The Sanda Tendaren Chieftaincy question?

By: Ibrahim Jalloh (Jallomy)

Like in most chiefdoms with an awakened citizenry, the local governance transitional moment (chieftaincy elections) in Sanda Tendaren Chiefdom has triggered endless debate and massive show of interest in a transition process that is yet to unfold. 

As democrats and Political protagonists calling for urgent and compelling reforms in the institution of paramount chieftaincy, we welcome the debate and massive interest shown in the process. This is indicative of growth in democracy and citizens participation in the governance process of the state at the local level

Paramount chieftaincy was a colonial creation for the expressed purpose of administrative oversight and convenience. The Colonial masters judged that a permanent grip on the predatory provincial people, especially those revolutionary elements, can be achieved by creating a dictatorial suprintending structure labelled paramount chieftaincy. From inception, paramount chieftaincy was designed to be a convenient administrative arragement for the sustenance of Colonial hegemony.

Following self rule and the termination of colonialism, paramount chieftaincy was retained as both a political and administrative strategy for governance. Paramount became cardinal to local governance.

The governance space of paramount chieftaincy also combine traditional integration. The sociological and anthropological character of paramount chieftaincy combine traditional and customary practices, some of which though are hopelessly outrageous and violative of the essence of humanity.

The performance appetite for paramount chiefs is supplanted by the permanent nature of its tenure and the complete absence of performance benchmarks. A paramount chief just need to be alive and going. He has a "till death do us part" job. It is therefore compelling that a paramount chief need to have a self driven and purposeful attitude.

From inception, the paramount chieftaincy space in Sanda Tendaren Chiefdom has been exclusively occupied by the Munu and Sesay ruling clans. The Munu ruling clan governed for five consecutive terms while the Sesay ruling clan governed for two consecutive terms with a time frame of over fifty years. In essence the paramount chieftaincy of Sanda Tendaren Chiefdom has been the exclusive domain of the Munu and Sesay ruling clans.

If Sanda Tendaren Chiefdom developed over time, it is a solid credit for the Munu and Sesay ruling clans. If, on the other hand, Sanda stagnated or retrogressed then the Munu and Sesay ruling clans will be descredited for ineffective local governance and will judgement soon and very soon.

History wispered to us all that Sanda Tendaren Chiefdom was a class A Chiefdom but now it has reversed to a class C Chiefdom. Who is responsible for what? Who is to blame Who? Is change inevitable? 

Historically, Sanda Tendaren Chiefdom was one ruling clan, the Munu ruling clan. By accident of politics, the Chiefdom polarized into four ruling clans and it is the way it is!

It is pointless to take up arms or resort to uncivil conduct in the transition process. The untold story will be told and an informed decision Will be made in the fullness of time.

Overall, paramount chieftaincy requires urgent and compelling reforms. The paramount chieftaincy space, if well coordinated and staffed, will be the major catalyst for sustainable development.