For centuries, the Igbo people have maintained a strong and well-defined cultural and societal structure, where leadership, particularly traditional rulership, is intrinsically tied to the land and community in Igboland.
The institution of the Eze, the traditional ruler, has been a cornerstone of the Igbo identity, grounded in the norms, values, and customs of the people. This institution is not just a title, but a symbol of unity, leadership, and cultural preservation, all of which are rooted in the very soil of Igboland.
The recent emergence of the concept of Ezeigbo outside Igboland, particularly in the Diaspora, has sparked intense debates, with many discerning that such a development is not just unusual but also a direct assault on Igbo cultural heritage.
The idea that there could be a traditional ruler – an Eze – outside the geographic boundaries of Igbo land challenges the very fabric of what it means to be an Igbo.
Traditionally, an Eze is not only a leader but a custodian of the customs, traditions, and values that define the Igbo people. His authority derives from his residence within the community, where he oversees the welfare of his people, maintains order, and resolves disputes.
The notion of Ezeigbo outside of Igboland presents a serious contradiction to this longstanding tradition, as it is incongruous for someone who is not physically embedded within the community they claim to represent to wield such authority.
This growing trend of appointing Ezes outside Igboland is not just foreign but alien to the very essence of Igbo culture. It is unacceptable to allow the traditional institution of the Eze to be displaced from its true home.
In other ethnic groups, such as the Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani, there are no Obas or Emirs outside their respective domains. The Yoruba, for instance, do not have Obas in places like London or New York, just as the Emirs do not operate outside Northern Nigeria. If these ethnic groups understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of their traditions, why should the Igbo people tolerate a similar situation where Ezes are appointed outside Igboland?
To accept this erosion of tradition would be to allow the bastardization of one of the most important pillars of Igbo culture. The Eze institution has withstood the test of time, evolving through centuries of history, conflict, and change. It is the heart of the Igbo community, and to dilute or alter its meaning and authority by appointing Ezes outside of Igboland would be an affront to the legacy of our ancestors. This cannot and should not be allowed to fester.
The reality is that many Igbos now reside outside Igboland, especially in the Diaspora, due to the global movement of people and opportunities. While this is a natural consequence of modern life, it does not mean that Igbo culture and leadership should be uprooted or transplanted into foreign territories. The people in these Diasporas may need representation, but that representation should not come in the form of a traditional Eze who, by the very nature of the role, should reside within his community in Igboland.
This is where the concept of the “Onyendu” comes into play. The Onyendu, as a leader for Igbos in the Diaspora, would provide the ideal solution. Unlike an Eze, who is rooted in a particular community and culture in Igboland, the Onyendu would be a figurehead for Igbos living outside their traditional land, a leader who serves their immediate needs without violating the integrity of Igbo traditional structures.
The appointment of an Onyendu for Igbos outside Igboland would not only respect the existing traditional structures but also provide the necessary leadership and organization that Igbos abroad require in their unique situations.
The Onyendu would not be a traditional ruler in the same sense as an Eze, but rather a leader, someone who helps to coordinate the activities of Igbos outside Igboland, advocates for their welfare, and ensures that they remain connected to their roots.
This would be a far more fitting and respectful solution than appointing a traditional ruler (Eze Igbo) in a foreign land.
Moreover, the very concept of Ezeigbo outside Igboland undermines the unity of the Igbo people. The appointment of Ezes in foreign lands could lead to divisions and confusion, as these leaders may have different approaches to governance and may not have the mandate of the people they claim to represent. It creates a situation where there is a disconnect between the traditional rulers in Igboland and those who operate in the Diaspora, further complicating the already complex nature of Igbo leadership.
The need for cultural preservation cannot be overstated. The Igbos have always been a people with a strong sense of identity, and that identity is tied directly to our traditions, customs, and history.To allow the institution of the Eze to be eroded in this way would be to lose a significant part of what it means to be Igbo.
The Igbo must rise up and protect its heritage, ensuring that future generations inherit a culture that is intact and untainted by foreign influences.
In conclusion, the resolution by South East Council of Traditional Rulers, to halt the practice of appointing Ezes outside Igboland is timely and essential. It is a call to action for all Igbo people to come together and protect their culture from external interference and internal distortion.
We must reject the notion of Ezeigbo outside our traditional domains and embrace the idea of the Onyendu as the appropriate leadership for Igbos in the Diaspora. This is a matter of cultural integrity and pride. The time to act is now, before this tradition is lost forever.
“The Eze institution has withstood the test of time, evolving through centuries of history, conflict, and change. It is the heart of the Igbo community, and to dilute or alter its meaning and authority by appointing Ezes outside of Igboland would be an affront to the legacy of our ancestors. This cannot and should not be allowed to fester“