LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CHIEFTAINCY LAW — Appointment of Minor Chiefs — Democratic Principles in Family Nomination
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A ruling house entitled to nominate candidates for a chieftaincy stool can only act through a majority of its members in a democratic society. It cannot be said that a legislation is complied with if a minority performs the act. Courts should not spurn democratic ideals to take refuge in archaic traditions that disenfranchise the majority.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Pats-Acholonu, JSC, in Adejugbe & Anor v. Ologunja (2004) NLC-2302000(SC) at pp. 13–14; Paras E–A.
"The Agaigi ruling house as a body entitled to nominate candidates for appointment to the stool of Olofin of Ilishan-Remo can in my opinion only act or perform that function through a majority of its members. Our society being a democratic society, it cannot be said that a legislation requiring such a body to perform an act is complied with if a minority of the members of the body performs the act. In a democratic society it is the intention or will of the majority that prevails. We would be regressing into the past if we should allow ourselves to spurn the beautiful and edifying philosophy and ethos underlying the concept of democratic ideals and principles only to take refuge or shelter in archaic tradition that seeks to emasculate or disenfranchise or discriminate the majority of the right thinking members of a community or for that matter any society."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Majority decision governs family nominations for chieftaincy stools in a democratic society. Minority action cannot satisfy legislative requirements. The principle applies to chieftaincy law. The rule rejects archaic traditions that disenfranchise the majority. Democratic ideals prevail over undemocratic customary practices. Courts must uphold majority will in family nominations.
