money to people on that basis, it is not correct.” “The South is not the North. We have our systems. We need unity in diversity.” “So, if you want to deal with us, deal with us in the South East.” “If you have resources for us, give it to us. Don’t give it to people who come and say they represent a traditional rulers’ council.” “Democracy is representative government, and anybody who goes to present himself without his people is not democratic or traditional. So, get it right.”

The interposition was not casual, it was categorical, yet it stands in sharp contrast to what occurred barely eighteen months earlier, when on 30th July 2024, the inauguration of Southern Monarchs’ Council occurred. The event hosted by Governor Hope Uzodinma, was presided over by President Tinubu, represented by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, George Akume, as monarchs and political dignitaries gathered under the banner of southern regional cohesion.

Months later, a harder question emerged: Does the Council exist beyond ceremony? It was inaugurated with political and symbolic weight; does it exist institutionally? Public inauguration grants visibility; collective consent grants legitimacy.

The dissent exposes the Council’s core vulnerability. When a former South-East Council Chairman declares that “there is nothing like a Southern Traditional Rulers Council,” the matter shifts from organisational to existential.

Membership is very optional, Ooni professed. If membership is optional, can unity or regional cohesion, by definition, be optional?

Southern Traditional Rulers Council

The inauguration in July, 2024 saw the respected Ooni of Ife, Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi, appointed as chairman, with Cletus Ilomuanya and Jaja of Opobo as co-chairmen, and Benjamin Ikenchuku Keagboreku as secretary. The intent was unmistakable: To create a coordinated Southern platform comparable, though not identical, to the more centralised structures historically associated with Northern traditional leadership.

During the inauguration, Governor Uzodinma explicitly urged collaboration with northern counterparts, and support for President Tinubu, while George Akume reaffirmed the president’s respect for traditional rulers as custodians of Nigeria’s heritage. The Ooni of Ife, Ogunwusi framed it as a new era of unity across the Southern protectorate of the country.

Yet, at inauguration, while some southern governors were represented, the absence of several others raised quiet questions about the breadth of consensus underpinning the initiative. Absences could be linked to limited consultation, concerns over the council’s inclusivity, and sub-regional balance. Similarly, the absence of notable traditional rulers reflected reservations about process, political perceptions, and representation.

Institutions are sustained by consent and validated by acceptance. What appeared, in July 2024, as a historic consolidation was, in February 2026, openly contested. The public rejection by an elder statesman, Igwe Ambassador LOC Agubuzu, whose career reflects a rare fusion of ancestral authority and modern diplomacy, did not merely contradict a claim. It punctured the presumption of collective mandate, shifting the issue from symbolism to structure.

The Import of Agubuzu’s Interposition

Igwe Agubuzu’s remarks deserve serious engagement, not dismissal. When he warned against individuals presenting themselves as representatives of Southern traditional rulers without broad consent, he was not merely contesting nomenclature. He was defending legitimacy; emphasising that the South is not the North, that its strength lies in diversity, and that democracy, whether traditional or modern, rests on representation grounded in the people.

These are not trivial concerns. They echo long-standing anxieties about the centralisation of traditional institutions and sub-regional dominance. They reflect a historical wariness of imposed structures masquerading as consensus.

Yet, diversity without coordination does not automatically produce strength. When respected monarchs deny the existence of a Council inaugurated by the President of the Republic before him, the issue is not opposition, but rather, structural ambiguity. Such a council cannot function in a state of suspended definition.

Why Optional Membership Undermines the Council

First, authority cannot be selective. A council that some of the most prominent traditional rulers feel free to ignore will never command national, let alone international respect, particularly in a political environment where access and voice matter.

Second, legitimacy requires completeness. Governments engage more seriously with institutions that demonstrably represent the full spectrum of leadership. Optional membership creates parallel voices, rival claims, and confusion over representation.

Third, conflict resolution demands comprehensiveness. Traditional rulers remain critical actors in mediating identity tensions. A partial council lacks the moral authority to intervene across sub-regions.

Fourth, cultural preservation is collective work. No single monarch or bloc can safeguard Southern Nigeria’s diverse traditions alone. A coordinated platform prevents selective recognition and marginalisation.

Finally, legacy matters. Institutions endure only when they are cohesive. A voluntary council risks becoming ceremonial, useful for optics, politics and symbolism; but fragile in substance and importance.

Politics, Acknowledged, But Not Determinative

It would be naïve to ignore the political undertones surrounding the Council’s formation. Governor Hope Uzodinma played a central role in the inauguration, signalling alignment with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress. The presence of Dapo Abiodun, chairman of the Southern Nigeria Governors’ Forum, and Mai Mala Buni, underscored the inauguration event’s political weight. However, institutions of consequence must outlive political moments.

If the Southern Traditional Rulers Council is perceived primarily as a political artefact, it will wither with shifting alignments. If, however, it evolves into a rule-bound, inclusive, and representative institution, it can transcend its origins.

The burden now rests with the appointed chairman, the Ooni of Ife. His role is both symbolic and strategic. The surrounding contestation demands engagement, not assumption; persuasion, not proclamation. Direct dialogue with dissenting voices is essential. So is a formal charter defining representation, decision-making, membership obligations, rotational leadership, sub-regional balance, and structured joint programmes.

Conclusion

The Southern Nigeria Traditional Rulers Council was inaugurated with promise. However, promise does not create unity. Structure does. The public denial of its existence by a respected monarch is not merely opposition; it is a warning about the cost of optional unity. Legitimacy cannot be assumed. It must be earned through inclusivity, clarity, and shared commitment.

If Southern Nigeria is to speak with authority in Nigeria’s evolving governance architecture, its most revered institutions (traditional) must be binding as well as symbolic, representative as well as ceremonial. Unity cannot be optional. It must be institutional.

David Okelue Ugwunta, a public policy and economic planning specialist, is a senior adviser with Thoughts & Mace Advisory.