By Sada Salisu Rumah, Ph.D. | Senior Analyst, Fasaha Stream, Katsina
October 14, 2026 | Editorial Series: Tradition & Governance
Northern Nigeria’s traditional institutions have survived centuries of political transformation, from precolonial kingdoms and the Sokoto Caliphate to British colonial rule, military governments and constitutional democracy. Yet, beneath the continuity of royal titles, palaces and dynastic traditions lies a profound transformation: the transfer of much of the political authority once exercised by traditional rulers to modern governments.
At the apex of this historical landscape stand two distinct institutions: the Sultanate of Sokoto and the Shehu dynasty of Borno. Beneath these historic centres of authority are emirs, chiefs, district heads, village heads and ward heads, whose responsibilities and relationships vary across the region.
Understanding this structure requires more than identifying who ranks above whom. It demands an examination of how traditional authority developed, how colonial conquest changed the power to appoint and remove rulers, and how contemporary state governments acquired statutory powers to recognise, grade and reorganise traditional institutions.
The central question is whether Northern Nigeria can preserve the historical legitimacy of its traditional institutions while ensuring that they operate within a transparent, stable and lawful system of governance.
Two Historic Centres of Traditional Authority
The Sultan of Sokoto and the Shehu of Borno occupy distinctive positions in Northern Nigeria’s history, but they represent separate political and dynastic traditions.
The Sultanate of Sokoto emerged from the jihad led by Sheikh Usman dan Fodio between 1804 and 1808. The resulting Caliphate developed into an extensive political and religious system encompassing numerous emirates and territories, including Kano, Katsina, Zazzau, Gwandu, Bauchi and Adamawa.
The Sultan, as successor to the Caliphate’s leadership, occupies a prominent position in the religious, cultural and historical life of Northern Nigeria. His institution represents a political and intellectual heritage that extends beyond the boundaries of present-day Sokoto State.
Historically, the Caliphate exercised considerable influence over the emirates associated with it. The recognition of emirs could involve the Caliph, dynastic eligibility and the acceptance of influential political figures. However, the emirates retained varying degrees of administrative autonomy, and their relationships with the Caliphate were shaped by political circumstances, military power, religious authority and established conventions.
The Sultan’s historical position should therefore not be confused with an unlimited power of command over every traditional ruler in contemporary Northern Nigeria.
The Shehu of Borno represents a different historical tradition. The Kanuri-led state of Borno possesses a political history extending many centuries before the Sokoto Jihad. Its legitimacy does not derive from the Sokoto Caliphate.
The relationship between the Shehu and the Sultan is consequently best understood as one between the heads of distinct historical institutions, rather than a relationship in which the Shehu is automatically subordinate to the Sultan.
This distinction is essential to understanding the region’s traditional landscape. Historical supremacy, religious standing and constitutional jurisdiction are related, but they are not interchangeable.
Before Colonial Conquest: Who Controlled Appointments?
Before British colonial conquest, the appointment of traditional rulers was governed primarily by the political and customary institutions of the societies concerned.
In the Sokoto Caliphate, succession to the Sultanate and emirates involved established conventions, dynastic considerations, recognised eligibility and the participation of kingmakers or other influential authorities. The precise procedures varied across political centres and historical periods.
The Sultan exercised considerable influence over emirates associated with the Caliphate, but it would be inaccurate to suggest that every appointment was made exclusively by the Sultan or that every emir possessed unlimited authority within his territory.
Emirs also exercised substantial powers over appointments to subordinate positions, including district and village leadership. These arrangements helped maintain a system in which authority extended from the palace into local communities.
Borno operated under a different dynastic and political framework, reflecting its distinct historical development.
The critical point is that the legitimacy of traditional succession originally rested primarily on established political conventions, customary procedures and dynastic traditions, rather than the discretionary authority of a modern state governor.
British conquest fundamentally altered this relationship.
The Colonial Turning Point: From Indigenous Sovereignty to Government Supervision
When the British conquered Northern Nigeria in the early twentieth century, they encountered organised political systems with administrative officials, judicial institutions, taxation arrangements and established procedures for succession.
Rather than dismantling every indigenous institution, the colonial administration retained many existing rulers and incorporated them into a system of government known as Indirect Rule.
Traditional rulers continued to exercise certain administrative functions, but increasingly within a political order controlled by British colonial officials.
The apparent continuity of traditional government therefore concealed a significant transfer of political authority.
Historical research by Peter K. Tibenderana documents the substantial influence exercised by British officials over the appointment of emirs in Northern Nigeria between 1901 and 1931, particularly in Sokoto Province.
Colonial decisions were influenced not only by dynastic eligibility but also by administrative priorities, political security and concerns about resistance to British rule.
This development provides important historical context for contemporary debates about the appointment, removal and recognition of traditional rulers.
The fall of Sultan Attahiru I
One of the most consequential episodes in the history of the Sokoto Sultanate occurred in 1903, following the British military conquest of Sokoto.
Sultan Muhammadu Attahiru I, who succeeded Sultan Abdurrahman dan Atiku in 1902, confronted the advancing colonial forces. Following the British occupation of Sokoto in March 1903, Attahiru I left the city with followers who remained committed to his leadership.
His departure formed part of the wider struggle over the survival of the Caliphate’s political independence. The British subsequently pursued his forces, and Attahiru I was killed at Burmi in July 1903 during the final confrontation associated with his resistance.
His death was not an ordinary deposition arising from a disagreement with an administrative authority. It occurred in the context of military conquest and the destruction of the Sultanate’s independent political sovereignty.
The British subsequently recognised Muhammadu Attahiru II as Sultan in 1903. Although Attahiru II belonged to the established dynastic tradition, his recognition occurred within a political system now controlled by the colonial administration.
The Sultanate survived, but its relationship with political power had fundamentally changed.
The British had demonstrated that a traditional ruler could retain his title, palace, religious standing and public recognition while losing the independent political authority that had originally sustained his office.
Under Indirect Rule, the Sultan and other emirs continued to perform certain administrative and religious functions, but their authority was increasingly subject to colonial supervision. The colonial government retained decisive influence over appointments, legislation, taxation and administrative policy.
Traditional legitimacy and governmental control had become increasingly separated.
Borno under colonial rule
Borno experienced a related transformation, although its political history differed from that of Sokoto.
The region’s political landscape had already been altered by the rise of Rabih az-Zubayr in the late nineteenth century and the destruction of Kukawa in 1894. Following Rabih’s defeat by French forces in 1900, the British moved to establish their authority in the region.
Abubakar Garbai was recognised by the British as Shehu of Borno in 1902 and formally invested at Kukawa in 1904.
His recognition occurred under British colonial supremacy rather than through the restoration of an entirely independent precolonial state.
The Shehu retained important traditional responsibilities, and the dynasty continued to serve as a source of political and cultural legitimacy. Nevertheless, its authority operated within the colonial administrative framework.
The experiences of Sokoto and Borno reveal a broader pattern: colonial administrations could preserve established dynasties while shifting the power to recognise, supervise and regulate their rulers towards the colonial state.
The British did not need to abolish traditional institutions to subordinate them. They could retain the institutions while controlling the political framework within which they operated.
How Colonial Precedent Shaped the Modern Powers of Governors
The relationship between colonial rule and contemporary gubernatorial authority requires an important legal distinction.
Modern governors do not derive their powers simply because British colonial officials once appointed or removed emirs. Colonial practice, by itself, is not a source of present-day constitutional authority.
Rather, the colonial experience established an administrative precedent in which the dominant government exercised decisive control over traditional institutions. Subsequent administrations inherited and modified aspects of that model through legislation and successive constitutional arrangements.
Following independence in 1960, traditional institutions continued to operate under changing regional and state administrative systems.
Military governments between 1966 and 1999 further transformed the relationship between traditional authorities and the state. The creation of additional states, the reorganisation of local government and the expansion of statutory administrative structures altered the territorial and institutional environment in which traditional rulers operated.
The 1976 Local Government Reform was particularly significant. It reorganised local administration and further separated traditional institutions from the formal machinery of local government, although traditional rulers continued to perform important customary, cultural and advisory functions.
With the return to civilian government in 1999, traditional institutions continued to function within a constitutional system in which governments exercise powers assigned to them by law.
State legislation may prescribe procedures for appointing, recognising, suspending or removing traditional rulers. It may also provide for the establishment, classification, reorganisation or division of emirates and chiefdoms.
Where a law grants a governor a specific power, that power must be exercised within the limits and procedures established by the applicable law.
The authority to appoint an emir is not necessarily identical to the authority to create a new emirate, divide an existing one or remove an incumbent ruler. Each action must be examined under the relevant legislation.
The colonial legacy is therefore important to understanding the historical development of governmental control, but the legal basis of a governor’s contemporary decision must be established through Nigerian law.
Appointment, Removal and the Creation of Emirates: Three Different Powers
Public debate frequently treats the appointment of an emir, the removal of an incumbent and the creation of a new emirate as though they were the same exercise of power. They are not.
Appointment of an emir concerns the process through which a vacant traditional office is filled. Depending on the relevant state law, the process may involve a ruling house, kingmakers, an electoral body, recommendations from designated authorities and formal approval by a governor or another authorised institution.
The extent of gubernatorial discretion varies according to the applicable legislation. The central issue is whether the statutory recognition process respects the established succession procedures and the roles assigned to other institutions.
Removal of an emir concerns the termination of an incumbent’s tenure. It may involve statutory grounds, prescribed procedures, administrative investigations or other conditions established by law.
The legal requirements differ between states and should not be assumed to be identical.
The experience of Sultan Attahiru I must not be equated with a contemporary gubernatorial removal. Attahiru I was killed in the course of resisting military conquest, while Attahiru II was recognised after the British had established colonial supremacy. Modern removal decisions must be assessed against the applicable Nigerian legal framework.
Creation, division or merger of emirates concerns the territorial and institutional structure of traditional authority. Where the applicable law permits, a government may establish a new emirate, alter boundaries, reorganise districts or change the administrative status of an existing institution.
Such decisions can affect historical jurisdiction, dynastic relationships, the distribution of traditional offices and the costs associated with administration.
Although these powers are distinct, they can interact. A decision to divide an emirate, for example, may create new vacancies, alter established succession arrangements and change the status of existing traditional rulers.
The consequences can be substantial for the affected communities and institutions.
Understanding the Traditional Hierarchy
Northern Nigeria does not have one uniform traditional hierarchy governing every emirate and chiefdom. Structures vary according to history, state legislation and contemporary administrative arrangements.
Nevertheless, a broad six-level model helps explain the relationships between major traditional rulers and the lower levels of traditional administration.
Level One: Historic centres of traditional authority
The Sultan of Sokoto and the Shehu of Borno occupy distinctive positions in the historical and cultural traditions of Northern Nigeria. Their institutions represent separate historical experiences, and neither should automatically be treated as occupying the same constitutional or statutory position across all Northern states.
Level Two: First-class emirs and chiefs
First-class traditional rulers occupy senior positions within the grading systems established by their respective states. Examples include the emirs of Kano, Katsina, Zazzau, Gwandu, Bauchi and Adamawa.
Their standing reflects varying combinations of historical significance, customary legitimacy and administrative arrangements recognised under state law.
However, first-class status does not automatically establish a ruler’s authority over every other traditional institution in Northern Nigeria.
Level Three: Second- and third-class rulers
These rulers occupy positions determined by the applicable state grading system. Their responsibilities, territorial jurisdictions and relationships with higher traditional authorities vary according to the relevant legal and customary arrangements.
The creation of additional emirates can change these relationships, particularly where previously subordinate territories acquire independent traditional institutions.
Level Four: District heads — Hakimai
District heads provide an important link between senior traditional authorities and the communities within their jurisdictions.
Their responsibilities may include customary administration, community engagement, the transmission of information, support for dispute resolution and participation in local peacebuilding.
Their precise authority depends on the applicable state laws and administrative arrangements.
Level Five: Village heads — Dagatai
Village heads connect traditional administration more directly with individual settlements. They may help resolve minor community disputes, facilitate communication with district authorities and support local initiatives.
Level Six: Ward heads — Masu Unguwanni
At the grassroots level, ward heads maintain close relationships with residents and possess valuable knowledge of community conditions.
Their proximity to the people makes them important in communicating local concerns, supporting social cohesion and identifying emerging disputes.
Although their formal powers vary, their practical significance should not be underestimated.
The survival of traditional institutions depends not only on the prestige of the palace but also on the continued relevance of leadership at the grassroots.
The Katsina Model: Historical Continuity and Institutional Identity
Katsina provides an important example of the relationship between historical legitimacy and modern administration.
One of the historic Hausa Bakwai, Katsina developed as a major centre of Hausa political, commercial and Islamic scholarship long before the establishment of the Sokoto Caliphate.
The Sokoto Jihad brought about a major political transformation in Katsina during the early nineteenth century, but it did not erase the territory’s older historical identity.
Over subsequent generations, the emirate developed under successive rulers and later became part of the British colonial administrative system.
During the reign of Emir Dikko, from 1906 to 1944, Katsina operated within the colonial system of Indirect Rule. Traditional administration was incorporated into a wider structure of colonial supervision, taxation and local government.
The experience illustrates how an established traditional institution could preserve its identity while adapting to a changing political environment.
Contemporary Katsina State recognises the historic emirates of Katsina and Daura. Their continued existence reflects the importance of inherited historical identities within the state’s modern administrative framework.
Katsina’s experience also raises a broader question: how should governments balance the recognition of historic emirates with demands for new traditional institutions?
The answer requires more than an assessment of administrative convenience. It calls for consideration of historical continuity, customary legitimacy, community identity, the distribution of public responsibilities and the legal framework governing traditional institutions.
This does not mean that every historical arrangement must remain unchanged. Rather, reforms should recognise that traditional institutions possess historical and cultural significance that cannot be measured solely by administrative boundaries or official grading.
The Proliferation of Emirates: When Administrative Expansion Challenges Historical Identity
The creation of additional emirates has become a significant feature of debates about traditional institutions in Northern Nigeria.
Kano provides a prominent example.
In 2019, the administration of Governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje established additional emirates within Kano State, restructuring the traditional landscape around the historic Kano Emirate.
In 2024, Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf’s administration repealed the legislation underpinning that arrangement and restored the previous structure. The changes led to the removal of the newly installed emirs and the restoration of the former Kano Emirate arrangement.
The episode demonstrated how changes in state legislation and executive policy can substantially reshape traditional institutions within a short period. It also illustrated the consequences of making traditional administration a subject of competing political programmes.
The wider debate raises several important questions.
First, what historical or administrative problem is a new emirate intended to solve? If the objective is to bring traditional leadership closer to remote communities, the proposal should demonstrate how the new institution will improve access to administration, community representation and dispute resolution.
Second, how will the change affect existing traditional relationships? The division of an established emirate may alter customary jurisdiction, dynastic relationships and the historical identity of communities.
Third, what are the financial implications? New traditional institutions may require administrative facilities, personnel, security arrangements and other public expenditure, depending on the applicable arrangements. These costs should be assessed transparently rather than assumed to be insignificant or automatically excessive.
Fourth, what happens when a subsequent government reverses the decision? Frequent restructuring can create uncertainty for communities and traditional officeholders. It may also weaken confidence in the durability of institutional arrangements.
The issue is therefore not simply whether more emirates should be created. It is whether the reasons for creating them are sufficiently compelling, the procedures lawful and the resulting institutions sustainable.
Grading and Recognition: Does First-Class Status Define Historical Importance?
Traditional rulers are frequently classified according to grades established by state governments. These classifications can influence official protocol, administrative recognition and the allocation of certain responsibilities or resources, depending on applicable laws and policies.
However, grading must be distinguished from historical legitimacy.
A traditional institution may possess a long history without being classified in the highest statutory grade. Conversely, a newly established institution may receive a high administrative classification under the law creating or recognising it.
If historical significance is measured exclusively by official grading, the state risks confusing administrative classification with inherited legitimacy. Similarly, if historical precedence alone determines every question of contemporary administration, the system may struggle to accommodate legitimate changes in population, settlement patterns and community needs.
A balanced approach should recognise three separate considerations.
Historical legitimacy: The origin, continuity and inherited traditions of the institution.
Administrative status: The classification and responsibilities established under state law.
Community relevance: The institution’s practical contribution to social cohesion, local representation and peaceful coexistence.
These considerations can overlap, but none should automatically substitute for the others.
For this reason, numerical claims about the total number of emirates and chiefdoms, their distribution by class and the precise criteria for first-class status require current, authoritative, state-by-state verification before publication. The absence of a verified national register makes it inappropriate to present changing figures as settled facts.
The objective should be to ensure that administrative grading serves legitimate public purposes without becoming the sole measure of a traditional institution’s historical or cultural worth.
The Constitutional Question: Are Traditional Rulers Independent of Government?
This question lies at the heart of contemporary debate.
Traditional rulers possess legitimacy derived from dynastic history, customary procedures, community acceptance and, in many cases, religious traditions. Modern state governments, however, exercise authority under the Constitution and applicable legislation.
These are different foundations of authority.
A traditional ruler may enjoy profound historical and cultural recognition while remaining subject to statutory provisions governing the office. Equally, a governor’s political authority does not automatically confer unlimited discretion over every traditional institution.
The legality of an appointment, removal, regrading or restructuring must be established by reference to the applicable law.
The historical record demonstrates that colonial administrations could exercise decisive control over traditional appointments. Modern constitutional government must be assessed according to its own legal standards rather than simply equated with colonial rule.
Nevertheless, the historical experience provides an important warning against excessive political interference.
Where the tenure of traditional rulers depends heavily on changing political preferences, the institution may become vulnerable to partisan disputes. Where succession procedures are unclear, disagreements may undermine community confidence. Where new emirates are created without adequate consultation or transparent justification, the resulting changes may produce tensions over territory, status and historical identity.
The solution is not necessarily to remove all governmental involvement from traditional administration, nor to assume that every traditional arrangement should be immune from lawful reform.
Instead, the objective should be to establish clear procedures, consistent legal standards and sufficient institutional safeguards to ensure that decisions are made transparently and fairly.
Restoring the Balance: Tradition, Law and Responsible Governance
The future of Northern Nigeria’s traditional institutions depends on a workable relationship between historical legitimacy and modern government.
Several principles deserve serious consideration.
First, succession procedures should be clear and predictable. Traditional institutions and state governments should operate under established rules identifying the roles of ruling houses, kingmakers, relevant authorities and statutory approving bodies.
Second, removal procedures should comply strictly with the law. Where legislation prescribes grounds or procedures for removing a traditional ruler, those requirements should be followed. Clarity reduces uncertainty and strengthens public confidence.
Third, the creation of new emirates should be evidence-based. Proposals should identify the administrative needs they are intended to address, the views of affected communities and the financial implications of establishing additional institutions.
Fourth, historical records should inform contemporary decisions. The history of an emirate, its territorial development and its established relationships with neighbouring institutions should be properly documented before major restructuring is undertaken.
Fifth, traditional institutions should remain relevant to their communities. Their continuing importance should be demonstrated through peacebuilding, mediation, cultural preservation, public enlightenment and constructive engagement with social and economic challenges.
Finally, government and traditional authorities should recognise their respective responsibilities. Traditional rulers should operate within the law, while governments should exercise their statutory powers consistently, transparently and with due regard for the historical and cultural significance of the institutions concerned.
These principles can help preserve the value of traditional leadership without denying the authority of constitutional government.
Conclusion: Beyond the Pyramid
The history of Northern Nigeria’s traditional institutions is a story of continuity and transformation.
The Sultanate of Sokoto and the Shehu dynasty of Borno emerged from distinct historical experiences. Their political authority developed long before the modern Nigerian state.
British colonial conquest altered that landscape. The death of Sultan Attahiru I in 1903, the recognition of Attahiru II and the subsequent subordination of the Sultanate to colonial administration illustrate how military conquest enabled the British to assume decisive influence over traditional political institutions.
The colonial administration applied a related approach in Borno, recognising Abubakar Garbai as Shehu within the political framework established by British supremacy.
Through Indirect Rule, the British retained traditional institutions while subordinating important aspects of their authority to colonial government. The resulting system established a lasting precedent for governmental supervision of traditional leadership.
However, the powers exercised by contemporary governors must be understood through Nigeria’s constitutional and statutory arrangements, not attributed to colonial history alone. Modern laws determine the procedures through which traditional rulers may be appointed, removed, graded or recognised, and the circumstances in which emirates may be created or reorganised.
The historical legacy nevertheless remains relevant because it helps explain how traditional institutions came to operate within a political system in which governmental recognition can have decisive consequences for their status and leadership.
The challenge before Northern Nigeria is to preserve the historical dignity of its traditional institutions while ensuring that they function within a clear, fair and lawful administrative framework.
A pyramid is only as strong as its foundation. In traditional governance, that foundation consists of historical legitimacy, public confidence, responsible leadership and the relationship between the palace and the people.
The enduring question is not merely who occupies the throne, who appoints the ruler or who determines the grade of an emirate. It is how Northern Nigeria can reconcile its rich traditional heritage with the requirements of constitutional government, institutional stability and responsible public administration.
Until that balance is achieved, the debate over traditional authority will remain a central part of Northern Nigeria’s political and cultural development.
Editor’s Note: This article is part of Fasaha Stream’s Tradition & Governance editorial series.
Selected References
- Tibenderana, P. K. (1987). “The Role of the British Administration in the Appointment of the Emirs of Northern Nigeria, 1901–1931: The Case of Sokoto Province.” The Journal of African History, 28(2), 231–257.
- Tibenderana, P. K. (1988). “The Irony of Indirect Rule in Sokoto Emirate, Nigeria, 1903–1944.” African Studies Review, 31(1), 67–92.
- Zubairu, U., and Barnabas, D. (2018). “An Analysis of the Evolution, Power and Functions of the Native Authority System in Northern Nigeria.” Kashere Journal of Humanities, Management and Social Sciences, 2(2).
- Owolade, F. (2025). “Imperial Law and Native Authority: Legal Pluralism in the Making of Colonial Northern Nigeria, 1900–1920.” Legal Pluralism and Critical Social Analysis.
Tags: #TraditionalInstitution #SultanOfSokoto #ShehuOfBorno #EmirOfKano #EmirOfKatsina #NorthernNigeria #TraditionAndGovernance #SadaSalisuRumah
