The State and the Processes for the Resolution of Chieftaincy Disputes: Taraba State Model

International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) | Volume V, Issue VI, June 2021 | ISSN 2454–6186

The State and the Processes for the Resolution of Chieftaincy Disputes: Taraba State Model

Williams A. Ahmed-Gamgum
Consultancy Services Unit, Taraba State Polytechnic Suntai, Jalingo Campus
P.O. Box 834, Jalingo Post Code: 660262

Abstract: Traditional institutions and rulers have played important roles in the development administration of States in Africa. But the politics of each community has also made the institutions not to be free from some kinds of conflicts and the multiplier effects of such conflicts. Consequently, the modern government has not ignored the traditional institutions as part of its development programs to ensure that no community under-develops itself and indeed the State as a result of the conflict. State Governments in Nigeria have put in place structures and processes to follow in resolving chieftaincy disputes. This paper is interested to find out the structure for administering chieftaincy institutions and the path for resolving chieftaincy disputes in Taraba State. The paper sourced its data from secondary and primary sources. The paper finds that whereas there is an elaborate system and machinery for conflict resolution, but some Chieftaincy disputes become protracted before they were resolve and some are still taking longer time to resolve in spite of the political efficacy of the elites in the State. Therefore with the creation of many graded chiefdoms as a measure to resolve Chieftaincy demands and disputes, both the communities that still have outstanding disputes, the Government and people should cooperate, and on the basis of equity and due process in matters of Native law and Custom resolve chieftaincy disputes to serve as a deterrent to deviants. This would enable both old and new chiefs to settle down as agents of peace and development administration.

Keywords: Traditional Authority, Dispute resolution, Chiefdom, District, native law, and Custom

I.INTRODUCTION

1.1Background to the Study Traditional Authorities and Chieftaincy Disputes

Traditional authorities are symbolised by the existence of traditional rulers or leaders. They ascend to position of authority and power on the basis of tradition. The word tradition is defined as the handing down of mostly unwritten, custom, patterns of behaviour, practices, and beliefs that are valued by an ethnic or religious community. It is thus something of “old” or “ancient” (Microsoft Encarta Dictionary 2009). From the definition anything traditional is not a new creation. However, there may be some new elements in traditional matters and this comes in form of ‘custom’.
Custom on the other hand is a concept that recognises innovation in traditions. Custom thus is an invented tradition (Hobsbawm and Rangers (1994:1). It is a legitimate tradition that lacks historical evidence. It is not judged by time it was introduced whether recent or distant past but is a product of legitimate change process that is accepted and used by the people. So any custom that lacks legitimate origin is bound to serve as a source of conflict as such needs to be revisited by due process for change. For example the search for a “suitable” prince is by looking for a prince who is young, energetic or has higher or new educational training (like being a graduate, master or doctorate degree holder), or should have new religious orientation (like he must be a Christian or Muslim) or vocational skills (like he must be a lawyer) are considered innovations that makes a prince a better candidate than a prince that lacks any of these. Such requirements or considerations though are not old or ancient, are customary in making a choice of a traditional ruler or leader (Ahmed-Gamgum, 2016).

Read More