Drawing by Adeyeye Abiodun

By James Overly

As European colonialization of Africa began to crumble in the 1960’s and more modern national governments were established, there was a thorn on the rose—what to do with the traditional African village chieftains?

Since Bantu tribes first began to spread west and south across Africa eons ago, the tribal chieftains have held a paramount role. They were, and still are, the guardians of tribal customs and mores, and arbiters of civil and land disputes. They were also the tribal "foreign ministers," dealing with disputes with other tribes, and led their tribes to war or peace.

Historically, scholars say, the national reach of the traditional structures was limited—the few empires that were formed crumbled after a short time. The chiefs’ local powers, however, remained strong.

That meant, among other things, that local chiefs could be a political threat to the emerging national rulers. After chiefs in Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) launched a coup attempt in 1958 that failed, national leaders have kept a wary eye on these local power brokers.
But what to do with the chiefs? Various African countries have tried different solutions, from banning the chiefs to integrating the traditional structure into the modern one. Results have been inconsistent.
In the Nigerian state of Akwa Ibom, however, Governor Victor Attah, himself an "obong," or chief, has developed a local and state government structure incorporating the traditional chiefs that works splendidly. The two systems exist side-by-side, but work so closely together that it is difficult to distinguish one from the other.

Barrister Godswill O. Akpabio, Akwa Ibom Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, says, "Governor Attah argued that in order to have peace, it is absolutely necessary to incorporate the chiefs, or ‘paramount rulers,’ into the state government structure. In fact, they are the key to the maintenance of peace and [ethnic] harmony."

Under the military regime that prevailed in Nigeria until the return to democracy in 1999, the chiefs’ role was circumscribed. Dr. Allison Anadi, Director of the Criminal Justice Graduate Program at Southern University (Baton Rouge, LA) and a Nigerian from the nearby state of Anambra, says, "The military treated the chiefs as average citizens. The chiefs really want to participate in the democratic process. In order to have free and fair elections, you need those chiefs.

"The chiefs are also necessary to the process of peace-keeping and crime prevention. So, Akwa Ibom is relatively peaceful and calm, and has a lower crime rate than other states. I admire the fact that the current government has successfully integrated the local chiefs into the democratic process in Akwa Ibom state."

The state government consults regularly with the chiefs, who bring the needs of their tribe to the attention of local and state officials. Each local government has its own council of local chiefs which serves in an advisory capacity.

The chiefs also have their own state council, which meets monthly and advises the state government on matters such as allocation of funds to the local governments. "In addition," says Mr. Akpabio, "many chiefs have stood for state assembly (parliament) office."

While one would expect each chief to champion the needs of his own ethnic group as they advise the state and local authorities, differences among the chiefs were ameliorated when the state government set out common priorities shared by all. Dr. Anadi says, "For example, the construction of the independent power plant will supply electricity for all. Improving education will benefit everybody. Agricultural improvements and micro-credit programs serve farmers of all ethnic groups."

Akwa Ibom’s integration of the traditional governing structures has become so successful that the federal government has now urged Nigeria’s other states to adopt the Akwa Ibom model.