House of Chiefs should be next

NOW that we are about to establish state police in the Constitution, the next step should be the establishment of House of Chiefs in the Constitution too. It is a wish. I am afraid the wish may be dead on arrival. Considering the present set of politicians that we have, I do not see the possibility. They would not want competition for power and influence with the future House of Chiefs. They would rather give the traditional rulers gifts or collect titles from them or use them for state functions.  Moreover, the traditional rulers themselves seem to be satisfied with what they are indulging in now. Low-profile responsibilities without constitutional schedules. They are not pushing enough to have constitutional roles and they are behaving as if they are helpless.  If not for fear and the urgency of necessity, the state police will not be. Yet, the idea of House of Chiefs is not new in our political history. If we want it, we can reactivate the process.

After the London Constitutional Conference of 1957, the conference noted with approval the intention of the government of the Northern Region to secure wider representation in the Northern House of Chiefs. It agreed that the members of the Northern House of Chiefs should be all first-class chiefs, and 95 chiefs other than first-class chiefs, as at present an adviser on Muslim Law, and those members of the Executive Council of the Northern Region who were members of the Northern House of Assembly. The conference also agreed that the West membership of the House of Chiefs should be increased to 124, that power to recognise and grade chiefs for the purpose of the Constitution should be vested in the Governor-in-Council and that the House of Chiefs should have delaying powers similar to those possessed in the United Kingdom by the House of Lords. The…