By Mr. Canice Duru
The traditional institution of Umuna has come under scrutiny following a 14-day ultimatum issued to Eze Dr. Douglas Okwara over his continued use of the title “Igwe of Umuna” and the erection of a signpost bearing the designation.
The notice, issued in the interest of what its author described as the integrity of the Umuna traditional institution, raises questions concerning customary succession, genealogy, the Ofor, traditional nomenclature and the extent of governmental recognition of traditional rulers.
The author stressed that the intervention was not intended as a personal attack on Eze Okwara but as a call for clarification of the historical and customary basis of the title and succession to the Umuna traditional stool.
According to the statement, there is an important distinction between a government Certificate of Recognition and customary entitlement to a traditional stool.
It argued that while government recognition may establish official recognition for administrative purposes, it does not necessarily, without further evidence, determine matters such as hereditary entitlement, primogeniture, ancestral lineage, custody of the Ofor or customary succession.
The statement therefore called for evidence of the customary process through which Eze Okwara allegedly became successor to the Umuna stool, including the role of the appropriate ruling house, genealogy and established traditional procedures.
Ofor and Customary Succession
Particular attention was drawn to the Ofor of Umuna, which the author described as an important symbol of ancestral continuity, authority and succession where recognized by the applicable customary practice.
The statement questioned who is traditionally entitled to hold the Ofor and the customary process through which such authority is transferred.
It maintained that questions surrounding the legitimacy of a traditional stool should be determined through history, genealogy, customary evidence and established community practice rather than through titles or public assertions alone.
The author also cited judicial authorities, including Arowolo v. Akapo & Ors. (2006), Oba Adebanjo Mafimisebi v. Prince Macaulay Ehuwa & Ors. and Oyefolu v. Durosinmi (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt. 738) 1, in support of the proposition that courts may examine questions relating to customary succession and chieftaincy where relevant evidence is properly presented.
“Igwe of Umuna” Designation
The erection of a signpost describing Eze Okwara as “Igwe of Umuna” was identified as one of the immediate issues requiring clarification.
The statement questioned whether the designation is historically and customarily recognized as the appropriate title of the traditional ruler of Umuna and, if so, the customary foundation for its use.
It argued that a signpost, by itself, cannot create a customary institution or establish a traditional title where such title is not supported by the established history and custom of the community.
The continued use of the designation “HRM”—His Royal Majesty—rather than “HRH”—His Royal Highness—was also raised.
The author called for clarification of whether the Certificate of Recognition or other relevant government instrument expressly confers the title and style being used.
Traditional Authority and Community Institutions
The statement further questioned the extent of the traditional ruler’s authority over community organizations, particularly the purported intervention in the affairs of the autonomous Apex Youth Council, including an alleged attempt to remove its elected president and appoint an interim president.
It argued that government recognition of a traditional ruler does not, by itself, confer unlimited authority over every association, council or organization within a community.
According to the statement, any intervention in the affairs of an autonomous organization should have a foundation in its constitution, applicable customary law or another lawful instrument.
14-Day Ultimatum
The author consequently gave Eze Dr. Douglas Okwara 14 working days from the date of publication to remove the signpost bearing the designation “Igwe of Umuna” and cease using the designation pending clarification of its customary basis.
The demands include:
- Removal of the signpost bearing the designation “Igwe of Umuna”;
- Cessation of the use of the designation pending clarification of its customary foundation;
- An undertaking to refrain from representations allegedly capable of misleading the public concerning the customary status of the Umuna stool; and
- Production, where challenged, of the customary and documentary basis for the title, succession and status being publicly asserted.
The notice warned that failure or refusal to comply within the stipulated period could result in the affected persons or institutions considering legal proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction.
The proposed legal action, according to the statement, could seek declaratory, injunctive and other consequential reliefs as may be advised.
Call for Transparency
The author called on relevant institutions and stakeholders to establish, transparently and on the basis of evidence, the precise title contained in the Certificate of Recognition, the customary basis of succession to the Umuna stool, the applicable succession principle, the customary status and custody of the Ofor, and the historical basis of the “Igwe of Umuna” designation.
He also called for clarification of the extent of the traditional ruler’s authority over the community’s autonomous youth organization and the constitutional basis, if any, for any intervention in its elected leadership.
The statement said the objective should not be unnecessary confrontation but “truth, reconciliation, institutional clarity and respect for established custom.”
It emphasized that history, ancestral lineage, custom, the Ofor, traditional nomenclature and the rule of law are central to preserving the dignity and integrity of the Umuna traditional institution.
The author concluded that the controversy is bigger than any individual, arguing that it raises broader questions about the relationship between government recognition, customary legitimacy, hereditary succession and the constitutional boundaries of traditional authority.
Written by:
MR. CANICE DURU
For publication and public enlightenment.
