Constituency Control of Legislators: Lessons from Nigeria

Abstract

It has been argued that it is ‘rather curious’ to claim that societies without a modern system of government have no government: ‘It is a rather curious hypothesis to advance that because these societies lack modern government paraphernalia, they lack government of any kind.’ It would be rather absurd to say that the pre-colonial societies that constitute present-day Nigeria or any other African country did not have some form of constitutional arrangement or another, by whatever name it might have been known. It must be added that early Western education and military might were the only advantages that those societies lacked to advance their own cause, political ideals, ideologies and constitutional norms. In pre-colonial Nigeria there were the Sokoto Caliphate, Bornu Empire, Benin Empire, Oyo Empire, the Calabari and other societies. These territorial frameworks had their own systems of government, whether emirate or kingship, which were quite functional and satisfied the needs of their people, though there may have been a need for reforms. Some, if not all, of these empires, kingdoms and societies had their own constitutional arrangement, the executive, legislature, judiciary and system of control, whether political or constitutional. No matter by what name they were called and administered, the most important thing was that they had a system, which functioned well until the ‘protectors’, who wanted everything their own way, found otherwise. However, traditional African societies had their legislative process, which was identical in structure and form. Although the king, Oba or the chief was the traditional paramount ruler, he was usually assisted by the council of chiefs in decision-making. For example, it is recorded that the Oba of Benin met frequently with his council of chiefs to take decisions. These decisions were binding on all his subjects. According to Bradbury, while writing about the Kingdom of Benin: