By Samuel Konna
Abuja
The Middle Belt Forum (MBF) has come out in full force to reject what it calls a dangerous and unjust clause in the National Council for Traditional Rulers of Nigeria (Establishment) Bill, 2024. The Forum described the proposal to make the Sultan of Sokoto a permanent co-chair of the national body as historically fraudulent, culturally insensitive, and a threat to Nigeria’s secular democracy.
The bill, which has already passed second reading in the Senate, is being sponsored by Plateau South Senator Simon Bako Lalong—himself a traditional titleholder of the Gwad-Goemai. Ironically, he hails from the same region whose heritage the bill seeks to undermine.
In a statement signed on July 27, 2025, by Luka Binniyat, the MBF’s National Publicity Secretary, the Forum strongly condemned the clause that seeks to entrench both the Sultan of Sokoto and the Ooni of Ife as permanent co-chairmen of the proposed Council.
While the group refrained from challenging the Ooni’s inclusion, it roundly rejected the automatic and perpetual elevation of the Sultan of Sokoto, calling it a gross distortion of Nigeria’s traditional power structure.
History Cannot Be Rewritten
The MBF argued that the Sultanate of Sokoto is a much younger institution compared to the age-old monarchies of the Middle Belt. They pointed to the Kwararafa Confederacy—a vast multi-ethnic empire dating as far back as the 800s AD—as proof of a more ancient and inclusive traditional system. The Aku Uka of Wukari, who embodies this legacy today, is regarded as the living symbol of that rich cultural tradition.
Similarly, the Attah of Igala was cited as a traditional monarch whose kingdom predates the Sokoto Caliphate and was never subjected to its rule. The Forum emphasized that the Igala people maintained their cultural autonomy and resisted Islamic conquest.
The Tor Tiv, spiritual leader of the Tiv nation, was also mentioned as a symbol of a fiercely independent people who operated a decentralized political system long before the arrival of the Fulani jihadists. Forcing such a leader to serve permanently under the Sultan, the MBF said, would amount to rewriting history and insulting the people’s identity.
The Nupe Kingdom, with roots stretching back to the 15th century, was also listed as another Middle Belt monarchy older than the Caliphate. The Etsu Nupe, the Forum said, represents an authentic indigenous structure that cannot be made subordinate to a newer institution.
Religious Bias in a Secular State
Beyond historical grievances, the Forum raised serious concerns about religious bias. It warned that assigning a permanent chairmanship to the Sultan—a religious figurehead for Muslims across the North and FCT—would inject religion into what should be a neutral and inclusive institution. The MBF accused lawmakers of attempting to Islamize a secular national council under the guise of tradition.
The Forum pointed out that even the Shehu of Borno, whose Kanem-Borno Empire adopted Islam centuries before the Sokoto Jihad, has a stronger claim to religious leadership than the Sultan—yet he was not named as a permanent co-chair.
—
Sultan’s Association with MACBAN Raises Red Flags
The MBF further argued that the Sultan’s well-known role as Grand Patron of the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN) makes his permanent elevation especially troubling. The association has been repeatedly linked to violent attacks by armed Fulani herders across the Middle Belt. According to the Forum, the Sultan has failed to condemn or distance himself from the group’s violent activities, and his silence has caused deep pain among communities devastated by these attacks.
“Making him the face of Nigerian traditional leadership is like rubbing salt in the wounds of our people,” the MBF said.
A History of Resistance, Not Submission
The Forum reminded Nigerians that the Middle Belt has a proud legacy of resisting Usman Dan Fodio’s 19th-century jihadist expansion. Many of its communities were only brought under Fulani emirate rule through the coercive policies of British colonial indirect rule—a system that imposed foreign rulers on indigenous peoples for administrative convenience.
Now, over 60 years after independence, the Forum insists that history must not repeat itself in the form of legislative dominance or cultural erasure.
Threat of Boycott and Alternative Plans
Should the bill pass with the controversial clause intact, the Middle Belt Forum said traditional rulers from the region would reject and boycott the Council entirely. It announced that preparations are underway to form a Council of Middle Belt Traditional Rulers—a separate body that would recognize the unique cultural heritage and autonomous histories of its member communities.
As a way forward, the MBF proposed the following alternatives:
The chairmanship of the national Council should rotate among Nigeria’s six geo-political zones
Leadership should be tenure-based, not permanent
Traditional rulers should elect their leaders through a democratic and inclusive process
Final Word: Unity Through Justice
The Middle Belt Forum concluded that true unity can only be built on equality, fairness, and mutual respect. Imposing a single religious figure as permanent co-chair over a culturally diverse nation, it warned, is a dangerous path that undermines federalism and national cohesion.
The MBF vowed to use every peaceful and democratic means to resist what it sees as a brazen attempt to recolonize the Middle Belt under a religious banner, and called on all fair-minded Nigerians to reject the bill in its current form
Middle-Belt Times 