By Ejiro Ofoye

In the ancient political philosophy of Africa, the traditional ruler was never designed to be a partisan actor. He was the custodian of culture, the moral compass of the people, and the father of all — irrespective of political affiliation, religion, class, or ideology. The palace was sacred ground; a place where politicians came not for endorsements, but for blessings, counsel, and prayers.

Today, however, that sacred neutrality is gradually being eroded.

Across Nigeria, particularly within the Niger Delta, traditional institutions are increasingly being drawn into partisan politics in ways that threaten their credibility, historical dignity, and unifying role in society. What was once a revered institution above politics now risks becoming an appendage of political machinery.

The recent political developments in Delta State have again brought this troubling reality into public discourse. Reports emerged that the Itsekiri nation organised a massive rally in support of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Delta State Governor  Sheriff Oborevwori ahead of the 2027 elections. While every citizen and ethnic nationality reserves the constitutional right to support candidates of their choice, the growing perception that royal institutions are becoming openly partisan has generated widespread concern among many Nigerians.

At the heart of the controversy are allegations that Warri’s most revered throne was associated with the endorsement atmosphere surrounding President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Governor Sheriff Oborevwori. Whether symbolic, direct, or indirect, the optics alone raise a constitutional and moral question: should traditional rulers publicly align with political candidates?

The answer, from both historical precedent and democratic logic, ought to be no.

Traditional institutions predate Nigeria itself. Long before colonial rule, kingship systems across the Benin Kingdom, Oyo Empire, Kanem-Bornu, Sokoto Caliphate, Warri Kingdom, and many others served as stabilising forces for governance and communal identity. The traditional ruler was not expected to descend into factional political battles. He belonged to everybody.

A monarch’s authority is moral, cultural, and spiritual — not electoral.

Once a throne openly identifies with one candidate against others, it inevitably alienates sections of its own people. Opposition supporters begin to feel excluded from the palace. Aspirants denied royal sympathy may interpret state actions through the lens of political bias. The king gradually transforms from a father figure into a political stakeholder.

That is dangerous for democracy and even more dangerous for the monarchy itself.

In constitutional democracies, the neutrality of traditional institutions is essential for social cohesion. Traditional rulers are expected to welcome all aspirants equally, offer royal blessings impartially, and encourage peaceful participation in the democratic process.

Their role should be: to preach peace, promote unity, discourage violence, and pray for credible leadership.

Not to determine who the people must vote for.

When royal fathers allegedly instruct subjects to support only one candidate, democracy suffers. Elections cease to become contests of ideas and performance; they become contests of influence and royal patronage.

The people must retain the freedom to choose leaders based on competence, vision, integrity, and performance — not palace directives.

One of the most disturbing dimensions of modern Nigerian politics is the growing perception that some political endorsements by traditional institutions are tied to material benefits.

Vehicles are donated. Palaces are renovated. Large financial gifts are exchanged. Royal entourages are sponsored. 

Political actors understand that association with a respected throne can manufacture legitimacy. In return, some royal institutions appear increasingly dependent on political patronage for survival and prestige.

This unhealthy relationship compromises independence.

A traditional ruler who openly celebrates one politician because that politician “takes care of the palace” risks reducing the monarchy to transactional politics. The throne loses its spiritual distance from power and begins to appear purchasable.

That perception alone weakens public confidence.

If this trend continues unchecked, Nigeria may face severe consequences:

Loss of respect for traditional institutions. Young people already questioning inherited authority may completely lose faith in monarchies perceived as politically compromised.

Division within ethnic nationalities occur. No ethnic group is politically homogeneous. When a throne backs one candidate, citizens supporting other parties feel politically orphaned within their own kingdom.

There will be increase in political tension. Royal endorsements can inflame already fragile ethnic and political tensions, especially in politically sensitive states like Delta.

Erosion of cultural authority will also occur. The moment a king becomes seen as a politician, his moral authority diminishes. Future interventions in conflict resolution may no longer command universal respect.

Historically, some of Nigeria’s greatest traditional rulers maintained remarkable political restraint. They understood that kingship survives governments. Presidents come and go. Governors rise and fall. Political parties disappear. But institutions endure only when they remain above temporary political battles.

The throne must outlive elections. 

Many respected monarchs across Africa maintained cordial relationships with governments without descending into open endorsements. They acted as statesmen, custodians of heritage, and fathers of all — not campaign directors.

That distinction is critical.

This is not an attack on any individual monarch or ethnic nationality. Rather, it is a patriotic call for reflection.

Nigeria needs strong traditional institutions now more than ever. In an era of political instability, insecurity, declining moral values, and ethnic distrust, royal fathers should stand as symbols of impartiality and unity.

Traditional rulers must resist the temptation to become extensions of political structures.

Let politicians campaign. Let parties mobilise. Let citizens decide.

But let the palace remain sacred.

The king who blesses all candidates equally preserves both democracy and the dignity of the throne. The king who openly chooses sides risks reducing centuries of heritage into seasonal political theatre.

And when the throne loses neutrality, society loses one of its last moral sanctuaries.

•Dr. Ofoye a public affairs analyst, writes from Lagos.