A Response to Hon. Patrick Umoh, Member Representing Ikot Ekpene/Essien Udim/Obot Akara Federal Constituency



Life is dynamic, and its dynamism depends on several factors. By that same token, institutions, kingdoms and empires equally change in their operations. Governments at all levels from time to time change their policies and programmes in line with economic changes in order to achieve their goals. It was Jim Rohn that said "Your life does not get better by chance, it gets better by change.” A popular Chinese Proverb added that “The wise adapt themselves to circumstances, as water moulds itself to the pitcher.” This is to say that change is constant in any progressive society, and the dynamism of life is what gives birth to review/amendment of laws.

The review or amendment of existing laws as the case maybe is a standard practice all over the world. Amendments allow laws and policies to be refined over time rather than replaced outright.
Local, state, and federal laws can be changed through the ratification of amendments. Legislative bodies in the U.S. and other democracies in the world operate on the premise that laws and policies may be refined over time. This can be done through new legislation or amendments to existing legislation.

Amendments are therefore primarily introduced to address circumstances and events that were not foreseen when a piece of legislation was initially signed into law. The most familiar example of this process is, of course, the U.S. Constitution, which has been amended 27 times since it was ratified in 1788. The first 10 of those amendments constitute the Bill of Rights.
This means that amendments frequently are used to address events that were unforeseen when the original document was created.

Recently, the Senate amended its rule to restrict first-time senators from vying for the position of the Senate President and Deputy Senate President.
The amendment to Section 2(1)(2) and (3) followed a motion by the Senate Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele, titled, “Amendment to the Standing Orders of the Senate Pursuant to Order 109 of the Senate Standing Orders, 2022.”

The above suggests that the essence of the amended traditional rulers' law in Akwa Ibom state is not out of place, but an essential practice that is more advantageous than one would ever think of.
Its intent was never discriminatory, discontentive and derogatory as painted by those fanning the embers of ethnic bigotry.

Propagandists have now feasted on the agitation, attempting to mislead the people with the narrative that if the position of the President-General is an exclusive preserve of an Ibibio monarch, then the Ibibios will be the decider of who rules over the political landscape of the state. Another propaganda is that by making the position non-tenurial, other ethnic groups would become second class.

But how can the traditional institution in a state like Akwa Ibom become so powerful to decide who governs the state? It is laughable that a traditional institution will suddenly become a political party and electorate at the same time. In democracy, the power to choose who leads reside with the people.

It is observed by pundits who have followed the issue closely that the agitation for rotation of the office of the President-general of the Supreme Council of Traditional Rulers in Akwa Ibom is a call that seeks to bastardize the essentiality of the amendment of the traditional rulers' law which initially received the applause of traditional rulers who have a perfect understanding of its intents, much more than their subjects.

Primarily, the basis for the amendment of the TRC law was that the recognition accorded Akwa Ibom State traditional rulers at the national stage was short-lived chiefly because of the tenurial arrangement. In other words, the rating of our traditional institution was below what was given to the Emirs, Obas and others with permanent headship. That necessitated the elevation so that the council will not be playing second fiddle role on the national stage. It was to see Akwa Ibom monarch placed at par with the like of the Sultan of Sokoto, Emir of Kano, Obi of Onitsha, Oba of Benin, Obong of Calabar, Ooni of Ife, Oba of Lagos, Olu of Warri, etc, whose monarchial reign is permanent.

The perpetuity of the headship of the supreme council of traditional rulers in the state is never to rob others of their powers, position, or functionality, but to strengthen the institution to compete favourably with their counterparts at the national scene. The law does not make an Annang man inferior to his Ibibio brothers, neither does it make an Oro man less valuable than he was. It does not in any way make an Ibibio man superior to indigenes of other tribes in the state. It is intended to give Akwa Ibom a voice on the national platform.

It is common knowledge to understand that one who occupies the office for only two years may not be grounded like others who have spent their entire lifetime on the throne. If we keep rotating every two years as agitated, at the national scene, the new ruler will sit like a baby in the palace where the Obas, Obis, Olus and Emirs are sitting.

In states of the federation that practice permanent headship of the office in question, there are many traditional rulers performing their respective duties, but one imperial monarch still exists as a representative of the traditional stool in that state.

The same imperial system is practiced in Delta, where the Olu of Warri happens to be the imperial monarch who is often chosen from the Itshikiris. That does not in anyway denigrate or belittle the Urhobos and other tribes therefrom.

What about the British monarchy that is so much revered? The monarchy of the United Kingdom, commonly referred to as the British monarchy, is the constitutional form of government by which a hereditary sovereign reigns as the head of state of the United Kingdom, the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories. The current monarch is King Charles III, who ascended the throne on 8 September 2022, upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II.
Unlike ours which offers the luxury for the president-general to be chosen from other Local Government Areas, the British monarchy rotates in one family, and no one is crying of discrimination.

It is quite preposterous that the office of the paramount ruler in Akwa Ibom state is for a lifetime, until the person occupying the office is dead, then can there be the need for a new one to be chosen. If some of the royal fathers agitating for rotation of the Supreme Council of Traditional Rulers' headship will agree that the paramount rulership in their domains be tenurial, then they have the moral standing to demand for rotation of the office of the president general of the supreme council of traditional rulers.

So far, many have reacted to the propaganda, and the latest reaction comes from Barr. Patrick Umoh, the member representing Ikot Ekpene/Essien Udim/Obot Akara Federal Constituency. Even as it is unnecessary to respond to his comments on the issue, it is imperative that some records be put straight.
For a member of Parliament to send such a letter to the House of Assembly where he claimed that the lawmakers erred in the amendment of the TRC law is tantamount to fanning the embers of violence, anarchy, division and acrimony. He is inciting other tribes against the Ibibios, and should be called to order with all sense of urgency.

The same law he is referring to equally makes provision for the heads of other ethnic groups to be integral part of the leadership of the supreme council of traditional rulers. In other words, The Oku Ibom Ibibio cannot discharge his functions alone, without the support of the Akuku Annang and the Atta Oro who are to serve as Vice President 1 & 2 respectively. There can never be an excellent democratization of the traditional stool more than what we have in Akwa Ibom state as empowered by the amended traditional rulers' law.

The consistent reflection on section 42(1) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as (amended) is misapplied in this case. Does it mean that the section is only applicable to Akwa Ibom? What about other states where the traditional rulers' headship is not tenurial? Why are they not quoting the said section? Does it mean that only Akwa Ibom people know how to efficiently interpret the law?

Never has it been mentioned that other ethnic nationalities are challenging the headship or perpetuity of the imperial monarch of their tribes. Does it mean that we do not have reverence and genuine respect/regard for our traditional stool?

The drums of war and the orchestra of anarchy being directed and "choir-mastered" by those who should be custodians of the laws is what has beaten the imaginations of sane people, and brings to question the integrity and morality as those who claimed they are lawmakers.

As it is, the traditional rulers' council is under the ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, and their activities are independently run. But where they have any issue that has to do with amendment of the law, they have to approach the ministry who would transfer same to the executive , and subsequently to the House of Assembly. The case in question passed through due process, and has become a law.

Since the issue in contention has become a law, and there is a pending case in court which has not yet been decided on, what then is the essence of the letter the MP sent to members of the House of Assembly? Could it be that he is not acquainted with the law?

It is out of place to attempt to unearthed bad history for the sake of posterity. Akwa Ibom people should ignore the call for division by those who want to politicize the revered traditional institution. We should tread with caution.

Obong Inemesit Bassey, Abak