CHIEFTAINCY LAW – Selection of Traditional Rulers – Challenge to Participation of Kingmakers – Effect on Validity of Election
Ratio Decidendi
Per Kalgo, JSC, in Ibrahim v. Aliyu (2000) NLC-1071996(SC) at pp. 9–10; Paras. B–A:
"The learned trial judge reviewed the evidence of both DWs 1, 3 and 4, as can be seen on page 152 of the record, and accepted their evidence. There is in my view no apparent contradiction between the evidence of PW 4 and that of DWs 1, 3 and 4. What the P.W. 4 was saying as in the above quoted passage of his evidence was that as at the material time of the installation arrangements when he collected the pictures of DWs 3 and 4, they were not king-makers. And DWs 1, 3 and 4 did not categorically say that they were king-makers but that they were allowed to participate in the election exercise because of the traditional positions they held at that time."
Explanation / Scope
Challenged kingmaker participation doesn’t automatically invalidate selection if: evidence shows no actual contradiction, participants held traditional positions justifying participation, and selection procedures were substantially followed. Here, evidence showed: disputed participants weren’t formally “kingmakers” but held traditional positions permitting participation. No contradiction exists when: one witness says they weren’t formal kingmakers, others say they participated based on traditional positions—both can be true. This serves: recognizing customary practice flexibility, distinguishing formal status from participatory rights, and preventing technical invalidation of valid selections. Courts assess: were disputed participants entitled to participate based on custom? did their participation affect outcome (see Principle 534)? was selection substantially valid? The principle recognizes: customary chieftaincy processes may be flexible, formal titles don’t exclusively determine participation rights, and traditional positions may justify participation. Challenging kingmaker status requires: proving they weren’t entitled to participate under custom, showing their participation affected outcome, and demonstrating selection invalidity. Mere technical status disputes don’t invalidate otherwise proper selections following customary practice.