Federal Government in Nigeria

By Eme O. Awa

This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1964.

• Language: English
• Publisher: University of California Press
• Release date: Apr 28, 2023
• ISBN: 9780520339064

Eme O. Awa

Enter the Author Bio(s) here.

Book preview

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN NIGERIA

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

IN NIGERIA

Eme O. Awa

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES 1964

University of California Press

Berkeley and Los Angeles

Cambridge University Press

London, England

© 1964 by The Regents of the University of California

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 64-23126

Printed in the United States of America

To

MARTIN LANDAU, Friend and Teacher,

and

THE PEOPLE OF OHAFIA

PREFACE

This book developed out of the dissertation, Regionalism in Nigeria: A Study in Federalism, which I wrote for my doctoral degree. Its aim is to present the salient facts about the political institutions of Nigeria as they may be discerned today, and critically to analyze the provisions of the Nigerian constitution and the functioning of the various organs of government. The study has been designed to stimulate readers, particularly students, intellectually, and to help them insofar as possible to place the material within a conceptual framework. It takes up such questions as the development and the nature of the party system, the structure of the federation, the fear of minorities, the relation between fundamental human rights and the social order, policy development, the underlying social philosophy, and social implications.

Most of the important developments in the country have taken place in the past few years, and changes have occurred at a bewildering pace. It has been difficult to obtain all the materials that are relevant to a study of this kind, and any shortcomings of the book are owing to this difficulty and to my own limitations.

I owe a heavy debt of gratitude to many teachers, principally Martin Landau, Sayre Schatz, Sterling Spero, William Ronan, G. L. Flanz, Paul Studenski, Martin Dworkis, and Arnold Zurcher; to the Graduate Division of Public Administration and Social Service of New York University for giving me an opportunity to study under its special program of the Group Field Research Seminar; and to the Carnegie and Schalkenbach foundations for awards that enabled me to undertake part of my graduate studies and the research necessary for this book.

In the course of my research in Nigeria I held discussions with many individuals, and received unstinted help from numerous politicians, civil servants, and businessmen, as well as from federal and regional ministries and agencies. I had opportunities to debate political issues and constitutional problems with some of my friends and colleagues, and the exchanges have benefited me in one way or another. I want to thank all those who rendered help to me directly or indirectly, in particular the following: Professor E. Njoku, Professor Eyo Ita, Dr. K. O. Mbadiwe, Chief Dennis Osadebay, the late Ernest Ikoli, Jaja Wachuku, Abba Gana, Aminu Kano, Godfrey Lardner, Amatere Zuofa, the Clerk of Parliament, Professor Hugh Smythe, Dr. Richard L. Sklar, Dr. Ladipo Onipede, and Dr. Eze Ogueri II. I am also grateful to the following members of the Citizens’ Committee for Independence: Dr. H. A. Oluwasanmi, Dr. A. B. Fafunwa, Aliyi Ekineh, Richard Akinjide, Lai Adedeji, Bode Rhodes, and D. A. Badejo.

The book was read in manuscript by Professor Sayre Schatz, Senior Research Fellow (NISER), and Professor A. Zalinger and R. L. Marshall, Research Fellows (NISER). Their comments were helpful, but I bear full responsibility for the interpretations made and the opinions expressed.

Many people have rendered aid in the typing of the material, but the main burden was borne by my wife; I heartily thank her and the others for their help.

E. O. A.

The University of Lagos

Lagos, Nigeria

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

I EARLY GOVERNMENT

II EXPERIMENT IN DEVOLUTION

III THE RISE OF FEDERALISM

IV THE FEDERAL SYSTEM IN TRANSITION: REGIONAL AUTONOMY

V THE FEDERAL SYSTEM IN TRANSITION:STRENGTHENING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

VI PROTEST AND REVOLUTIONARY POLITICS

VII POLITICAL PARTIES

VIII CITIZENSHIP AND HUMAN RIGHTS

IX THE ELECTORATE AND ELECTIONS

X THE LEGISLATURE

XI THE FEDERAL EXECUTIVE

XII NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND THE CIVIL SERVICE

XIII THE JUDICIARY

XIV PUBLIC FINANCE

XV MONEY, CREDIT, AND BANKING

XVI BUSINESS, INDUSTRY, AND AGRICULTURE

XVII LABOR AND WELFARE

XVIII EXTERNAL RELATIONS, DEFENSE, AND INTERNAL SECURITY

XIX REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS

XX REGIONAL LEGISLATURES

XXI THE EXECUTIVE SYSTEM AND THE CIVIL SERVICE

XXII THE REGIONAL JUDICIARY

XXIII REGIONAL PUBLIC FINANCE

XXIV ACTIVITIES OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS

XXV LOCAL GOVERNMENT

XXVI THE FEARS OF MINORITIES AND THE CASE FOR MORE REGIONS

APPENDIX THE LEGISLATIVE LISTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

I

EARLY GOVERNMENT

BEFORE THE ADVENT OF THE BRITISH

The first governments on Nigerian soil were those of the states and kingdoms that flourished particularly in the north and the west, though there were also some in the east, and village or clan governments in other sections of the country. Problems stemming from these early governments have exercised considerable influence on the shaping of national constitutions, to provide, first, a unitary government; second, a decentralized government; and, third, a federal government. Organized under varying conditions by people of different cultural backgrounds, and at times not definitely known to historians, the original political areas naturally gave rise to a wide variety of governmental arrangements. Except for the Fulani-Hausa integration in the north, and the loose hegemony of the Oni of Ife over various Yoruba kingdoms in the west, there was no tendency toward integration of the entire territory, and none toward uniformity.

By the sixteenth century the Hausa had established modern forms of government in seven states, each with a well-organized fiscal system and a trained judiciary.1 To the east of the Hausa states, in about the fourteenth century, the Kanuri had founded a dynasty in Bomu. Like the Hausa, the Kanuri established relatively powerful governments, although the dynasty began to show signs of weakening early in the nineteenth century. At some time in their past, both the Hausa and the Kanuri had embraced the Moslem religion. In the riverain area of the north, a mixture of non-Moslem peoples lived in small autonomous units whose governmental organization was built around the clan. The arrival of the Fulani, a more orthodox Moslem sect, further complicated the social situation. In 1804, in an effort to infuse greater vitality into the Islamic faith of the Hausa, the Fulani, led by Othman dan Fodio, started political warfare. By 1810 Fulani mie was fairly well established over the Hausa states, parts of the riverain area, and Dorin in the west.2 Moslem elements comprise the majority of the people in the north.

In the west, culturally the most homogeneous area, the Yoruba have great numerical superiority. Before the era of the British, both the Yoruba and the Edo were operating modern forms of government, elaborately organized in cities and towns, but based on the clan in rural areas. Outside the Yoruba and Edo areas, the atomistic social structure of the riverain area of the north was prevalent in the communities inhabited by Urhobos, Ijaws, Ibos, and others.

In the eastern territory, the most heterogeneous part of Nigeria, where the Ibo constitute the majority of the population, no strong political institutions emerged before the British occupation, except in the Rivers area. The village or the clan, or sometimes the family, was the unit of government. The Yoruba kingdoms and the Moslem dynasty in the north had produced rulers of ability and influence, but in the east, by and large, only minor chiefs with severely limited authority were indigenous to the social system.

THE DUAL MANDATE

It was in this milieu that Britain took over Nigeria; from the start there was the question of how best to govern the country. The basic principles of colonial administration had been laid down in the Berlin and Brussels conferences of 1885 and 1892, where it was agreed that the metropolitan powers, while helping themselves to the resources of Africa, would establish the Christian religion in the continent and also foster the assimilation by Africans of Western culture. The form of government set up by Britain was the product of this objective, of later nineteenth-century British liberal thought, and of forces in international politics.

Some of the Britishers who served in Nigeria in the early days were imbued with faith in English liberal thought; among these Sir Frederick Lugard was prominent. Lugard’s immediate intellectual background had been influenced by Sir Charles Lucas, who had written that it was the task of Britain to carry justice and freedom throughout the world. Britain, Sir Charles continued, had sought and found gains, and in the process her ideals of justice had been indelibly stamped on people in many parts of the world.3 Carrying his idealism further, Lugard maintained that the true conception of the interrelation of color entails complete uniformity in ideals, absolute equality in the paths of knowledge and culture, equal opportunity for those who strive, equal admiration for those who achieve in matters social and racial a separate path, each pursuing his own traditions, preserving his own race-purity and race-pride, equality in things spiritual, agreed diver gence in the physical and material.4 The ideal of self-government in Africa could be realized, he argued, by the methods of evolution which had produced Western democracy. According to Lugard, British occupation of African territories was designed to train Africans for self-government, an objective that could best be realized by governing through the medium of African rulers. In Nigeria, specifically, the object in view was to make the authority of recognized rulers effective over their people.

Before these ideals had crystallized in Lugard’s mind, events forced him to act immediately to evolve some form of government for Nigeria. In the first place, the French were pressing on Nigeria from all directions, and Germany was trying to reach in from the east. Second, there was a shortage of trained British personnel to man the administrative centers. Third, the people had not taken kindly to British occupation, and there was a threat of open revolt in the north where the Hausa tried to take advantage of British occupation to throw off Fulani rule.5

Organization of the Government

The first problem was to determine the number of administrative units in the country. As much has been written about this subject, here it is necessary to mention only what is strictly relevant.6 From the beginning there were three political divisions: (1) the Colony of Lagos; (2) the Oil Rivers Protectorate; and (3) the territories in the center and along the Niger River administered by the Royal Niger Company. In 1900 the responsibility for the administration of northern Nigeria passed from the Royal Niger Company; the southernmost tip of the northern territory was merged with the Niger Coast Protectorate to form the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. In the same year Lugard was appointed high commissioner, and in 1906 the Colony of Lagos was joined with the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria under a single administration. The new unit, with headquarters in Lagos, was called the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. Both north and south were being administered as separate political entities, but each section was divided into provinces for administrative convenience. In the area now known as the Western Region, and in the north, provincial boundaries roughly followed those of the governing units established before the advent of the British; but in the east, where the indigenous social organization was most fragmentary, artificial boundaries were created.7 Each province was in charge of a British resident, below whom were other administrative officials (district officers and assistant district officers) in charge of subdivisions of the province; all officials were responsible to the chief executive of the territory.

In 1913 a legislature known as the Nigerian Council was set up by Lugard. Its thirty-six members included the governor (the new designation of the chief executive); members of the Executive Council; some administrative officers; six Europeans representing interests in banking, shipping, commerce, and mining; and six Africans, including native rulers, nominated by the governor to represent the coastal districts and the hinterland.8 The powers of the Nigerian Council were merely advisory—it could discuss matters and pass resolutions—and real authority was vested in the governor alone. In August, 1914, the Legislative Council of the Colony of Nigeria was established to legislate for the colony only, but a fully unitary government was never realized under it.

On the local level Lugard retained and strengthened the governmental organizations that had been built up in the Hausa states and in Bomu. British officials formulated policies and empowered the Fulani rulers to administer them, investing each ruler with enormous authority. The use of Nigerian rulers and institutions to govern at the local level was called the native authority system, which functioned under certain limitations: (1) native rulers were not allowed to raise and control armed forces, or to grant permission to carry arms; (2) the right to levy taxes was made the prerogative of the British authorities; (3) the rights to legislate and to appropriate land for public and commercial purposes were vested in the British authorities; (4) the British chief executive had the right to confirm or reject the people’s choice of a successor to a chieftaincy, and the right to depose a ruler for misconduct.9 This organization meant that the Fulani ruler who had come into power by force, and had been enabled to retain this power by British might, was clothed with autocratic powers over the mass of the people.

Lugard did not establish the native authority system in all parts of northern Nigeria. Arguing that a good government was no equivalent for selfgovernment, he advocated that the non-Moslem parts of the north be administered independently of Moslem rule. He urged that efforts be made to develop the indigenous institutions of such areas—Plateau, Benue, and Adamawa provinces—before the native authority system should be established. Lugard’s successors, ignoring his plea, used the members of the Fulani dynasty as rulers even in areas that they had not conquered. By burning towns, or by confiscating property, the dual mandate was extended over non-Moslem areas, or at least these areas were made subject to a central emir.10 Governmental institutions became doubly alien in the sense that, first, they acquired an Islamic flavor, and second, they became monarchical as contrasted with the indigenous conciliar method of government. The complete subordination of these people breached the principle of the preservation of indigenous social institutions, and negated the objective of training the people for self-government.

The native authority system was subsequently established in the west and the east. After some initial difficulties, it worked well in the west. In the east, where the British authorities, influenced by the social structure of the north and the west, created autocratic paramount chiefs, the displacement of the natural rulers and the novelty of the institution generated hostility, for the eastern peoples could not readily reconcile the new system with then- own largely democratic institutions. Eventually the system was overhauled in the east. In Lagos, where there was a large European population, a system of direct administration was employed. The natural rulers in the town were paid a stipend and were assigned no political functions, a practice that also negated die principles of governing through African rulers and of using indigenous social institutions.

Amalgamation of North and South

By 1912, when the administrations in both southern and northern protectorates were becoming stabilized, pleas for a better organization of the whole country were being made. E. D. Morel, one of the most articulate advocates of closer organization, argued that the division of the country into north and south led to a duality in administration and to inevitable and unprofitable rivalries. Based on an arbitrary partition of the territory, it had created a situation that was incongruous and absurd. Nigeria, in his opinion, was a single geographical unit, and the tendency to regard north and south as separate units had retarded the development of a general principle of government for the country.

Morel emphasized that the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria had been rendered relatively poor by the division. Customs duties levied on trade with the north accrued to the south, which owned the seaboard; the north, thus impoverished, had to rely on the British treasury for support.11 Moreover, the railway systems in the two protectorates differed in gauge, and competed with each other in carrying the produce of the inland areas. Morel argued that amalgamation of the two sections would bring the advantages of (1) better financial management directed toward meeting existing and future needs of the whole country; (2) better administration in the upper echelon, especially at the level of the chief executive; (3) more sensible division of the country into provinces, along geographic and ethnic boundaries; and (4) a comprehensive public works program.

Morel proposed that Nigeria be divided into four provinces: (1) Northern or Sudan Province, comprising regions where Islamic civilization had existed for many centuries and where the majority of the people were Moslem, and including the provinces of Sokoto, Kano, Bomu, and Zaria; (2) Central Province, consisting of the non-Moslem section of Zaria Province and the whole of Nasarawa, Bauchi, Niger, Yola, and Muri provinces; (3) Western Province, including Oyo, Abeokuta, Ondo, Benin, Kabba, Dorin, Bomu, Warri, and Ijebu provinces, with the rivers Niger and Forcados forming the eastern boundary; and (4) Eastern Province, comprising the area now known as the Eastern Region, with the boundary pushed up to the Benue River. In Morel’s plan, a lieutenant-governor was to be in charge of each province, and Lagos was to be administered by a resident. The chief executive would be the governor-general, with headquarters at Lokoja. He would be assisted by an executive council and a legislative council, both of which would include British officials, representatives of business interests, and some members of the intelligentsia from the southern provinces (those from the northern provinces would come in at a later date). The Legislative Council would collaborate with the important emirs in a durbar, which would not, however, overshadow the work of the native administrations. Anticipating the Richards Constitution of 1946, Morel finally recommended that there be four provincial budgets and one central budget.12

Arguments in favor of amalgamation were generally recognized as cogent, and in 1911 Sir Frederick Lugard was invited to return to Nigeria to carry out the amalgamation. He made his recommendations in 1913, and they were approved early in 1914. For administrative purposes, the division of the country into north and south was retained; Lugard had both theoretical and practical reasons for this decision. In regard to the former, he noted that there were about twenty-one provinces, each in charge of a resident, and argued that power might be decentralized by investing each resident with a substantial degree of autonomy, or by creating half a dozen lieutenant-governorships. Under either method the work assigned to each administrative official would be relatively light. True decentralization, Lugard maintained, demanded that each lieutenant-governor have authority over an area so large and important that the governor would be relieved of all routine functions.13

From the practical point of view, Lugard argued, first, that it was not necessary to create a third lieutenant-governorship, because many functions had been transferred from both north and south to the governor. Second, he maintained that, as north and south had developed different laws and different conditions of service for their European and African staffs, a redivision of the territories would bring chaos. Amalgamation, he insisted, must cause a minimum of dislocation of existing conditions, while providing for the later introduction of changes not foreseen at the time; it was best to unify the laws first before redividing the territories. Third, he contended that a multiplicity of new governments would mean a large increase in the number of officials, who were difficult to procure; the duplication of services; and the tying down of the governor with routine duties.14 A third administrative area was established in 1939, when the Southern Protectorate was divided into the Eastern Provinces and the Western Provinces. Under the Lugard scheme, therefore, a governor-general (a title that was made personal to Lugard) headed the entire government and was advised by the Executive Council; north and south were each under a lieutenant-governor. Central departments were the railway, military, audit, treasury, posts and telegraphs, judiciary, survey, and legal.

Conduct of the Government to 1922

The Governor, or Governor-General, as a representative of the British government, combined the functions of an active and ceremonial chief executive with those of a prime minister. The Executive and Legislative councils were a travesty of parliamentary government; the members of the former were officials nominated by the Governor, and the latter contained a number of officials, who were in the majority, as well as nominated Africans and Europeans. The Executive Council possessed advisory powers only, and the Legislative Council was, in effect, a mere debating society.

The administrative branch was divided into departmental and political sections. The latter was concerned with supervision of the native administrations, the general direction of policy, education, legislation, levying of taxes, the welfare of expatriates, and the administration of justice other than in the Supreme Court. The departmental subdivision was charged with technical functions such as communications, transport, building, and the material development of the country. At first the political officers (residents) were responsible directly to the Governor, and were empowered to oversee both technical and political matters. This generated jurisdictional conflicts between the two subdivisions, which the Governor endeavored to eradicate by ordering the lieutenant-governors to oversee the entire administrative machinery within their respective groups of provinces. More power was thus delegated to the lieutenant-governors, and the residents were able to devote more time to the work of the native administrations.

The court system was arranged in a hierarchical order: native courts, provincial courts, and the Supreme Court; appeals could be made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The organization of the native courts, which had jurisdiction only over Nigerians and administered Nigerian law and customs, was not uniform throughout the country. In some sections Nigerian judges were trained in the law and customs of their areas, but in other places, where they were not so trained, they were employed on the ground that they could elicit evidence more readily than could trained non-Nigerians. Residents and other administrators were empowered to review cases or transfer them to the provincial courts, but, as they were burdened with a multitude of other duties and had vast areas to traverse under poor communications systems, their visits were few and far between. In their absence, semiliterate and ill-paid Nigerians, employed as interpreters and clerks, came to wield considerable power. Consequently bribery and corruption of all kinds became characteristic features of the judicial system at the local level.

Provincial courts had jurisdiction over Nigerians and expatriates, except where the Supreme Court exercised jurisdiction; the resident was the president of the provincial court and district officers acted as commissioners. Lawyers were barred from both the native and provincial courts so as to deprive them of the opportunity to instigate litigation among the mass of the people. The Supreme Court consisted of a chief justice and two or more judges. There were eastern and western branches of the court, and assizes were held by different judges twice a year to relieve political officers.

On the provincial and local levels there was complete fusion of legislative, judicial, and executive functions, which Lugard defended on the ground that Nigeria was a vast land mass and administrators inevitably had to exercise powers of adjudication in order to offset delays that would stem from the assizes system. Moreover, he argued, the fusion of such functions was not unnatural to Africans, for in the indigenous practice they were combined in the ruler.15 Furthermore, the administrative officer was closer to the people and understood their laws and customs better than judges who were not familiar with their languages.

THE CONSTITUTION OF 1922

Owing partly to agitation for reforms in 1920 by the National Congress of British West Africa (see chap, vi), Governor Hugh Clifford introduced a new constitution in 1922. It enlarged the Legislative Council, though official members were still in the majority. Four of the nonofficials were elected, three to represent Lagos and one to represent Calabar. The Legislative Council served the Colony and the Southern Protectorate in all matters, and the Northern Protectorate in financial matters; in other matters the governor alone legislated for the north.16 17 18 From 1923 to 1946 the Nigerian-nominated membership in the Legislative Council was as follows: the colony area and Abeokuta, Oyo, Warri/Benin, and Rivers provinces were each represented by one nominated member, and all Ibos were represented by one person. Ijebu and Ondo provinces, the Ibibios in Calabar Province, and the Cam- eroons were represented by one person each from 1938 to 1946. Representation of the Niger African traders was started in 1923, but was discontinued in 1943.19 The provinces of the Western Region were thus better represented than those of the Eastern Region, whereas the Northern Provinces were left out completely. The criterion for determining representation was a curious one; the populations of the provinces and the tribal groups were certainly not taken into account.

Overhauling the Native Administration

The Constitution of 1922 did not deal with the problem of native administration, but Sir Donald Cameron, governor from 1933 to 1938, concluded that it was a feudal polity dependent on the relation between vassal and lord. Feeling that the structure was a contradiction of the ideal of indirect rule in the north, to the extent that Fulani rulers exercised authority over non-Moslem and non-Fulani peoples, Cameron ruled that whenever a Moslem chieftaincy became vacant, the post should be filled by a local chieftain of the indigenous ethnic group. The Governor also insisted that the system of indirect rule should be applied in the east, which meant abolishment of the institution of paramount chiefs. Restating the principles of native ad ministration, Cameron maintained that the native authority recognized by the government must be the one acceptable to the people. This principle involved, first, an investigation of the nature of indigenous authority in an area; second, the willingness of the people to accept this authority; third, a confirmation of the authority by the government. Cameron’s second basic principle was that administrative officers should play a more active role in the work of native administrations. Power to constitute native authorities would be vested in the governor, who could prescribe the limits of their authority and except persons from their control.20

Attacking the judicial system, Cameron declared: But if the decision of the court may properly be swayed by political and other non-judicial considerations within the knowledge of the administrative officer and is therefore not based solely on the evidence which has been led, then in my judgement the court has ceased to be a judicial tribunal and the officer has ceased to be a judicial officer. 21 He argued further that such a system would deprive the people of the benefits of judicial courts and a system of law, and would therefore contradict the policy that controlled the acts of the Nigerian government. Cameron reorganized the system, abolishing the provincial courts and limiting the power of the native courts. He set up a high court of the protectorate with subordinate magistrate’s courts, and ruled that administrators who showed ability in law should continue to function as judges and magistrates.22

Preserving the Identity of the Northern Region

Certain public policies were particularly important to the constitutional development of Nigeria. Concomitant with the effort to set up administrative organizations was a movement to impart political and literary education to the mass of the people. Some of these policies were greatly influenced by the views of E. D. Morel, who maintained that the highest human attainments were not necessarily reached on parallel lines; humanity should not be legislated for as though sections of it were modeled on the same pattem.23 He pleaded that the north should be developed differently from the south, which had been exposed to Western culture.

Under the governorship of Sir Graeme Thomson (1925-1931) there was a deliberate attempt to develop the more advanced sections of the north as independent units, apparently in response to Morel’s views: Great efforts were made to dispense with Southern labour and to train local clerks and artisans. The Northern people were encouraged in their natural desire to resist external influences whether upon their religion, dress, architecture, or way of life generally. 24 A durbar summoned in 1925 on the occasion of the visit of the Prince of Wales provided the impetus for the convening of six regional conferences in 1930. These conferences, attended by emirs, administrative officials, and representatives of business, discussed the problems of education, police, road development, and certain procedures in Moslem law.25 In 1934 Cameron abolished the conferences in order to halt the trend toward the separatist development of the north.

It was the educational policy of the country more than anything else which helped to create a cleavage between north and south in intellectual and psychological orientation. Sir Frederick Lugard had contended that education should make an individual useful, sympathetic, and stimulating in his relationship with his community, but that the education of those who entered government service or worked for European firms should make them efficient, loyal, reliable, contented, and self-respecting. Noting that European civilization tended to undermine that respect for authority among tropical races which is the basis of social order, Lugard placed the inculcation of moral precepts above the training of the intellect as a means of achieving social stability.26

Christian missionaries, who took up the work of imparting education to the people, especially in the south, taught their wards and converts to despise Nigerian rulers and indigenous social institutions. The rulers were assumed to be morally and spiritually inferior beings, and the institutions were said to be primitive and unworthy of preservation. Christianity therefore tended to undermine family life and communal authority, producing results antithetical to the stability Lugard wanted to maintain. In the south the missionary organizations had established schools and teacher training institutions, primarily to imbue people with the principles of the Christian religion; the government itself maintained a few schools. Everywhere English was the medium of instruction, and the subject matter had a British orientation, with emphasis on the history of England and of the British Empire.

In 1926 the government enacted a new education ordinance, and appointed an advisory committee, consisting of officials, missionaries, and educators, to evolve a new syllabus. Emphasis was shifted to the improvement of agriculture, the development of industries, training of the people in the management of their own affairs, and teaching spiritual ideals, with the use of the vernacular in the kindergarten.27 Africans were not well disposed toward any teaching that differed fundamentally from the English model, for they felt that anything different was deliberately designed to foster intellectual serfdom among Africans.

Events in the north were proceeding along different lines. When Lugard took over the government, he gave letters of appointment to the emirs, promising that the government would studiously refrain from any action which will interfere with the exercise of the Mohammedan religion by its adherents, or which will demand of them action that is opposed to its precepts. 28 Education in the north was in the hands of the government, except in non-Moslem areas; in the Moslem north it was adapted to the cultural environment of the territory. After Lugard’s retirement, his successors came to interpret his pledge to the emirs to mean total prohibition of Christian enterprise in the emirates. In 1919 the Colonial Office justified this policy by arguing that (1) if British missionaries were granted permission to proselytize the Christian religion in the north, the emirs would regard their efforts as a breach of Lugard’s pledge; (2) any action that weakened the authority of the Moslem religion would also weaken the authority and prestige of the emirs, and would thus imperil the system of indirect administration. British authorities on the spot also feared that the introduction of Christianity might generate Moslem fanaticism, and after 1926 the missions were denied permission even to build schools and hospitals within an emirate.

Lugard attacked this narrow and prohibitive interpretation of his pledge to the emirs.29 He maintained that when emirs were willing to admit missionaries, permission ought to be granted. His pledge, he said, meant merely that the consent of emirs should be sought, but under his successors no missionary had been allowed to interview an emir to gain such consent. In 1924 the Bishop of Lagos reportedly expressed the fear that it was too late for Christian missions to establish themselves in the Moslem states because the antimissionary policy of the government was already firmly fixed in the minds of Moslem rulers. The attitude of a Moslem ruler was dependent almost wholly on the view he believed the British administrators favored, and the officials had made it plain that no emir should dare allow a missionary to settle in his territory.30

The Northern Protectorate was thus cut off from the influence of the Christian ethic, an important part of the basis of Western democratic theory and practice. The older setting, with its moral and mystical restraints on authority, had been destroyed by the institution of the native administration system, and little liberalizing force remained. From this situation certain problems emerged: (1) the south, trained in the ways of the British, developed a feeling against the north, whose social and political institutions had been insulated from all foreign influences; (2) whereas the south looked to Western culture for inspiration, the north, when it looked outside at all, saw only the Moslem world and practically nothing of the south; and (3) the south was given some rough and ready tutelage in parliamentary government, but the north was given none.

1 Lord Hailey, Native Administration in the British African Territories, III (London: H.M.S.O., 1951), 42-43.

2 Report of the Northern Nigeria Lands Committee (London: H.M.S.O.. 1910), passim.

3 Lord Lugard formulated his theories in The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1922). See page 619 for excerpts from Sir Charles Lucas’ writings.

4 Ibid., p. 87.

5 R. L. Buell, The Native Problem in Africa (2 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1928), I, 681.

6 •The best account of the early government is probably Margery Perham, Native Administration in Nigeria (London: Oxford University Press, 1937).

7 In 1910 there were thirteen provinces in the Northern Protectorate: Sokoto, Kano, Katsina, Bomu, Bauchi, Zaria, Yola, Muri, Nupe, Kontagora, llorín, Nasarawa, and Munshi. The west was divided into five provinces: Abeokuta, Benin, Ondo, Oyo, and Warri. The east comprised four provinces: Calabar, Owerri, Onitsha, and Ogoja. Modifications were later made in the boundaries of some of these provinces.

8

9 ⁸ The Nigerian Council was established by Order in Council No. 165, Nov. 22, 1913.

⁹D. W. Bittinger, Educational Experiment in the Sudan (Elgin, Ill.: Brethren Publishing House, 1941), pp. 205 ff.

10 Ibid., p. 176.

11 E. D. Morel, Nigeria: its People and Its Problems (London: John Murray, 1912), p. 190.

12 Ibid., pp. 201-207.

13 ¹⁸ Lugard, op. cit., p. 100.

14 Report by Sir F. D. Lugard on the Amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria and Administration, 1912-1919, Cmd. 468 (London: H.M.S.O., 1920), pp. 9-10.

15 Lugard’s reference to a fusion of functions in the indigenous system was not altogether enlightening, because the Nigerian ruler had become merely a cog in the vast British machinery, and the mystical symbolism associated with his position and the sanctions under which he operated had been largely destroyed. The new symbolism

16 had an alien flavor, and seemed to give the impression that a moral void existed. This

17 not to argue that the old system had built-in devices which always produced justice, but it does mean that the social milieu in which such a structure was meaningful to the Nigerian had gone.

18 Statutory Rules and Orders, 1922, No. 1446, Sec. XXIII.

19 Joan Wheare, The Nigerian Legislative Council (London: Faber and Faber, 1950), p. 199.

20 For instance, Europeans were excepted from native authority control, but the authority extended to Arabs on the approval of the Colonial Secretary, and to southern Nigerians resident in the north on the approval of the Legislative Council (Perham, op. cit., p. 336).

21 Quoted in ibid., p. 338.

22 Arthur N. Cook, British Enterprise in Nigeria (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1943), p. 254.

23 Morel, op. cit., pp. 153-154.

24 Perham, op. cit., p. 326.

25 Cook, op. cit., p. 258.

26 Lugard, op. cit., p. 460.

27 Buell, op. cit., I, 732.

28 20 Ibid., p. 733.

29 Colonial Annual Reports, Northern Nigeria, 1905-1906, p. 469.

30 Buell, op. cit., I, 736.

II

EXPERIMENT IN DEVOLUTION

BOURDILLON’S REGIONAL PLAN

The division of the south into the Eastern Provinces and the Western Provinces in 1939 had been accomplished by Sir Bernard Bourdillon, who subsequently began to doubt the wisdom of insulating the north from the rest of Nigeria. He noted that the copious advice being given the Governor by the Legislative Council, the press, and youth organizations all came from the south; from the north advice came primarily from the Chief Commissioner of the Northern Provinces, and, later, from the Advisory Committee of Chiefs, an informal body. Sir Bernard thought that the government’s original objective was to prevent the subordination of the north by the south, and that the policy should be reversed. He therefore decided that the emirs should be persuaded, in the interests of themselves and of their people, to demand participation in advising the Governor on Nigerian affairs. At first Sir Bernard believed that the remedy lay in the establishment of regional councils to serve as provincial legislatures having advisory powers only, and of a federal council in Lagos. As an alternative he suggested three parallel first chambers, with the Lagos council as a second chamber.1

The use of the word federal made many officials fearful that antagonism between state and federal authorities might develop in Nigeria, an antagonism they assumed existed in both Canada and the United States. Subsequently Sir Bernard restated his views, explaining that the regional councils would have no inherent authority, but that they should have legislative and not merely advisory powers.2 They would meet as bodies to advise the government, and, when considering bills sent them by the government, would not adopt the legislative procedure of reading them through the normal three stages. Politics would be eschewed by the councils, and members could not consider themselves as an opposition bloc. Below the regional councils, provincial councils might function as advisory committees on welfare and development. A central council, to be established in Lagos, would consist of regional council members and a few officials and nonofficials directly representing the country. Even on this level there would be no opposition group until, as Bourdillon put it, a party system developed.

Sir Bernard’s greatest difficulty seemed to be in the determination of an adequate number of regional units. If the three administrative areas (north, west, and east, each under a chief commissioner) were to be used as units, the setting up of the new government would provide an opportunity for taking the long overdue step of detaching from the north such areas as the Tiv and Idoma divisions and most, if not all, of Kabba Province. Some officials, disapproving the tripartite division, advocated creating a larger number of regions and making the units more homogeneous. Sir Bernard, who did not seem to hold very strong views on the matter, suggested that if the existing regions were abolished, it might be as well to try the East African system of using provincial or district commissioners. Under such a system Nigeria might be divided into ten provinces, each under a provincial commissioner who would communicate directly with the governor; the post of resident would be abolished. To the objection that such a scheme would lead to more centralization, Sir Bernard quite correctly pointed out that there would still be decentralization if enough power was given to the provinces. It was suggested to him that under such a scheme the existing chief commissioners might be retained in the headquarters office, whence they would undertake occasional tours of the provinces.

At this point Sir Bernard called for the opinions of officers regarding the number and the boundaries of provincial commissionerships, and related problems. The records available do not indicate what opinions were expressed, but it seems unlikely that the existing chief commissioners would welcome a change that would strip them of substantial political and administrative power.

THE RICHARDS CONSTITUTION

Before any changes could be made, Sir Bernard retired, and the new governor, Sir Arthur Richards, gave the matter his immediate attention, as criticism of the existing constitution by Nigerian nationalists was mounting. Sir Arthur, noting that Nigeria falls naturally into three regions, the North, the West and the East, and the people of those regions differ widely in customs, in outlook and in their traditional systems of government, 3 pointed out that the real problem was to create a political system which would in itself be a present advance and would contain the possibility of further orderly advance. In other words, it was necessary to create a system of government within which the diverse elements might progress at varying speeds, yet amicably and smoothly, toward a more closely integrated economic, social, and political unit without sacrificing the principles and ideals inherent in their divergent ways of life. The broad objectives of Sir Arthur’s proposals were to bring Nigeria to responsible government along practical lines, to promote unity in the country, and to make adequate provision within the unity for the country’s diverse elements. More specifically, he wanted to devise a constitutional framework covering the whole of Nigeria, and a legislative council that would represent all sections of the country. Furthermore, he wanted to establish bodies where the affairs of each group of provinces could be discussed, bodies that would be linked by membership with the native authorities and could send delegates to speak for them in the central legislature.

It is apparent that the keynote of Sir Arthur’s constitutional theory was the assumed natural division of Nigeria into three regions. This tripartite division has subsequently plagued the people of Nigeria in their efforts to plan further constitutional advance, and it may be useful at this point to analyze the bases for Sir Arthur’s assumption. In his constitutional proposals, Sir Arthur said he had pored over the writings of several people, particularly those of Lord Lugard, Sir Bernard Bourdillon, and Lord Hailey, for information on the languages, the beliefs, the habits, and the aspirations of the different peoples of Nigeria. It may therefore be helpful to survey the points of view held by these authorities on the division of the country into administrative areas.

Lord Hailey divided the north into a Moslem north and a non-Moslem north, the former consisting of highly organized units seen in their most complete form in Sokoto, Bomu, Kano, Katsina, and Zaria provinces. Here the position of the ruler was theoretically absolute, though modified in practice by the lack of a regular machinery for enforcing his will in the face of sectional or general opposition. The non-Moslem