In a bold assertion that challenges conventional norms, Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II of Kano declares that traditional rulers don’t need constitutional backing to advise leaders. But here’s where it gets controversial: he argues that their authority to counsel presidents and governors stems directly from their role as leaders of the people, not from legal documents. This stance raises eyebrows and sparks debate—is he overstepping, or is he simply reclaiming a rightful role in governance? Let’s dive in.
During his appearance on Channels Television’s Morning Brief, Emir Sanusi passionately emphasized the indispensable role of traditional institutions in nation-building and sound leadership. He proclaimed, ‘Traditional institutions are the backbone of good governance,’ urging a renewed focus on strengthening these pillars. But here’s the kicker: he doesn’t believe he needs the constitution to tell him when or how to advise the President or state governors on critical national issues. ‘Do I need a legal document to remind me of my duty to speak up when I see something wrong?’ he asked rhetorically. ‘My authority comes from the people I lead, not from written laws.’
And this is the part most people miss: Sanusi isn’t just advocating for traditional rulers; he’s redefining their role in modern governance. He acknowledges that some argue traditional rulers need constitutional recognition, but he counters, ‘What does the constitution say about our role? We respect executive authority, but times have changed. Our legitimacy comes from the people, not from legal clauses.’
Beyond leadership, Sanusi also spotlighted the urgent need for inclusive political participation, particularly for women. He argued that women are not just stakeholders but essential drivers of inclusive governance. ‘Why are women still underrepresented in elective positions?’ he questioned, calling for systemic change. His condemnation of domestic violence against women was equally powerful. ‘Culture should never be a shield for abuse,’ he asserted, highlighting how some men exploit cultural norms to oppress women. ‘Violence isn’t about culture; it’s about power imbalances. Women, children, the poor, and the disabled—they’re all victims of this imbalance.’
Here’s the controversial question: Is Emir Sanusi’s stance a progressive reclaiming of traditional leadership, or does it blur the lines between cultural authority and constitutional governance? His arguments are compelling, but they also invite scrutiny. What do you think? Does his authority truly derive from the people, or should traditional rulers operate within the confines of the constitution? Let’s keep the conversation going in the comments—this is one debate that’s far from over.
