In the pre-colonial era, the breaking of an oath by a chief could _________

Analyze the question: The question asks about the consequence of a chief breaking an oath in pre-colonial African (Nigerian) societies. This falls under traditional political systems and the checks and balances on a ruler's power.

Concept: In pre-colonial states (Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa-Fulani, Akan, etc.), a chief or king took oaths at installation. He swore to rule justly, respect custom, and protect his people. Because the chief was a custodian of the people's customs and religion, his authority rested on keeping these promises. Several checks existed to control him:

• Council of chiefs or elders
• Secret societies (e.g., Ogboni among the Yoruba)
• Public opinion
• The threat of removal (destoolment, deposition, or being asked to commit suicide)

Step-by-step reasoning:

• A. War with neighbours: Oath-breaking was an internal matter, not usually a cause of inter-state war. Unlikely.
• B. Ritual cleansing: Rituals might be performed to appease the gods, but this is a remedy afterward, not the standard political consequence for the chief.
• C. State under a curse: Some communities believed in spiritual repercussions, but this is a belief and not a direct, enforceable consequence on the chief.
• D. Destoolment: An oath-breaking chief lost the trust and legitimacy of his people. The kingmakers and council of elders had the power to remove him. This is the clearest political and institutional consequence, and it is the standard answer in Government textbooks.

Answer: The correct option is D. lead to his destoolment.

Exam tip: For questions on the pre-colonial political system, remember that chiefs were not absolute rulers. Whenever you see "breach of oath," "misrule," or "violating custom," think destoolment/deposition. The word "destoolment" is used especially for Akan chiefs, while "deposition" is a more general term.