Trumpets, guns, horses: northern Nigeria's Durbar ends Ramadan in style
Veiled women ululated as the blare of trumpets and booms of hunting guns filled the air, heralding the approach of the emir in a huge procession of horseback riders draped in colourful robes and turbans.
Durbar, a festivities-filled procession held each Eid, saw Emir Hameem Nuhu Sunusi, of the Jigawa state capital Dutse, ride through his city as traditional leaders across the rest of Nigeria's Muslim-majority north did the same.
In Dutse -- also the capital of the Dutse emirate -- the UNESCO-recognised fete had residents dressed to the nines as they lined the streets, raising clenched fists in homage to the emir amid drumming, singing and dancing by royal troupes and thousands of horsemen.
Drenched in sweat, the troupes Monday danced to the drums in a frenzy, while royal guards dressed in their hallmark robes of red and green flanked the emir, seated on a white stallion under a blue parasol to shield him from the scorching west African sun.
On Tuesday, the festivities marking the end of the austerity of Ramadan continue, with the emir making a tour of the city to meet residents.
Durbar "spices up the Eid celebrations," spectator Awwal Adamu, a 27-year-old undergraduate said, one of the thousands in the throng.
It also showcases Nigeria's rich cultural heritage -- often overshadowed by the north's myriad armed conflicts, Emir Sunusi told AFP afterwards in his palace.
- Airing of grievances -
Durbar takes place twice a year, on the Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha holidays celebrated worldwide in the Islamic calendar.
The festival dates back to the 15th century, originating in Kano, the north's largest city.
But this year, Sunusi stole the show from Kano, which cancelled its Durbar for the second time in a row due to a legal tussle between two rival royals contesting the emir's throne.
Nigeria's traditional rulers have no constitutional powers but are important cultural custodians, wielding enormous influence that is crucial for politicians wishing to win election to the country's secular federal government.
Monday's procession culminated with the governor, Umar Namadi, receiving the emir and his entourage outside his office -- as daring young men perched on gnarled boughs of baobab trees overlooking the pavilion to watch.
Seated next to Namadi, Sunusi received homage from his 26 district heads, who took turns to greet the monarch by squatting on all fours in royal obeisance.
Each contingent of the procession led by the district heads "has its own different system of decoration for the horses and the horse riders," Wada Alhaji, the chief of staff to the emir, told AFP.
"The different displays showcase the rich diversity within the emirate."
Durbar is not just a cultural festival -- it is also an avenue for the emir to lodge his people's complaints to the government.
The emir told Namadi about the menace of erosion and flooding affecting some areas in the emirate, and the people's call on the government to expedite work on a new police training college.
- Pride of the north -
Dutse resident Khadija Ibrahim called the Durbar "the most interesting part of the Eid festivity".
"I can't imagine the Eid without the Durbar," said the 45-year old-mother of eight.
The event, which draws onlookers and well-wishers from across Nigeria, as well as foreign tourists, "is part of the things we are proud of", Emir Sunusi told AFP.
"In lots of places when you talk about Nigeria, it is negative things that come to mind," the 46-year-old monarch said. "I feel we are not judged fairly."
Sunusi said he hopes the Durbar can change the negative perception of Nigeria abroad and help attract more tourists who would be able to see the "good people, peace-loving, honest people" of the country's north, where the rural hinterlands have been beset by years of armed conflict.
Durbar, added to UNESCO's list of intangible cultural heritage, tells a fuller, more complex story of the north.
"Once UNESCO recognises you it means you will be known all across the world," Sunusi said.
"This will help us a lot in making other people know us more."
abu/nro/kjm
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
40 minutes ago
- The Intercept
ICE Won't Rule Out Retaliating Against Immigrants Who Testify in Free Speech Case
Support Us © THE INTERCEPT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Plainclothes officers with Immigration and Customs Enforcement wait in a hallway outside of a courtroom at New York-Federal Plaza Immigration Court inside the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building in New York City on June 6, 2025. Photo: Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images In March, a group of scholars filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to block the government from detaining and deporting students and professors for speaking out about Palestine. Now, as the case heads to trial in Massachusetts federal court in July, those professors and students worry they may be targeted by immigration officials for speaking out in the courtroom on the witness stand. But the Trump administration is refusing to reassure them they won't be subject to retaliation. As attorneys for the scholars prepared to file a motion to protect their witnesses — many of whom are in the country under green cards or visas — from being detained or deported for testifying during trial, government attorneys refused to agree to such safeguards, according to recent legal filings in the case. In their refusal, government attorneys said that their clients, which include the Department of Homeland Security as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 'did not want to be bound by an agreement preventing them from taking action against individuals whose identities they did not know yet,' the filings said. When the scholars' attorneys clarified that the motion would only protect witnesses from being targeted for participating in the case, attorneys for DHS and ICE doubled down in their opposition to the protection and challenged them to instead have the judge decide whether to grant the order. 'Defendants' counsel reiterated that the agencies were 'not comfortable' with such a proposal,' the scholars' attorneys said in the filing, 'and advised us to 'go ahead and ask the judge to rule on it.'' Read our complete coverage The original complaint — lodged by the American Association of University Professors; its chapters at Harvard, Rutgers, and New York University; and the Middle East Studies Association — was filed days after immigration agents abducted Columbia University graduate and Palestinian organizer Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident who had recently obtained a green card. Among its defendants is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has led the hunt for pro-Palestinian activists, including a campaign to scour social media for potential targets. The suit called such policies 'unconstitutional' and argues that the repression has 'created a climate of repression and fear on university campuses.' Since President Donald Trump's return to the White House in January, the administration has weaponized the United States' robust deportation apparatus to crack down on pro-Palestinian students and professors. The Trump administration has also punished universities for failing to address alleged antisemitism on campuses in its push to silence pro-Palestinian speech. The administration has canceled the visas of thousands of students and has cut federal funding from universities. Aside from Khalil, immigration agents have also abducted other students and scholars including Georgetown University scholar Badar Khan Suri, Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk, and fellow Columbia student protest leader Mohsen Mahdawi. While Suri, Öztürk, and Mahdawi have since been released, Khalil remains detained in a private immigration jail in Louisiana. The March complaint and supporting legal filings highlight more than a dozen students and professors, most of whom are green-card holders, who said Khalil's disappearance and the Trump administration's policy of targeting pro-Palestinian protesters has prevented them from attending actions, posting on social media, and continuing their research and writing on Israel and Palestine. One scholar said they had their scholarship on the topic removed from online and had turned down speaking opportunities 'due to fears that they will be targeted for deportation based on that writing and advocacy.' The motion filed on Wednesday by free-speech attorneys requests a protective order from the court, preventing possible government retaliation. In addition to the threats of deportation, many told attorneys they worried testifying would impact their future applications to become naturalized citizens. 'Noncitizen witnesses contacted by counsel have expressed concern that, if they testify at trial or are otherwise identified in connection with this case, Defendants will retaliate against them by arresting, detaining, or deporting them, denying them reentry into the United States, revoking their visas, adjusting their legal permanent resident status, or denying their pending or future naturalization applications,' the motion read. Aside from cases involving pro-Palestine protesters, ICE agents have shown in recent months they are primed for such courthouse arrests. Some agents have camped outside of courthouses across the U.S. to immediately detain people after judges dismiss their immigration cases, often denying their right to appeal their cases. Others have been detained and jailed in courthouse holding rooms after routine ICE check-ins and asylum hearings. The government is expected to file a response to the motion on Monday, after which the judge in the case, William Young, will rule on whether or not to grant the order protecting witnesses. Join The Conversation
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Where are the compassionate and moderating voices on Trump's travel ban?
Before he secured the Republican nomination for president in 2016, Donald Trump announced that he would seek 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.' Reaction, including from human rights organizations and fellow Republicans, was swift, and, for the most part, was characterized by astonishment, outrage and condemnation. Marco Rubio posted online, 'I disagree with Donald Trump's latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together.' At that time, Trump was an unknown entity in politics, and many believed he would never actually seek to implement the outrageous things he said. Unfortunately, one of Trump's first actions as a newly inaugurated president in January 2017 was to sign an executive order banning nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. This was immediately met with lawsuits and protests. The order was amended two different times in response to court challenges; eventually, a scaled-back version was upheld by the Supreme Court. To their credit, many leaders and members of the president's party were dismayed by this ban at the time. They saw it for what it was — a threat to the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. They could see it as a clear attack on the pluralism that has long guaranteed that our nation — a nation of immigrants — remains a haven for people seeking to practice their religion according to their conscience while also contributing to society. When candidate Trump first voiced his pledge to prevent Muslims from entering the U.S. in 2015, Utah Governor Herbert spoke out strongly against this idea: 'I am the governor of a state that was settled by religious exiles who withstood persecution after persecution, including an extermination order from another state's governor. In Utah, the First Amendment still matters. That will not change so long as I remain governor.' We remember both the early rhetoric of candidate Trump and the later actions of President Trump well. It was shocking and disorienting to watch his efforts to discriminate against others. It was disheartening to watch a political party descend into unchristian and uncharitable legalese, all with the aim to exclude others based solely on their faith or nationality. Mormon Women for Ethical Government was born in response to these efforts. At the outset, MWEG's founders envisioned a small group of women working together through peaceful, faithful, nonpartisan and proactive ways to counteract the unbelievable turn the government was making. But these women were not alone in their desire to take action. They were quickly joined by thousands of other women of faith who were ready to work for a more peaceful, just and ethical world. Over time, MWEG has become a strong voice in advocating for compassionate and moderating forces in government. The organization continues to attract women who want to proactively and peacefully support systems rooted in constitutional principles and the rule of law. We now have women in all 50 states engaging in the political arena as informed and principled citizens. Though much has changed since the formation of MWEG eight years ago, immigration remains a central and divisive issue. Immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, have been victims of dehumanizing language and unfair stereotyping. The current administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process. It has detained students without cause, deported a man by mistake and refused a Supreme Court order to facilitate his return, attempted to end birthright citizenship, revoked student visas, ended temporary protected status for many, and suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). This week, President Trump signed another proclamation that bans citizens from 12 countries from entering the U.S. In comparison to eight years ago, the large-scale response has been muted or even resigned. As the world has changed and political rhetoric has become ever more extreme, have we changed with it? Do things that were once the source of personal outrage and deep concern still concern us? Has our once-strong commitment to love our neighbor as ourself weakened? And, if we cannot love them, are we at least as committed to maintaining their claim to Constitutional protections as we were eight years ago? As an organization, MWEG is committed to amplifying the best aspects of our Christian faith. That faith is rooted in a gospel of generosity. We are also committed to preserving the Constitution that, among other things, protects our ability, as members of a minority faith, to participate freely in civic life, to express our views and to practice our religion without fear of repercussions. Actions like this ban seem directed at a particular group, but they actually undermine the constitutional rights that protect all of us from government overreach. As citizens of a free nation, we can and should speak out when we see those rights being violated. In 2017, the threat was widely recognized by leaders and citizens from both parties. It is worth contemplating why this is no longer the case.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
NYC needs a mayoral race centered on the city's needs, NOT Democrats' anti-Trump obsessions
Last week's debate confirmed that the Democrats running for mayor are competing almost exclusively on a near-irrelevant issue: who can fight President Donald Trump the most. The field of nine mentioned Trump more than 80 times in two hours; the only other theme to come close was the eight candidates' pile-on of the clear frontrunner among them, Andrew Cuomo. And even Cuomo has joined the club-Trump club: When he first entered the race, he talked about working with the White House; now he, too, vows to resist. Advertisement Reality check: New York City depends on more than $100 billion a year in federal aid. No, the law doesn't give any president a free hand to mess with most of that, but a Republican president with a Republican Congress is all too able to change the law to slow that flow. Especially when the feds face near-$2 trillion annual deficits, the city votes overwhelmingly Democratic, and New York state's few GOP members of Congress are stretched to cover their own constituents' needs. Advertisement The president is a son of Queens who rose to fame as an NYC developer, a lifelong Post reader still fond of the city even though the likes of state Attorney General Tish James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg have done their best to bankrupt and imprison him. With the eager cooperation of hack judges put on the bench by the city's Dem clubhouses. Yes, base Democratic voters despise the president; that's why James, Bragg & Co. waged their scorched-earth (but failed) lawfare against him, and why the mayoral candidates talk so tough. Advertisement Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani bragging he's 'Donald Trump's worst nightmare, as a progressive Muslim immigrant'; ex-city Comptroller Scott Stringer using his first TV ad to call the prez 'this schmuck' and promise to 'tell Trump where to stick it.' State Sen. Zellnor Myrie is offering a lunatic fantasy of withholding New Yorkers' federal income taxes, pretending 'that gives us the tax base so we can be independent of the White House.' Whaaat? Council Speaker Adrienne Adams announcing her run with trash talk about 'a mayor who will stand up to Trump'; Cuomo telling Politico his plan to stop Trump: 'I would spend eight years in Washington.' Gotham needs its mayor here; mayors have no power to intercept federal income taxes; Trump would like nothing more than to have a nepo baby Muslim socialist as a foil. Advertisement And the Democratic activist base that cheers this idiocy is only a fraction of the city's registered Democrats, let alone of the whole population. New York as a whole is a lot more in tune with Mayor Eric Adams' approach of working with Trump where practical, and fighting him as necessary — not far off his approach to President Joe Biden, by the way, and rightly so. Even if standing up to Biden won him a federal investigation that may well have ended his political career. We can't say where all this leads, only that Trump Derangement Syndrome has produced a Democratic primary where the basic needs and interests of New York City are thisclose to irrelevant. Even candidates that we know know better are painting themselves into corners that will ill-serve the general public if they win. Regular New Yorkers want homes they can afford, schools that teach, safe streets and subways; anti-Trump performative politics loses ground on every front. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will certainly be the favorite to win in November, but it sure feels like this is a race to an idiotic bottom. A race that's setting up New York City to lose, big time.
