At 85, Obi of Onitsha’s Ancient Throne Sparks Fresh Debate Over Government Authority

By Olisemeka Sony

As the Obi of Onitsha, Igwe Alfred Nnaemeka Achebe, celebrated his 85th birthday, a fresh debate has emerged over the constitutional and historical status of the Onitsha monarchy within Nigeria’s traditional institution framework.

The debate followed the publication of an opinion article by legal practitioner, historian, journalist and public affairs commentator, Mr. Ejiofor Umegbogu, who argued that the Obi of Onitsha remains the only traditional ruler in the South-East whose authority does not derive from government recognition.

In the article published as part of activities marking the monarch’s birthday celebration, Umegbogu stated that the Onitsha royal institution predates both colonial administration and the Nigerian state by several centuries.

“The Obi of Onitsha predates the government,” he wrote. “It is the only traditional institution in the South-East that was not established by government authority.”

According to him, the throne belongs to the class of ancient African monarchies comparable to the Ooni of Ife, Alaafin of Oyo, Oba of Benin, Obong of Calabar, Attah of Igala and Shehu of Borno, which he described as institutions that existed independently before colonial rule.

Umegbogu claimed that British representatives who arrived east of the Niger encountered a fully organized monarchy in Onitsha under Obi Akazue and subsequently entered into treaties with the kingdom in 1863 and 1884.

“The British government met an already well-established monarchical system in Onitsha,” he stated, adding that the agreements reflected “mutual cooperation between two organized authorities.”

He further argued that the unique historical relationship between the British Crown and the Onitsha monarchy distinguished the throne from many traditional institutions later absorbed into the colonial indirect rule system.

According to him, this historical background explains why the Obi of Onitsha does not hold a Certificate of Recognition issued by the Anambra State Government.

“The government cannot withdraw what it did not create,” Umegbogu declared. “The Obi of Onitsha is the only traditional ruler in the South-East who cannot be dethroned by a governor.”

The commentator also maintained that many traditional stools in the South-East were formalized under the 1976 chieftaincy reforms introduced during the administration of the former East Central State, while the Onitsha monarchy had existed independently long before then.

He identified the Eze Nri as the only likely exception within Igboland, describing the institution as primarily spiritual rather than political.

“Eze Nri was fundamentally a spiritual leader,” he wrote, noting that the institution historically focused on ritual obligations, oath administration and spiritual mediation.

By contrast, he described the Obi of Onitsha as combining both temporal and spiritual authority.

“It is an obvious fact of history that the Onitsha traditional stool is clothed with both sociopolitical influence as ‘Lord Temporal’ and divine influence as ‘Lord Spiritual,’” he stated.

Umegbogu also questioned the rotational leadership arrangement within the Anambra State Traditional Rulers Council, arguing that the historical stature of the Onitsha monarchy places it above parity with other traditional institutions in the state.

He wrote: “The leadership amongst traditional rulers in Anambra should not be rotational as if they are equals, which they are not.”

The article has since generated renewed discussions among historians, cultural scholars and political observers over the place of ancient traditional institutions within Nigeria’s modern constitutional order.