Rejoinder (part one) to “Queen Amina Did Rule: The war against her memory is an assault on Zazzau’s history” by Md Umar, by Dr. Jibril Ibrahim Yero
I read with deep concern and intellectual disappointment the article by MD Umar titled “Queen Amina Did Rule: The War Against Her Memory Is an Assault on Zazzau’s History”, published recently in the public domain. While the subject of Queen Amina and the history of Zazzau undoubtedly deserves critical academic scrutiny, I must point out that Umar’s piece is deeply flawed — both methodologically and substantively. The article commits a number of historical inaccuracies, makes sweeping generalizations unsupported by primary evidence, and seeks to politicize legitimate scholarly inquiry.
In this rejoinder, I will address two key claims in Umar’s essay:
1. That Queen Amina of Zazzau ruled as a sovereign monarch, not merely a princess; and
2. That a new history-writing initiative is a “sponsored” revisionist campaign intended to distort the legacy of Fulani Emirs and promote a single lineage.
Both claims, as I will show, are historically unfounded, speculative, and symptomatic of an attempt to monopolize the past while suppressing new (authentic) perspectives arrived at through the scholarly vehicle of objectivity.
READ ALSO: Deaths in London: Need to halt medical tourism, by Prof M. K. Othman
I. On Queen Amina: Between Legend and Historical Fact
Let us begin by setting the record straight. The “recent” inquest (as tagged by Umar) did not contests the existence of Amina as a legendary military leader and daughter of the Habe king of Zazzau. What is being questioned — and rightfully so — is the assertion that she ruled Zazzau as a sovereign queen in the manner implied by MD Umar. This distinction is critical in the field of historiography, where evidence must separate plausible interpretation from mythologized memory.
Umar’s article made a vain attempt to lean heavily on oral traditions, the Kano Chronicle, the writings of European explorer Heinrich Barth, and a reference to Infaq al-Maisuri by Muhammadu Bello. Yet none of these sources conclusively refer to Amina as a ruler in the sense of occupying the throne of Zazzau.
Take Infaq al-Maisuri, cited by Umar as his strongest evidence. Muhammadu Bello, a scholar and heir to the Sokoto Caliphate, writes:
“The first to whom power was given in this land, according to what we have been told, was Aminatu, the daughter of the king of Zak-Zak…”
Muhammadu Bello, Infaq al-Maisuri, London: Luzac & Co, 1951, pp. 18–19.
Note carefully: Amina is described not as queen, but as daughter of the king — an acknowledgment of her royal blood, not sovereign status. In fact, the passage attributes military prowess to her, not enthronement.
Similarly, the Kano Chronicle, as translated by H.R. Palmer, refers to Amina as a military figure whose exploits extended Zazzau’s influence. But again, there is no mention of her as Sarauniya (ruler) of Zazzau or her inclusion in the royal succession.
This matters because, in all known royal genealogies and lists of the sixty (60) Habe rulers who governed Zazzau before the Jihad of Shehu Usman Ɗan Fodio, Amina’s name does not appear. Even among surviving Habe oral traditions, Amina is revered as a warrior-princess, not a sovereign monarch.
READ ALSO: Professor Jibril Aminu: A colossus has departed, by Engr. Bello Gwarzo Abdullahi, FNSE
To elevate her beyond this role requires concrete evidence: documentation of her enthronement, palace records, inscriptions, or contemporaneous chronicles naming her as ruler. None have been provided. Relying on 19th-century oral recollections to assert 16th-century ruler-ship is a methodological leap that any serious historian would find untenable.
Thus, Umar’s insistence that her “reign is a substantiated chapter of history” is, unfortunately, wishful thinking. It is not the defense of “historical integrity” — it is a defense of legend as fact, which does a disservice to historical scholarship.
The fact that Umar tagged the inquest into the existence of Amina as “recent”, is enough to disqualify him as a historian of any substance by any serious scholar of history that worth his salt. This is so inasmuch as some of the earliest, well-researched and lavishly funded scholarly write-ups that questioned not only whether Amina was a Queen but if she even existed at all, can be dated as far as four to five decades back. I do not know Umar’s age, but perhaps considering his rash submission with half-baked thought that is usually evidenced in youthful exuberance, I may be more near to being right than wrong if I say that the dispute on the existence of Amina could well have been on even before he learned how to read and write!
Some of the oldest critique about Queen Amina of Zazzau’s existence comes from the renowned historians Abdullahi Smith (a scholar per excellence who founded the History Department of Ahmadu Bello University Zaria in 1962) – the man who was crucial in shaping the inquisitively skilled mind of the late Historian, Dr. Yusuf Bala Usman; and Murray Last (a Research Fellow under the Northern History Research Scheme at ABU Zaria – one of the first to have received a Ph.D. at Ibadan in 1964).
Abdullahi Smith’s work, “Some Notes on the History of Zazzau under the Hausa Kings,” published in 1970, questions Amina’s historical veracity due to her absence from the earliest indigenous Zaria historical documents. Murray Last’s seminar paper, “Before Zaria: Evidence for Kankuma (Kankuma) and its Successor State,” presented at SOAS, University of London, in 1981, also casts doubt on Amina’s existence.
READ ALSO: Religion as a tool for development (2), by Abiodun Komolafe
Some key points from their respective critiques include:
a) Absence in Local Chronicles: Queen Amina is not mentioned in the Zaria Chronicle or the Abuja Chronicle, which are primary sources for local history.
b) External Sources: Information about Amina comes from external documents like the Kano Chronicle and Infakul Maisuri, which though could be acceptable if definitive in assertion, these external documents presented the story of Amina as hear-say and did not claimed to have concrete evidence about her existence which therefore remained anecdotal.
c) Historical Significance: If Amina were a genuine historical figure, she would likely be mentioned in the earliest indigenous Zaria historical documents.
These criticisms therefore, highlight the need for careful consideration of historical sources when evaluating Queen Amina’s existence and legacy.
II. On the So-Called “Sponsored” Historical Project:Fiction Masquerading as Critique
Equally troubling is Umar’s accusation that a current initiative to document the history of the Fulani Emirs of Zazzau is a politically sponsored effort aimed at distorting the past and promoting one lineage over others.
Let me be unequivocal: this accusation is baseless.
Contrary to Umar’s insinuation, this historical initiative is perhaps the first transparent, participatory, and academically structured attempt to comprehensively document the post-Habe leadership of Zazzau. Every ruling house in the Emirate was invited to submit its version of history, covering the periods relevant to its ancestors’ reign. These submissions are not to be accepted blindly. Rather, they will be subjected to independent peer review by professional historians and scholars — both within and outside Nigeria — for authentication of the validity and the reliability of the methodologies and the findings before any publication.
READ ALSO: Nigeria’s Next Political Reckoning: Between power and possibility, by Ahmad Shuaibu Isa
Where, then, is the distortion? Where is the “political propaganda” that Umar warns about? If the author has credible information about any manipulation, let him provide the evidence that prove it. Vague allegations are not evidence — they are distractions.
Those trying to rewrite the history of how the Flag arrived in Zaria cannot find any reliable evidence to support their claim. On the other hand, there is sufficient evidence to support the fact that, of all the founders of the four ruling dynasties in Zazzau, only Malam Musa fought alongside Sheik Usman bin Fodio during the famous battle of Tafkin Koto. The rest were nowhere near Sokoto during these periods. Malam Musa Bamalli assisted in many other expeditions as assigned to him by the Sheikh – from Kano to Daura, Alkalawa, and so on… This was testified in various original writings, epistles, and correspondences as preserved by the Caliphate.
A cursory glance at the work of Nana Asma’u, the daughter of Sheik bin Fodio, as compiled by Boyd and Mark, would reveal this fact. It was clearly stated in it, that Malam Musa “was given the task of capturing it (Zaria) which he did”!
To further buttress the position of Sokoto regarding whose lineage in Zazzau is officially recognised as the lineage of the Zazzau flag-bearer, the caliphate’s anniversaries comes in handy. For decades, only a descendant of Malam Musa is permitted to serve as the Zazzau Emirate representative in all anniversaries and commemorative celebrations of the Caliphate.
To this effect, as the most senior title-holder from the lineage of the original Flag-bearer (i.e. from Mallawa dynasty), Emir Ahmed Nuhu Bamalli has been the one participating – permitted as qualified representative of the original Flag-bearer, for many years, even before he assumed the throne; while, for all other Emirates, it is the respective incumbent Emirs that have been representing their Emirate (as only one ruling house – the original flag-bearers’ lineage, has been reigning for each of the Emirates, unlike Zazzau).
READ ALSO: Queen Amina of Zaria: Warrior Queen who ruled an African kingdom for 34 years
Inda ba ƙasa nan ake gardaman kokawa (one can only falsely dispute about knowledge in the land of ignoramuses)
The representation by solely the descendant of Musa Bamalli at Sokoto Caliphate ceremonies has been on without any protest by the other dynasties, as they truly know their real place in history and thus to attempt to claim what they are not at the very doorstep of the Caliphate, would be like to tear the very protective gown that hide and secure their little secret and the dignity which they so far continue to enjoy due to the initial benevolence of the original Flag-bearer. Many people do not know this open secret. This and many other significant lacuna in what is so far obtainable from what was penned down of history of Zazzau, exist.
A Selfless and Praiseworthy Project for Posterity Sake
For decades, the history of Zazzau’s Fulani Emirs remained piecemeal. Earlier works, some of which Umar praises, were often riddled with embellishment, patronage-driven narrative, and lacked proper sourcing. As any serious student of history will agree, the passage of time and the advent of new methodologies demand we re-examine and rigorously document the past, not preserve its weaknesses out of sentiment. If Emir Ahmed Nuhu Bamalli is not praised for this noble effort that seeks to compile in one document, and preserve the authentic history of the heritage of his people before it quickly vanish into oblivion, as generations continue to succeed each other without any meaningful and reliable medium of historical transmissions, certainly, the selfless amiable Ameer do not deserve our condemnation.
No other leader in the history of Zazzau Emirate had ever came close to even thinking of such a broad initiative that encompasses everyone and not just himself! It’s therefore not surprising, such astounding achievement is usually accompanied/grapples by/with equally staunch air of envy!!
III. Ignoring Core Historical Authorities: Sokoto’s Canonical Sources
MD Umar’s narrative also overlooks key historical sources from the Sokoto Caliphate — a troubling omission for one discussing the legacies of the Jihad. The works of Waziri Gidado dan Lema, Waziri Abdulkadir dan Gidado, Nana Asma’u, and Sarkin Gwandu Ibrahim Khalil remain authoritative and foundational. These scholars meticulously documented the Jihad’s leadership structures, appointments, flag-bearers, and succession plans.
Any revision of this history — particularly concerning who led the Jihad in Zazzau or which family held primacy — must engage these works directly. Unfortunately, Umar does not. Instead, he prefers to cast aspersions without confronting the overwhelming corpus of primary sources held at places like the Waziri Junaidu History Bureau in Sokoto.
This omission raises questions: Is Umar genuinely interested in historical clarity, or simply defending a legacy that newer sources and methods are beginning to challenge?
READ ALSO: Nigeria’s Next Political Reckoning: Between power and possibility, by Ahmad Shuaibu Isa
IV. A Note on Objectivity and Grievance Politics
Lastly, let us be clear about what is not the job of historians: to defend dynasties, to romanticize the past, or to sanitize history in favor of present-day political preferences. Sadly, MD Umar’s article reads not like scholarly advocacy, but as a veiled political statement — likely echoing the sentiments of those still dissatisfied with the outcome of the Zazzau Emirate succession crisis.
Let us recall that the current Emir of Zazzau emerged after a transparent selection process in accordance with the power vested in the hands of the state Governor, in whose hands the final say on the issue rests, according to the extant Law – the practice we historically witnessed overtime as exercised by Governor Luggard and other past governors. In addition, this was upheld at every stage by Nigeria’s courts. Having failed in courtrooms however, some elements now seem to be waging a campaign in print, seeking to undermine new research and attack initiatives that do not align with their views. They work in shadow but their inadequacies continue to betray their motives and identities.
The Emir is even a benefactor to some members of this Inglorious cabal (contributed to being what/where they are today in life by Allah’s will) who cannot seem to accept the will of the Almighty and hence keep on fighting it. They are favoured by the magnanimity of the original flag-bearer, Malam Musa, who brought them into his fold to deputize in rearing and milking the cow together, along with the entire Jama’a – in his attempted effort to remain on the original principle of the Emirate system, and yet they avariciously want to claim the whole “cow” to themselves alone.
For a hundred years, the lineage of the original flag-bearer was sidelined by those who were supposed to simply deputize – mere “bag-holders”! Hundred years for God sake!! Some of them on the other hand, are not even stakeholders to Zazzau Emirate project – complete outsiders favoured by sheer luck as ordained by the Almighty. But they are not content with what the Almighty has allotted to them. This indeed is regrettable.
The Hadith Qudsi reminds us (as narrated by Ka’b Al Ahbar, and another version in Sunan Tirmidhi, Hadith: 2466):
_“O son of Adam…..If you are not happy with what I have allotted to you, then I will unleash the world upon you, you will run around like a wild animal in the desert but you will still only receive what I have allotted for you and you will be regarded as blameworthy”_
It is time we accept what Allah has decreed and focus on building a truthful and inclusive record of our shared past.
READ ALSO: The smartphone pandemic in Northern Nigeria: Amisplacement of priorities, by Saleh Farouq Gagarawa
CONCLUSION: LET TRUTH, NOT SENTIMENT, PREVAIL
History is not preserved by shouting louder or by intimidating scholars. It is preserved by documentation, by critical engagement with sources, and by a willingness to correct earlier gaps. The current effort to produce a peer-reviewed history of the Fulani Emirs of Zazzau is not a distortion; it is long overdue.
If MD Umar believes otherwise, let him provide superior evidence — not romanticization, not selective memory, not political innuendo.
The memory of Amina if she truly have existed, should indeed be preserved for posterity but the preservation must follow scholarly process otherwise it will be a futile attempt – as the upcoming generations would be eagle-eyed enough to spot the lacunae in authenticity and quickly discard it. Her exploits if have really happened, should verily deserve celebration. But celebration must not become fabrication. And honest inquiry must never be silenced by those who fear its conclusions.
We pray that may Allah guide us all to sincerity, altruistic scholarship, and unity.
REFERENCE LIST
• Muhammadu Bello, Infaq al-Maisuri, London: Luzac & Co, 1951, pp. 18–19.
• Kano Chronicle, trans. H.R. Palmer, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 1908.
• Heinrich Barth, Travels and Discoveries in North and Central Africa, Vol. III, 1857.
• Nana Asma’u, Collected Works (various translations).
• Waziri Gidado dan Lema, Tarihin Jihadin Shehu Usman Dan Fodio (available at Waziri Junaidu History Bureau, Sokoto).
• Waziri Junaidu History Bureau Archives, Sokoto.
• Sarkin Gwandu Ibrahim Khalil, Risala on the Administrative Structure of the Caliphate, unpublished manuscript.
(jiyero@yahoo.com)
Dr. Jibril Ibrahim Yero,
Department of Management and Development Studies,University of Technology and Arts, Byumba,Republic of Rwanda.
Follow the Neptune Prime channel on WhatsApp:
Do you have breaking news, interview request, opinion, suggestion, or want your event covered? Email us at neptuneprime2233@gmail.com
