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 theunderlying philosophy of native customs firmly anchored on the people’s ontology. The ontological hierarchy hasGod 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 stoolsis governed by native customs which are largely unwritten. However, the exigency of modernity, the flexibility ofthese customs and the dynamism of societal living have influenced the tendency to commit native customs intowriting. Thus, native customs relating to chieftaincy matters are often encapsulated in written documentscommonly 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, electionand deposition of chiefs. Ordinarily, it is the law that oral evidence will not be admissible to contradict, alter, addto, or vary the content of a written document. In the light of the foregoing, can chieftaincy declarations be said tobe sacrosanct and so circumscribed as to be inadmissible of further oral evidence in proof thereof? What hasbeen the attitude of the courts in grappling with this seemingly vexed question? The paper posits that thevacillation of the courts including reliance on ‘curse’ theory in preference to a registered written declaration anda government Gazette can be addressed by a thorough review of the existing Chieftaincy (Appointment andDeposition) Laws in force in Nigeria. This will save the Chieftaincy Institution from needless disputes, atrophyand insignificance.