In a bold assertion that challenges conventional norms, Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II of Kano has declared 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 questions about the evolving role of traditional institutions in modern governance—a topic that’s sure to spark debate.
During his appearance on Channels Television’s Morning Brief, Emir Sanusi passionately emphasized that traditional rulers are indispensable pillars of nation-building and sound leadership. He proclaimed, “Traditional institutions are the backbone of good governance,” urging a renewed focus on strengthening national unity. But what does this mean in practice? For Sanusi, it means speaking truth to power—whether it’s telling the President, “This policy is wrong,” or advising governors on critical issues. “I don’t need the Constitution to do that,” he stated firmly. “My authority comes from the people I lead.”
And this is the part most people miss: While some argue that traditional rulers’ roles should be explicitly outlined in the Constitution, Sanusi counters that times have changed. “We respect the executive authority of governors, but our role isn’t defined by legal texts—it’s rooted in our connection to the people,” he explained. This perspective invites a thought-provoking question: Can traditional leadership thrive in a modern democratic framework without formal recognition?
The Emir didn’t stop there. He also championed inclusive political participation, particularly highlighting the underrepresentation of women in leadership. “Women are not just stakeholders in nation-building—they are essential drivers of it,” he asserted, calling for greater female representation in elective positions. His words serve as a reminder that inclusive governance isn’t just a buzzword; it’s a necessity for progress.
In a particularly powerful moment, Sanusi condemned domestic violence against women, labeling it “a misuse of power, not a cultural practice.” He argued that violence against women transcends cultural boundaries, rooted instead in power imbalances where men exploit their dominance. “It’s not about African culture—it’s about protecting the vulnerable,” he said, urging society to safeguard women, children, the poor, and the disabled from oppression.
Here’s the controversial question: If traditional rulers like Emir Sanusi are advocating for such progressive changes, should their roles be formally recognized in the Constitution, or does their authority truly lie in their connection to the people? Let’s discuss—do you agree with his stance, or do you think traditional leadership needs legal validation to remain relevant? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
