Legal Arguments Against the Creation of Fufore Emirate in Adamawa State
By Umar Ardo, Ph.D
As a state governed by law, the creation of Fufore Emirate by the Adamawa State Governor and the House of Assembly raises significant legal and constitutional questions, which cannot, in my considered view, stand before the court of law on grounds of entrenched principles of tradition, culture and societal values that demonstrate why this action is unlawful and unconstitutional. Many legal, constitutional and moral points validate my claim.
Related news
Creation of Emirates/Chiefdoms: Call gov Fintiri to order, Jada urges Adamawa south chiefs
Breaking: Ribadu, Danburam, Nyako, four others appointed as Fintiri announces new chiefs, emirs
Creation of Districts And Chiefdoms: Fintiri Deserves Commendation, Not Vilification
2. First, the act is a clear violation of established traditional structures and historical precedence. Adamawa Emirate is a historical entity with well-defined traditional and cultural institutions and structures. Many of the District Heads within the territory now carved into the Fufore Emirate are integral members of these institutions and structures. For example, the District Heads of Gurin, Malabu and Ribadu are members of the Adamawa Emirate’s Council of Kingmakers. Their participation in electing the Lamido of Adamawa is rooted in tradition and codified within the customs of the emirate.
3. This in effect means that the present carving out of Fufore as a separate emirate has effectively disrupts this long-established traditional institution and structure, stripping the affected District Heads of their historical roles of electing the Lamido and hence not only undermining the cultural unity of the Adamawa Emirate, but also destroying its historical status. Such a move represents a disjunctive act that violates the age-old societal norms and practices of the emirate, which are constitutionally protected under customary law. Courts have consistently held that acts contrary to the foundational customs of a community are unlawful.
4. Second, both the Adamawa State Governor and House of Assembly lack the executive and legislative powers and competence respectfully to alter established boundaries of traditional institutions. No doubt, the powers of the Governor and the House of Assembly in relation to chieftaincy matters are governed by state laws, specifically the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Adamawa State. However, these powers do not extend to unilaterally altering the traditional boundaries of an emirate without due consultation with the institutions and adherence to their established customs.
5. The Nigerian Constitution (1999, as amended) in Section 315(5)(d) recognizes the validity of customary laws and practices, particularly where these have been entrenched in the governance of traditional institutions. The creation of a new emirate without respecting the traditional procedures for boundary adjustment and without the consent of the Adamawa Emirate Council therefore contravenes these principles and clearly exceeds the powers of the governor and legislature.
6. Third, the act is a breach of communal and societal harmony, as it undermines the unity and cohesion of the Adamawa Emirate, a move that has obviously led to discontent and conflict within the affected communities. Customary law prioritizes the preservation of communal harmony, and any act that disrupts this harmony is considered illegitimate. Courts have repeatedly recognized the need to protect societal values and traditions from arbitrary interference by governmental authorities. In the case of Adigun v. Attorney General of Oyo State (1987), the Supreme Court emphasized the need for government actions affecting traditional institutions to respect the cultural, communal and institutional values of the people. The arbitrary creation of Fufore Emirate, which carves out a territory intrinsically linked to the Adamawa Emirate, fails this test of respect for societal norms.
7. Fourth, the act is a violation of the role of kingmakers of the Adamawa emirate, seeing that the affected District Heads of the carved-out territory are historically part of the kingmakers responsible for electing the Lamido of Adamawa. Removing them from this process without their consent or consultation with the Adamawa Emirate Council directly contravenes the traditional laws governing the emirate. The Supreme Court decision in Shugaba v. Union Bank of Nigeria (1999) underscored the principle that any act disrupting the customary role of individuals or institutions in traditional governance structures must be supported by clear statutory authority and adherence to due process. In this case, there is no evidence that the removal of these District Heads from their kingmaker roles adheres to statutory or traditional processes, or in consultation with the Adamawa Emirate Council, thus rendering the act unlawful.
7. The act is also a usurpation of customary judicial authority by the Governor and the state House of Assembly. Even though the Governor may have executive powers, his powers however are not limitless or uncurtailed by law in many aspects of governance. In this instance, his powers are clearly defined and constrained. The creation of a new emirate inherently involves adjudication over traditional rights and boundaries, which falls within the jurisdiction of customary laws and councils rather than the executive or legislative arms of government. By unilaterally creating Fufore Emirate, the governor and the House of Assembly have overstepped their bounds and encroached upon the jurisdiction of traditional councils and customary laws, violating the principle of separation of powers as enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution.
8. There are also precedents for judicial nullification of arbitrary emirate creations as Nigerian courts have previously nullified similar arbitrary acts by state governments in relation to traditional institutions. For example, in Olufemi v. Governor of Ekiti State (2005), the court nullified the creation of a new chieftaincy title that contravened the customs and traditions of the affected community. The court held that any action inconsistent with established traditions and customs is null and void. The same principle applies to the creation of Fufore Emirate, which disregards the foundational principles, institutions, customs and traditions of the Adamawa Emirate.
9. To all intents and purposes, therefore, the creation of Fufore Emirate is an unlawful act that violates the institutional, traditional, cultural and societal principles, norms and values of the Adamawa Emirate. It undermines the historical roles of District Heads as kingmakers, disrupts communal harmony and exceeds the legal authority of the Governor and House of Assembly. I urge those with clear locus standi on this matter to approach the Adamawa State High Court for adjudication. I believe the court will declare the creation of Fufore Emirate null and void and restore the traditional boundaries and structures of the Adamawa Emirate in accordance with established customs and the law. But if for political interference, the state High Court fails to do so, it will be done on appeal.
Ardo, the convener of LND writes from Abuja.
