The Constitution clearly defines public service in a way that excludes traditional institutions. However, it is through judicial interpretation that this exclusion has been firmly reinforced.
Nigerian courts have repeatedly drawn a sharp distinction between statutory public offices and traditional stools. In several cases bordering on chieftaincy disputes, the courts have emphasized that the office of an Oba is rooted in customary law and governed by state chieftaincy laws, not by the Constitution or federal public service rules.
A key principle that emerges from cases such as Eze v. Governor of Abia State and Adesanya v. Otuewu is that: the appointment, recognition, and removal of traditional rulers are purely chieftaincy matters. These matters are often treated as domestic or specialized issues, sometimes even placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of customary or designated courts. Traditional rulers do not enjoy the legal status, protections, or obligations attached to public servants. Therefore, classifying them as public servants on the basis of collecting salaries from the government only is, to my mind, superficial and tokenism.
In Eze v. Governor of Abia State, the court underscored that a traditional ruler’s position, though recognized by government, does not equate to holding a public office created by the Constitution. The governor’s role in recognizing a traditional ruler was held to be an exercise of statutory power under state law, not the creation of a public service relationship.
Similarly, in Adesanya v. Otuewu, the court reiterated that disputes over traditional titles are not matters of public service but rather issues of customary law and local governance, even when government authorities are involved in the process.
Another important thread in judicial reasoning is that public servants are employees or office holders within a defined administrative structure, subject to rules such as the Public Service Rules, disciplinary control, and constitutional safeguards. An Oba, by contrast, is not employed by the government, does not derive authority from a letter of appointment in the civil service sense, and is not subject to the same disciplinary frameworks.
Even where stipends or official recognitions are provided by the state, the courts have maintained that such benefits are incidental and do not transform the traditional ruler into a public servant.
However, the courts have also acknowledged a nuanced exception: where a traditional ruler is appointed into a statutory body or government council, he may be regarded as a public officer for that limited purpose. But this status flows from the appointment not from his position as an Oba.
In essence, Nigerian jurisprudence has preserved a careful balance. By refusing to classify traditional rulers as public servants, the courts protect the autonomy and cultural foundation of traditional institutions, while also maintaining the integrity and clarity of the constitutional definition of public service.
My opinion may not count since I am not a legal practitioner but my takeaway is unmistakable; that an Oba may be influential, state-recognized, and even state-funded, but in the eyes of the law, he remains a traditional authority, not a public servant.
In the specific case of Barrister Sarafadeen Alli, the Eekarun Balogun of Ibadanland, there have been controversies as to whether he is qualified to contest Oyo guber election, especially with his recent elevation to a crown wearing chieftaincy title of Eekarun Balogun of Ibadanland. The raging arguments have been that Barrister Sarafadeen Alli cannot contest governorship election on the mere basis of his current traditional status as an oba.
However, there’s no direct or express prohibition in the Oyo Chiefs Law as amended in 2023 that an oba cannot contest an election. The Oyo Chiefs Law is only primarily concerned with recognition and classification of Chiefs, power of the Governor to appoint and approve beaded crown-wearing obas and structure and leadership of the Council of Obas and Chiefs. There is no provision that addresses political participation and electoral eligibility of traditional rulers in the Oyo Chiefs Law 2023 as amended.
The issue of impartiality that civil and public servants must adhere to does not affect traditional rulers in constitutional term. It’s a norm that traditional rulers as fathers of all must be non partisan and therefore, ought not to belong to a political party or contest an election. But whether the norm will stand in the case of Sarafadeen Alli is left for courts to decide.
