SANCTITY OF CHIEFTAINCY DECLARATION ON NATIVE CUSTOM: THE ATTITUDE OF THE NIGERIAN COURTS

Abstract

Leadership is indispensible in all human societies. And leadership in native communities finds expression in the underlying philosophy of native customs firmly anchored on the people’s ontology. The ontological hierarchy has God at the apex, yet assigns Leadership roles at various strata in order of primogeniture. Thus, there are parents, family heads, community heads, culminating in the incidence of chieftaincy stools. Ascension to chieftaincy stools is governed by native customs which are largely unwritten. However, the exigency of modernity, the flexibility of these customs and the dynamism of societal living have influenced the tendency to commit native customs into writing. Thus, native customs relating to chieftaincy matters are often encapsulated in written documents commonly referred to as ‘chieftaincy declarations’, or ‘chieftaincy constitutions’, or ‘chieftaincy instruments’ without any particular style or form. Whatever the nomenclature, such instruments regulate the selection, election and deposition of chiefs. Ordinarily, it is the law that oral evidence will not be admissible to contradict, alter, add to, or vary the content of a written document. In the light of the foregoing, can chieftaincy declarations be said to be sacrosanct and so circumscribed as to be inadmissible of further oral evidence in proof thereof? What has been the attitude of the courts in grappling with this seemingly vexed question? The paper posits that the vacillation of the courts including reliance on ‘curse’ theory in preference to a registered written declaration  and a government Gazette  can be addressed by a thorough review of the existing Chieftaincy (Appointment and Deposition) Laws in force in Nigeria. This will save the Chieftaincy Institution from needless disputes, atrophy and insignificance.