By King Iorshe

A CRITICAL READING OF GOVERNOR ABDULLAHI SULE’S EXPLANATION.
Governor Abdullahi Sule’s admission that establishing a chiefdom for the Tiv people of Nasarawa State has proven difficult owing to resistance from neighbouring Alago communities is noteworthy. It concedes that the matter remains unresolved even though the Tiv constitute a major population in several areas of the state.

However, the statement also prompts a fundamental question:
When does opposition from another community turn into a justification for government inaction—and when does it become the government’s duty to settle the disagreement through law, consultation and administrative action?

That is the core issue.
THE FIRST GAP: WHO ACTUALLY BEARS THE FINAL RESPONSIBILITY?
The Governor’s explanation seems to place substantial weight on resistance from Alago traditional authorities.

That may account for one obstacle, but it does not fully address the administrative question.
If the state government holds that a chiefdom is justified, it ought to be able to clarify:
What formal process has been pursued?
Which committee or institution reviewed the request?
What recommendations were issued?
Which traditional rulers raised objections?
What exactly were those objections?
Were the objections based on ethnicity, territory, history, or administration?
What other arrangements were taken into consideration?
What legal or administrative instrument must be in place before a chiefdom can be established? In the absent of these details, the public is given a political explanation instead of an administrative one.
“It is difficult” does not mean the same thing as “it is impossible.”

THE SECOND GAP: THE TIV SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO LOBBY WITHOUT END
The Governor urged Tiv sons and daughters to draw on their ties with traditional rulers in Keana, Doma and Obi in order to lobby for the chiefdom.
There is a certain practical wisdom in promoting dialogue.
Yet there is also a serious institutional question.
Should the establishment of a traditional administrative institution rest mainly on personal lobbying?
If the matter is essentially an administrative question, it should in the end be settled through established procedures—not simply by who knows which chief or who can lobby effectively.
The risk is that government may unintentionally turn a question of rights, representation and administrative recognition into one of personal relationships.
That cannot be sustained.

THE DEEPER ISSUE: TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS INVOLVE MORE THAN TITLES
The Tiv demand for a chiefdom should not be boiled down to a wish for a traditional title.
Traditional institutions have consequences for:
Representation;
Local administration;
Cultural identity;
Resolution of disputes;
Ties to land and community;
Engagement with government;
Development initiatives;
Political acknowledgement;
Leadership within the community;
Safeguarding of history and institutions.
As a result, the conversation ought to shift away from:
“Can the Tiv get a chiefdom?”
and toward:
“Which administrative and traditional arrangement most reliably ensures peaceful, fair and lawful recognition of the Tiv communities in Nasarawa State?”
That question is far more productive.

THE ALAGO-TIV MATTER MUST BE APPROACHED WITH CARE
This is arguably the most delicate dimension.
The government must not let the matter turn into a rivalry between Tiv identity and Alago identity.

For generations, the two communities have coexisted side by side. Consequently, any government solution should steer clear of language or policies implying that recognizing one community inevitably entails displacing or humbling another.
The state ought to set up a process grounded in evidence that involves:
Historical documentation;
Current administrative boundaries;
Data on population;
Customary institutions;
Submissions from the community;
The history of land and settlement;
Factors related to security;
Principles of the Constitution;
The relevant Nasarawa State laws and regulations governing traditional institutions.
This would lessen the chance of the issue turning into an ethnic contest.

Peace ought not to depend on permanently denying legitimate representation, and representation ought not to depend on hostility toward another community.
THE QUESTION OF APPOINTMENTS CANNOT BE SET ASIDE
This is the point at which the Governor’s statement takes on political significance.
If the government acknowledges that the Tiv are important enough to be consulted on traditional institutions, then the question of their inclusion in government appointments follows as a matter of course.
The pertinent questions are:
How many Tiv currently hold significant political appointments in Nasarawa State?
Not simply special assistants, personal assistants or campaign roles, but meaningful positions that carry genuine institutional authority and influence?
The public ought to demand a clear and transparent account of representation in:
Commissioners;
Permanent-secretary- level roles, where they exist;
Senior government boards;
Commissions;
Development agencies;
Local government leadership;
Government-owned institutions;
Political and administrative appointments.
The question should not be:
“Give the Tiv everything.”
Rather, it should be:
“Does the makeup of government fairly reflect the diversity and demographic spread of Nasarawa State?”

That is a valid governance question.
THE GOVERNOR’S REMARK ABOUT WADADA INTRODUCES YET ANOTHER POLITICAL DIMENSION
The Governor is said to have thanked the Tiv for backing Senator Ahmed Aliyu Wadada as the APC governorship candidate and pledged not to let them down.
This establishes a significant political expectation.

If the Tiv endorsement carries enough political weight to be acknowledged by the Governor, then the people have the right to ask:
What specific governance commitments come with that political relationship?
An endorsement ought not to serve as a replacement for policy.

The Tiv community should thus pursue measurable commitments regarding:
Traditional institutions;
Political appointments;
Infrastructure in communities populated by the Tiv;
Education;
Health facilities;
Youth employment and empowerment;
Security;
Agricultural development;
Equitable representation within government institutions.

The most durable political relationship does not rest on applause or promises.
It rests on clear commitments, measurable outcomes and accountability.
THE GREATEST RISK: THE POLITICS OF ENDLESS POSTPONEMENT
The Governor’s remark that efforts become difficult, are shelved and later revisited warrants serious attention.
There is a pattern that deserves to be questioned:
When an issue is continually deferred, the deferral itself ultimately turns into a policy.
The Tiv people, therefore, must ask:
When was the chiefdom request first put forward formally?
How many committees have examined it?
What recommendations did they make?
What has stood in the way of implementation?
Which specific objections are still outstanding?
What would amount to a solution?
What timeline is the government considering?
In the absence of a timeline, “we will revisit it” can turn into an indefinite political holding pattern.
THE GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO SET UP A FORMAL DIALOGUE MECHANISM
Instead of leaving Tiv leaders to lobby individual traditional rulers, the government could set up a Tiv–Alago Traditional and Administrative Dialogue Committee.
Its membership could comprise:
Tiv traditional representatives;
Alago traditional representatives;
Relevant local government authorities;
Ministry of Local Government/Chieftaincy Affairs;
Ministry of Justice;
Historians and archivists;
Representatives of the communities;
Impartial experts in peacebuilding.
Its purpose should be to review the dispute impartially and offer solution.

THE TIV AGENDA MUST EXTEND BEYOND TRADITIONAL RECOGNITION
A more robust Tiv agenda might rest on four pillars:
RECOGNITION
Chiefdoms, districts, village areas and traditional representation.
REPRESENTATION
Equitable involvement in political and administrative appointments.
DEVELOPMENT
Roads, schools, healthcare, water, electricity, agriculture and economic opportunities.
ACCOUNTABILITY
A measurable framework for monitoring government commitments.
WHAT THE GOVERNOR SHOULD DO NEXT
If the government truly intends to settle the matter, it needs to shift from explanations to concrete action.
PUBLISH THE STATUS OF THE CHIEFDOM PROPOSAL
Inform the public precisely where the process came to a halt.
IDENTIFY THE OBJECTIONS
Who raised objections, and for what reasons?
ESTABLISH A STRUCTURED DIALOGUE
Gather the communities that have been impacted.
ORDER AN INDEPENDENT HISTORICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
When historical claims are in conflict, the evidence ought to be scrutinised instead of relying on political sentiment.

ESTABLISH A TIMETABLE
Citizens deserve to know when the next stage will take place, even if the final decision proves difficult.
MAKE A REPRESENTATION DASHBOARD PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
Display how appointments are distributed among the major communities and senatorial districts.
THE QUESTION THE TIV OUGHT TO ASK
The most crucial question is not:
“Governor, why is it so difficult?”
Rather, it is:
“Governor, what particular obstacle still stands in the way, what has the government done to overcome it, and what concrete steps will be taken now to resolve it?”
That shifts the discussion from complaint to accountability.
Governor Sule’s statement matters because it recognizes the difficulty surrounding the Tiv chiefdom question. However, recognition cannot be where things end.
If resistance is present, the government should pinpoint it.
If historical disagreements exist, the government should look into them.
If legal obstacles exist, the government should clarify them.
When administrative procedures are not yet complete, the government ought to finish them.
And when an issue is essentially political in nature, political leaders must face it squarely and honestly.
As for the Tiv people, they should press their demand through peaceful, constitutional and intelligent means. They ought to refrain from transforming the matter into an ethnic conflict with their Alago neighbours.
Yet peaceful coexistence should not translate into lasting political invisibility.
The true measure of leadership is not whether a government can justify why a problem is hard.
The true measure is whether a government can transform a hard problem into a practical solution.

King Iorshe,
Analyst, Educator, Researcher and Public Affairs Commentator
Tuesday, 6th October, 2026