Traditional Rulers and the Poverty Question: Why Are South-West Chiefs Receiving as Little as ₦10,000 a Month?

Nigeria’s traditional institution occupies a unique position in the country’s social, cultural and historical development. From settling disputes and preserving cultural heritage to promoting peace, maintaining community relationships and supporting grassroots administration, traditional rulers remain influential figures in many Nigerian communities.

However, a disturbing picture has emerged from the South-West, where some traditional rulers and village heads are reportedly struggling to survive on monthly stipends as low as ₦10,000, while others claim they have not received any government payment for several years.

A report published by Punch Newspapers on Saturday, 14 November 2026, has brought this situation into the national conversation. The report, titled Royal Poverty: South West Chiefs Groan Over N10,000 Salaries, presents accounts from traditional rulers and village heads in Osun, Ogun and Oyo states, alongside responses from government representatives.

The revelations raise important questions about the welfare of traditional rulers, the management of public allocations, the relationship between local governments and traditional institutions, and the sustainability of Nigeria’s grassroots leadership structure.

The issue goes beyond the personal welfare of individual chiefs. It touches on the dignity of traditional institutions, the effectiveness of local governance and the extent to which communities support those expected to provide leadership at the grassroots.

The Traditional Institution Cannot Be Sustained on Symbolic Payments

One of the most striking aspects of the report is the revelation that some village heads in Osun State receive between ₦10,000 and ₦15,000 monthly, while others reportedly receive nothing.

A village head in Ede North Local Government Area disclosed that he had served for more than three years without receiving any government payment. According to him, approximately 31 village heads in the local government were in a similar situation.

In Ogun State, the situation described by some Baales is equally concerning. A village head from Ewekoro alleged that only about 20 out of approximately 700 Baales in the local government received a monthly stipend of ₦10,000, and even those payments were irregular.

Another Baale from Remo North said that some village heads previously received ₦15,000 monthly but had stopped receiving payments since March.

These accounts suggest that the problem may extend beyond a temporary delay in salary payments. They point towards deeper questions about how traditional institutions are funded, how allocations are distributed and whether the existing arrangements adequately recognise the responsibilities of grassroots traditional leaders.

The economic reality must also be considered. With rising costs of food, transportation, electricity, communication and other essential services, ₦10,000 cannot reasonably sustain an individual, let alone support the administrative responsibilities associated with community leadership.

A traditional ruler may not necessarily require the same salary structure as a full-time civil servant. However, the responsibilities attached to an officially recognised traditional position should come with reasonable financial and institutional support.

The Five Per Cent Allocation: Where Is the Money Going?

Perhaps the most important issue raised by the report concerns the five per cent allocation associated with traditional institutions.

The spokesperson for the Osun State Governor, Olawale Rasheed, explained that traditional rulers were entitled to five per cent of monthly local government allocations, which was expected to be distributed according to the hierarchy of traditional institutions.

He attributed the non-payment to the withholding of local government allocations by the Federal Government.

According to him, the money was not the responsibility of the state government, and traditional rulers could not receive their expected payments when the relevant allocation was unavailable.

This explanation raises a fundamental question: what happens to the traditional institution’s allocation when local government funds are delayed, withheld or inaccessible?

The five per cent arrangement should not merely exist as a figure mentioned during government meetings. There must be an identifiable funding mechanism, proper accounting procedures and transparent distribution records.

It is also important to clarify the legal basis of this arrangement. The five per cent allocation should not automatically be described as an express provision of the 1999 Constitution. Section 162 of the Constitution provides the framework for revenue allocation to local governments, while the specific arrangements for funding traditional councils and rulers are also addressed through applicable laws and administrative frameworks.

For example, Ogun State’s Auditor-General reports have documented a five per cent entitlement for traditional councils under the state’s local government joint account allocation arrangements. This demonstrates why the relevant state laws and financial records must be examined when determining how such funds are administered.

The real question is not simply whether five per cent has been allocated on paper. It is whether the money has been received, properly accounted for and fairly distributed to the institutions and individuals for whom it is intended.

Are First-Class Monarchs Receiving More Than Their Fair Share?

Another disturbing dimension of the controversy concerns the alleged distribution of traditional rulers’ allocations.

A monarch from the Ogbomoso area of Oyo State reportedly told Punch that first-class traditional rulers received the largest share of the allocation before distributing the remaining funds to second-class and third-class monarchs and village heads.

According to the account, some Baales received between ₦10,000 and ₦15,000 monthly after the money had passed through different levels of traditional authority.

This allegation deserves serious attention.

Traditional institutions naturally operate with established hierarchies. The authority and responsibilities of a paramount ruler may differ considerably from those of a village head. Consequently, it may be reasonable for their financial entitlements to differ.

However, a hierarchical arrangement should not become an excuse for financial opacity or unfair treatment.

If funds are released for the maintenance and administration of traditional institutions, there should be clear guidelines explaining how the money is distributed.

Every recognised traditional ruler and village head should understand the basis of their entitlement. The distribution process should also be supported by proper financial records.

The public should not be left with a situation where one group controls the allocation while another group continually complains about receiving insignificant amounts without knowing how the figures were determined.

The traditional institution must demonstrate that its internal financial arrangements are transparent, accountable and consistent with the applicable laws.

Traditional Rulers and Political Mobilisation: Are They Remembered Only During Elections?

One of the most politically significant allegations in the Punch report came from Baales in Ogun State.

Some village heads accused politicians of remembering them whenever elections approach but abandoning them after the elections.

A Baale from Ewekoro alleged that traditional leaders were regularly approached to mobilise their communities during election periods, despite receiving little or no financial support from the government.

Another Baale from Remo North expressed a similar concern, suggesting that traditional leaders become less important to politicians once elections are over.

These allegations raise an important question about the relationship between political leaders and traditional institutions.

Traditional rulers are influential at the grassroots. They understand the needs of their communities, maintain relationships with residents and often serve as intermediaries between government officials and the people.

Their influence can be particularly significant during elections, community development programmes, security initiatives and government sensitisation campaigns.

However, the relationship between politicians and traditional rulers should not be reduced to electoral mobilisation.

Traditional rulers should not be treated merely as instruments for securing political support. Their institutions should be recognised as important stakeholders in community development, regardless of whether elections are approaching.

At the same time, traditional rulers must preserve their independence and impartiality. Their responsibility is to serve their communities, not to become political campaign agents for whichever administration controls the government.

The dignity of the traditional institution depends partly on its ability to maintain a respectful relationship with government without compromising its neutrality.

The Responsibility of Local Governments Cannot Be Ignored

The controversy also exposes the importance of effective local government administration.

In Ogun State, the Special Adviser to Governor Dapo Abiodun on Information and Strategy, Kayode Akinmade, maintained that the payment of village heads was the responsibility of their respective local governments.

He explained that Baales were appointed by their respective Kabiyesi and that local governments were expected to provide whatever payments were due to them.

This position introduces another important dimension to the debate.

If local governments are responsible for the payment of traditional chiefs, there must be a clearly defined administrative structure that identifies the beneficiaries, establishes their entitlements and ensures that approved payments are made promptly.

However, government responsibilities should not become a cycle of institutional blame.

When village heads complain about unpaid stipends, the relevant authorities should investigate the complaints, examine financial records and explain the reasons for any outstanding payments.

It is not sufficient for one level of government to refer the matter to another without providing a clear solution.

The people occupying traditional offices deserve to know which institution is responsible for their welfare, how much they are entitled to receive and when the payments should be made.

Oyo State Government’s Response Raises Further Questions

The report also presented the position of the Oyo State Government.

The Commissioner for Information, Dotun Oyelade, dismissed the allegations as untrue but did not provide further details.

While the government is entitled to challenge claims it considers inaccurate, a public-interest matter of this nature deserves a more detailed explanation.

If traditional rulers and village heads are receiving their appropriate payments, the government can strengthen public confidence by publishing relevant information about the payment structure and the distribution of funds.

If the allegations are exaggerated or based on misunderstandings, documentary evidence can help clarify the situation.

Public accountability should not be reduced to exchanges of accusations and denials.

The most effective response is transparency.

Traditional Rulers Perform Responsibilities That Governments Should Not Underestimate

It is important to understand that traditional rulers are not simply ceremonial figures who occupy palaces and participate in cultural celebrations.

In many Nigerian communities, they perform responsibilities that have direct consequences for peace, security and social stability.

These responsibilities include:

1. Conflict resolution: Traditional rulers frequently intervene in disagreements involving families, neighbours, land ownership, community relationships and other local matters.

2. Maintenance of peace: Their influence can help prevent minor disagreements from escalating into serious communal conflicts.

3. Cultural preservation: They protect customs, traditions, historical knowledge and community identities that have been passed from one generation to another.

4. Community development: They encourage residents, business owners and indigenes in the diaspora to contribute to infrastructure and other development initiatives.

5. Grassroots communication: They serve as important channels through which government policies, public information and community concerns can be communicated.

6. Security cooperation: Their knowledge of local communities can assist relevant security agencies in understanding grassroots challenges and improving community engagement.

These responsibilities require time, resources and institutional support.

A village head who regularly attends meetings, resolves disputes and responds to community concerns may have less time to concentrate on personal economic activities.

Although traditional rulers may have independent sources of income, that should not become an excuse for neglecting the financial obligations attached to their recognised offices.

The Local Government Autonomy Question

The debate over traditional rulers’ remuneration also brings the issue of local government autonomy into focus.

The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment of 11 July 2024 on local government financial autonomy strengthened the constitutional position of democratically elected local government councils and their access to public funds.

However, financial autonomy must translate into responsible administration and measurable benefits for communities.

It is not enough for local governments to receive allocations directly if the resources do not support effective administration and grassroots development.

The question is whether local government institutions are functioning in a manner that benefits the people.

Traditional institutions are among the structures that interact closely with communities. Their financial relationship with local governments therefore deserves proper attention.

However, financial autonomy should not be interpreted as permission for local governments or traditional councils to spend public funds without accountability.

Every allocation must have a legitimate purpose, proper documentation and an identifiable beneficiary.

Where traditional institutions are entitled to a percentage of local government revenue under applicable laws, the relevant authorities should establish a transparent process for ensuring that the funds reach their intended destinations.

What Should Governments Do?

The revelations in the Punch report should encourage governments across the South-West to review the funding and remuneration arrangements for traditional institutions.

Akahi News identifies several measures that deserve urgent consideration.

1. Publish traditional institutions’ financial entitlements

State and local government authorities should make the applicable funding arrangements public. Traditional rulers and village heads should know their entitlements and the criteria used to determine payments.

2. Conduct an independent financial audit

Relevant authorities should examine the amounts allocated to traditional institutions, the amounts received and the distribution records.

Any discrepancies should be investigated and explained.

3. Review the remuneration structure

Where existing stipends are no longer sufficient to support the responsibilities attached to traditional offices, governments should consider reviewing the rates through the appropriate legal and administrative processes.

4. Ensure regular payments

Payments should follow a predictable schedule. Traditional rulers should not be left for several months without knowing when their next entitlement will arrive.

5. Protect lower-ranking traditional chiefs

Village heads and community chiefs should not become invisible beneficiaries simply because they occupy lower positions in the traditional hierarchy.

Their contributions to grassroots administration deserve recognition and fair consideration.

6. Establish transparent accountability mechanisms

Traditional councils receiving public allocations should maintain proper financial records and submit themselves to regular audits.

Transparency should apply to both government institutions and traditional authorities.

7. Separate traditional leadership from partisan politics

Governments should engage traditional rulers on community development and public administration without turning their institutions into political mobilisation structures.

Traditional Institutions Must Also Embrace Accountability

While government responsibility is central to this discussion, traditional institutions must also examine their internal administrative arrangements.

It would be unfair to place every responsibility on government while ignoring questions concerning the management of funds within traditional councils.

Where paramount rulers receive allocations for the administration of traditional institutions, they should be prepared to explain how the funds are distributed.

There should be clear records of receipts, expenditure, stipends and other approved payments.

Traditional authority comes with public expectations. Communities respect their traditional leaders partly because of their history, cultural significance and responsibility to the people.

That respect should be reinforced by transparency, fairness and responsible leadership.

The traditional institution must not only demand accountability from government; it must also demonstrate accountability within its own structure.

The Bigger Question: What Is the Future of Traditional Institutions in Nigeria?

The traditional institution is one of Nigeria’s oldest surviving systems of community leadership.

Long before the establishment of modern local governments, police structures and contemporary political institutions, traditional authorities played important roles in maintaining order and managing community affairs.

Although modern constitutional democracy has changed the structure of governance, traditional rulers remain relevant in many parts of the country.

However, relevance cannot be sustained by history alone.

An institution must be adequately organised, financially accountable and capable of responding to contemporary realities.

If traditional rulers are expected to contribute to peace, security and community development, their institutions must receive appropriate support.

Equally, the people must be able to trust that the resources provided for traditional administration are being used responsibly.

The present controversy should therefore become an opportunity for a comprehensive review of traditional institutions’ funding arrangements across the South-West.

The objective should not simply be to increase stipends without examining the financial structure. It should be to establish a sustainable system that supports genuine traditional responsibilities while preventing financial mismanagement.

Akahi News Verdict: Traditional Authority Deserves Dignity, but Public Money Demands Accountability

The reports of village heads receiving ₦10,000 monthly, some receiving ₦3,000 and others going for years without payment should not be treated as ordinary complaints.

They deserve serious investigation.

However, the solution must go beyond sympathy for traditional rulers.

The governments of Osun, Ogun and Oyo states, alongside their respective local government authorities and traditional councils, should provide clear explanations of their funding arrangements and the actual financial position of the affected institutions.

In Osun State, particularly, the explanation that local government allocations have been withheld should be accompanied by transparent information about the outstanding funds, the applicable distribution arrangements and the steps being taken to resolve the situation.

In Ogun State, the government and local councils should clarify the payment arrangements for Baales, especially those who claim to have received nothing despite occupying officially recognised positions.

In Oyo State, the government should provide sufficient information to address the allegations it has dismissed.

The Federal Government should also ensure that disputes affecting local government funding are resolved through lawful and transparent processes.

Ultimately, traditional rulers should not have to depend on personal begging, private donations or the generosity of wealthy individuals to perform responsibilities associated with recognised traditional offices.

Neither should public allocations become the private financial resources of a few powerful individuals within traditional institutions.

A society that expects its traditional rulers to preserve peace, settle disputes and promote community development must also take their welfare seriously. But those entrusted with public resources must be prepared to account for every naira.

The dignity of traditional authority and the accountability of public finance must go hand in hand.

Joseph Iyaji Akahi News www.akahinews.org