The protracted chieftaincy dispute in Takum, Taraba State, Nigeria, has taken a new turn with the Court of Appeal's recent decision to order a retrial of the case. This development adds another layer to the complex history of the Takum chieftaincy tussle, which has spanned over two decades and involved multiple ethnic groups, legal battles, and government interventions. This ruling has triggered issues that relates and delves into the origins of the dispute, the recent court ruling, reactions from key stakeholders, and the implications for the future of Takum's traditional leadership.
In Takum Local Government Area of Taraba State, the chieftaincy stool, formally known as the Ukwe Takum - this stool has been the center of a contentious dispute involving the Kuteb, Chamba, and Jukun ethnic groups. The recent Court of Appeal decision to mandate a retrial of the case has reignited discussions and hopes for a lasting resolution.
The chieftaincy stool of Takum has traditionally been occupied by the Kuteb people. However, following the death of the last Ukwe Takum - Alhaji Ali Ibrahim Kuffang II in the late 1990s, disagreements arose over the succession process. The Chamba and Jukun ethnic groups, also indigenous to Takum, challenged the exclusivity of the Kuteb claim to the stool, citing historical ties and advocating for a rotational system of leadership.
Over the years, these disagreements escalated into legal battles, communal conflicts, and a prolonged vacancy of the chieftaincy position. The absence of a recognized traditional ruler contributed to social unrest and hindered development in Takum the communities in its environs.
In an effort to resolve the impasse, the Taraba State government, under the administration of Governor Agbu Kefas, abolished the Kuteb's exclusive right of ascendency to traditional paramount stoolship and proposed a rotational system for the stool Takum stool. This proposal aimed to ensure inclusivity and equity among the three major ethnic groups in Takum. In February 2024, the Taraba State House of Assembly passed a bill establishing a rotational first-class chiefdom and three third-class chiefdoms in Takum, each representing the Kuteb, Chamba, and Jukun ethnic groups. This legislative action was seen as a significant step towards ending the longstanding chieftaincy tussle bring about lasting peace.
Following the enactment of the rotational chieftaincy law, the state government requested each of the three ethnic groups to nominate candidates for the chieftaincy positions. The Chamba and Jukun communities complied by presenting their nominees with the Kutebs turning down the offer. Consequently, Barrister Sopiya Gboshi from the Chamba ethnic group was appointed as the first-class chief of Takum. His coronation and presentation of the staff of office took place at the Government House in Jalingo.
The appointment of Barrister Sopiya Gboshi as the first-class chief of Takum elicited mixed reactions. The Chamba and Jukun communities welcomed the development, viewing it as a long-overdue resolution to the chieftaincy crisis. They expressed optimism that the new leadership would usher in peace, unity, and development in Takum.
Conversely, the Kuteb community rejected the appointment, arguing that the Ukwe Takum stool is their exclusive heritage. They contended that the rotational system undermines their cultural rights and historical claims to the chieftaincy. The Kuteb people vowed not to recognize the newly appointed chief and indicated their intention to challenge the decision through legal means. Before Barrister Sophia's ascension to the throne, a Jalingo State High Court, led by Justice Abbare, ruled in favor of the ascension process, rejecting the Kutebs' challenge to its legitimacy, thereby an appeal was filed at the Court of Appeal in Yola.
In response to the ongoing disputes and legal challenges, the Court of Appeal sitting in Yola on the 5th March 2025 ordered a fresh hearing of the chieftaincy case in Jalingo. The appellate court directed that the case be reassigned to a different judge at the Taraba State High Court to ensure impartiality and a fair trial. This decision effectively nullifies previous judgments and provides an opportunity for all parties to present their arguments anew.
The Court of Appeal's directive for a retrial has elicited mixed reactions from various stakeholders. The Ukwe Takum Rimamyang Habu Ahmadu of the Kuteb ethnic group have welcomed the decision, during an interview, he view it as an opportunity to reaffirm their claims to the Ukwe Takum stool. They have called for calm among their members and expressed confidence in the judiciary's ability to deliver justice. In contrast, representatives from the Chamba and Jukun communities have expressed disappointment, fearing that the ruling may reignite tensions and prolong the leadership vacuum in Takum.
The Court of Appeal's decision to mandate a retrial presents both challenges and opportunities for Takum. On the one hand, the retrial could prolong uncertainty regarding traditional leadership, potentially disrupting governance and development efforts in the region. Additionally, given the historical ethnic tensions tied to the chieftaincy dispute, reopening the case could further deepen divisions if not carefully managed. On the other hand, the retrial offers a chance for a fair and impartial reassessment of the issues, which could lead to a more just and lasting resolution. Furthermore, it reinforces the role of both legal and traditional institutions in conflict resolution, setting a precedent for handling similar disputes in the future.
The Takum chieftaincy dispute is emblematic of the complexities surrounding traditional leadership and ethnic relations in Nigeria. The Court of Appeal's decision to order a retrial underscores the need for a fair and inclusive resolution that respects the cultural heritage of all stakeholders. As the legal process unfolds, it is imperative for the communities involved to prioritize peace, unity, and development, ensuring that the outcome serves the best interests of Takum and its people.
.jpeg)
0 Comments