THE IMPACT OF COLONIZATION IN NIGERIA

TERM PAPER: THE IMPACT OF COLONIZATION IN NIGERIA

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The geographical entity now known as Nigeria, like many other countries the world over, tasted the bitter pills of colonialism administered by the imperial muscles of Great Britain. The Nigerian entity, an artificial creation made up of people of diverse ethnicity, cultures, languages, norms and expectations was established in 1914 by the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates (Lalude & Omitola, 2001). Although Nigeria attained independence on October 1st 1960, the negative legacy of colonialism still endures till today. Fundamental problems in the Nigerian polity are attributed to colonialism and the forced amalgamation which created the Nigerian entity (Abdulrahman, 2004; Adefulu, 2001). Apart from some semblance of inferiority complex foisted on Nigerians due to colonialism, relics of colonialism still pervade the Nigerian Legal System in the form of Statutory Regulations and Procedural laws imported from Great Britain. However the most poignant of the colonial legacies which threatens the corporate existence of Nigeria is the enduring mutual distrust and ethno-phobia created among the various ethnic groups in Nigeria.

Nigeria as one of the major exporters of crude oil in the world is ironically one of the world’s poorest countries, ravaged by massive corruption (World Bank, 2013a), abject poverty of citizens and most worrisome, ethnic tensions and xenophobic intolerance (Uhunmwuangho & Epelle, 2011; Aleyomi, 2012; Ensign, 2012).This raises the question whether a solution to the prevalent ethnic crisis can be found or whether the blame should be placed at the feet of colonialism with hands raised in despair amidst strident calls for a break-up of the component units of Nigeria, thus replicating the occurrence in countries such as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia(Bunce, n.d.; Engelberg,1993).This paper is divided into five parts. The first part examines the impact of colonialism on Nigeria; the second part appraises the Federal Character principle in Nigeria’s Constitution as a colonial legacy; the third part assess the strategies that can be adopted to wipe out the legacies of colonialism in Nigeria, the fourth part evaluates the status of Nigeria as a rentier state and the fifth part examines the influence of colonialism on Nigeria’s legal system

CHAPTER TWO

THE ORIGIN OF COLONIALISM IN NIGERIA

A colony is a dependent territorial entity subject to the sovereignty of an independent country, but considered part of that country for purposes of relations with third countries (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2009).

The geographical area now known as Nigeria became a British colony in the 19th century and there is widespread consensus among scholars that the consequences of colonization on Nigeria have been unpalatable and a recipe for crisis (Dankofa,2008; Olaniyan & Alao,2003). Abdulrahman (2004,p.294) highlights some of the negative legacies of colonialism to include the “policy of separate development which engendered unequal and uneven distribution of economic and social development” in the different zones making up Nigeria. This is in addition to the “adoption of a dual urban policy particularly in Northern Nigeria and the creation of strangers’ quarters” which fostered segregation (Abdulrahman, 2004, p. 294). In the economic sphere, the Nigerian economy was “incorporated into the world capitalist economy as an appendage” thereby subjecting the economy to the vagaries of the world capitalist economy(Abdulrahman, 2004, p. 294). According to Eteng (2004, p.37), “Lugard’s forced amalgamation of 1914, and subsequent British colonial policy of divide-and-rule, instigated inter-ethno-religious suspicion, residential segregation and antagonism among various communal groups” and this became aggravated due to the absence of any institution or mechanism to mediate between feuding and competing groups, or placate aggrieved groups (Apata, 1990). The negative perception of British colonial administration in Nigeria, personified by Lord Lugard’s policies appears to be dissimilar to the perception held in central Africa where Lord Lugard’s administrative policies, as set out in his book ‘Dual mandate in Tropical Africa’ are regarded as the shining example of British colonial policy in Africa till 1945 (Wills, 1966). His method is seen to have approved the economic development of colonial territories by their European communities whilst also preserving and developing African institutions. This culminated in the Passfield Memorandum of 1930 asserting the paramountcy of native interests (Wills, 1966). Lugard asserts that albeit British methods had not produced ideal results everywhere, British rule was fundamentally benign (Gerhart, 1997). He argued that the welfare and advancement of African peoples was the guiding principle of British rule and that Africans’ discontent with British rule arose from the exposure of Africans to the British values of liberty (Gerhart, 1997). On the contrary, however, in the case of Nigeria, Azeez (2004, p.332) notes that the absence of socio-economic security under the colonial regime engendered a situation where indigenes resorted to ethnic affiliations for welfare support. It is further observed that the division of Nigeria into three regions for administrative purposes by the Richards Constitution of 1946 strengthened regional as opposed to national loyalty (Azeez, 2004, p.333). Nigeria is made of numerous ethnic groups which include the Yorubas, Ibos, Hausas and many other groups numbering up to two hundred and fifty (World Fact Book, n.d.; Afonja, 2013). Ako-Nai(2004) argues that the colonial politics of divide-and-rule is mainly responsible for the propagation of ethnicity and ethnic rivalry in Nigeria as the British played the different ethnic groups against each other and thereby fostered ethnic differences, and at independence, there were no political institutions to protect the interests of the varying ethnic groups in Nigeria, including the minority groups. The ethnic rivalry and distrust engineered by colonialism was so intense that from independence till date, Nigeria’s political discourse is strongly colored by regional affiliations and loyalty as well as class and ethnic cleavages. At present, the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) is the political party dominating the South-West States of Nigeria. The All Progressive Grand Alliance is a political party with its roots and stronghold in the Eastern States of Nigeria while the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) which is the largest of the political parties and appears to have a nation-wide spread is mainly dominated by Northern Elites(Eames,1985; Azeez,2009; Okoye, Egboh & Chukwuemeka,2012). The existence of only one party having a nation-wide spread is seen by Azeez (2009) as a stride into authoritarian one-party rule.

It must be noted that the regional affiliation of political parties is not a recent development, but rather, has become embedded in the Nigerian psyche since the colonial period. It has been suggested that the 1954 Macpherson Constitution in Nigeria precipitated regional politics when political parties were formed along ethnic lines. The National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) had its stronghold in the eastern region; the Northern People’s Congress (NPC), as the name implies was the party for the northern region while the Action Congress belonged to the western region (Adebisi, 1999; Ako-Nai, 2004; Erhagbe, 2012). This situation precipitated what has been described as identity politics in Nigeria which persists till today (Iwara, 2004). The consequence of the colonially enforced formation of the Nigerian entity is best described by Eteng’s compilation of several authors’ uncomplimentary description of Nigeria such as “A notoriously precarious lumping together of peoples of separate identities”; “A mere collection of self-contained and mutually independent native states separated by great distance, differences in history, tradition, and ethnographical, racial, tribal, political, social and religious barriers. “The most artificial of any administrative units created in the course of British occupation of Africa (Eteng, 2004, p.39)

Nigeria is a country on the edge of a precipice.  It is poised on the verge of the twenty first century and its destiny lies with the intentions of its leaders.  Nigeria could take an easy step back into an abyss of civil war and military dictatorship.  The harder task is for Nigeria to retain its new civil government and hold constant its pledge for democracy and civil liberties.  The test would be as it was seen in the year, 2003 elections in.  Then the world was with all necessary tools: pen, paper, media etc to witness a pivotal moment in Nigerian history. This course explored African politics from pre-colonialism through independence and into the present day.  Some major issues of discussion were: the ideological approach of the colonizer, the transition into independence, the neo-colonial period, and the influence of the world on present day Africa. When looking at Nigeria, its present day condition is marked by its history.

CHAPTER THREE

THE IMPACT OF COLONIALISM IN NIGERIA

The effects of colonization were long lasting.  Lugard’s indirect rule intensified the communal conflicts within the Nigerian borders.  Leaving the Caliphate to control the north, the British colonizers built up the economic wealth in the south. Christian influence in this southern region created even greater social divides between the north and south. Effects of the Colonialism in Nigeria. Colonialism in Africa is one great cause for the death of cultures in Africa. Not only did it change traditions and political structures, but it was also the cause of the feudal area in Africa. In 1900 Lord Frederick Lugard established indirect rule in Nigeria. During the late part of the 19th century, most of Africa's continent came under political control of European powers. In Nigeria, things were no different and by 1905 the British had established rule over all of present-day Nigeria. Colonial Nigeria ran from 1800 til 1960 when it gained independence. The slave trade often made Nigeria a violent land. Many were terrified over the prospect of being rounded up in slave raids. Nigerian tribes were outweighed in military resources and skills compared to British forces. Because of the colonization of Nigeria, the country witnessed political, cultural, and economic change during the colonial period". British Colonialism installed in Nigeria the foundations of a modern democracy. All important decisions were made under a British governor.   In 1966, the dream of flourishing democracy was diminished when a series of massacres occurred, inter-country arguments came about, and a military coup started the first of a series of military governments. As a response to this take over, the Ibo seceded and declared the independent republic of Biafra. This secession began a civil war that lasted for almost 3 years. Nigeria won the war and the military government controlled both regions.

When independence finally came to Nigeria, it left behind a country fragmented into cultural, ethnic, and economical strata.  From this wake of colonialism Nigeria has faced endless turmoil.

Divisions in economic, religious, and ethnic groups have made Nigeria a powerhouse of political struggle.  Thirty years after independence Nigeria has a civil government.  Obasanjo leads a country that can still remember the seven different military coups and Biafra War, it experienced in the last thirty years.  The 1970’s discovery of oil in the Niger Delta region only served to further the violence.  Not only have ethnic groups been struggling for control and representation, but individuals also struggled to control this natural resource, and the result has left Nigerians without healthcare, education, and livelihood.  The GDP per capita is 300 US dollars yet 70.2% of Nigerian’s live off of less than one dollar per day.  There are few other places where such transparent disparity is visible.

The average Nigerian lives more poorly than the average Haitian, despite the government’s millions in oil, its mineral wealth, and agricultural abilities.  Nigeria spends only .2% of its GDP on healthcare, leaving one third of the entire population without any access to these services. And Nigeria ranks 151 out of 174 countries on the Human Development Index.

HIV/AIDs have had a devastating effect on Nigeria.  The mortality rate is so high there is no accurate estimate of the population percent infected although Journalists against AIDs suggests 3,338,546 people are infected with HIV, 10,277 have died from AIDs this year and 50% of the population has HIV.  The Nigerian government initially denied the existence of AIDs, and did not acknowledge its presence until 1986.  AIDs medication, prevention, and education are still not a high priority in the government’s agenda, although it has begun to take necessary steps to address the problem.  This situation, if not seriously re-evaluated, jeopardizes the stability of Nigeria, Africa, and the world.

When one talks about the problems facing Nigeria and the rest of Africa, it is important to take into account the colonial legacy; but perhaps that largest contributor to the poverty and underdevelopment of Nigeria is its vast supply of oil.  Unlike other Sub-Saharan African countries, Nigeria has extraordinary potential for wealth with this resource.  It is the 13th largest producer of petroleum and 80% of the government’s revenues come from oil.  Oil companies (Shell, Chevron, Texaco, Agip) have a huge influence on governmental policies and practices.  In the past thirty years, they have used this power to assist military regimes assert human rights violations and abusive police force on Nigerians in the oil producing regions.  The civil population suffers from the environmental damages these companies have caused, restricted access to their homelands, and other atrocities.  Oil money caused massive corruption on all levels of the Nigerian federal system (a conservative estimate is 50 billion dollars has left the country illegitimately) and perpetuates the cycle of depression in the Nigerian economy.  It is imperative that the international community assists Nigerian activists in protesting this exploitation. 

For Nigeria to be able to maintain its democracy things must change within the economic sector.  A population that is unable to provide the basic means for survival, including adequate food, shelter, and healthcare, will not support the governing system.  Obasanjo’s government has the responsibility to diversify the Nigerian economy.  It must control the Niger Delta region, and dissolve the present tension without resorting to military brutality.  Oil in this region and off the Nigerian coast has the potential to springboard Nigeria into an influential global position.  The agricultural sector needs to be able to feed the population and resort to imports for sustenance.

The stable future of Nigeria depends on five elements.  It needs to keep a civil government, representative of the population and committed to preserving the civil liberties consecrated in its Constitution and Bill of Rights.  This hinges on the upcoming elections, which must be carried out in a legitimate manner.  The police and military must be accountable to Nigerian civilians. The government must responsibly distribute its resources, without bias, and not cater to corporate and global interests.   It must prevent, at all costs the ethnic violence emerging between ethnic and religious groups.  It must take an active role in encouraging peaceful conflict resolution. Effects of Colonialism on Nigeria colony is a dependent territorial entity subject to the sovereignty of an independent country, but considered part of that country for purposes of relations with third countries (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2009). The geographical area now known as Nigeria became a British colony in the 19th century and there is widespread consensus among scholars that the consequences of colonization on Nigeria have been unpalatable and a recipe for crisis (Dankofa, 2008; Olaniyan & Alao, 2003). Abdulrahman (2004, p.294) highlights some of the negative legacies of colonialism to include the “policy of separate development which engendered unequal and uneven distribution of economic and social development” in the different zones making up Nigeria. This is in addition to the “adoption of a dual urban policy particularly in Northern Nigeria and the creation of strangers’ quarters” which fostered segregation (Abdulrahman, 2004, p. 294). In the economic sphere, the Nigerian economy was “incorporated into the world capitalist economy as an appendage” thereby subjecting the economy to the vagaries of the world capitalist economy (Abdulrahman, 2004, p. 294). According to Eteng (2004, p.37), “Lugard’s forced amalgamation of 1914, and subsequent British colonial policy of divide-and-rule, instigated inter-ethno-religious suspicion, residential segregation and antagonism among various communal groups” and this became aggravated due to the absence of any institution or mechanism to mediate between feuding and competing groups, or placate aggrieved groups (Apata, 1990). The negative perception of British colonial administration in Nigeria, personified by Lord Lugard’s policies appears to be dissimilar to the perception held in central

Africa where Lord Lugard’s administrative policies, as set out in his book ‘Dual mandate in Tropical Africa’ are regarded as the shining example of British colonial policy in Africa till 1945 (Wills, 1966). His method is seen to have approved the economic development of colonial territories by their European communities whilst also preserving and developing African institutions. This culminated in the Passfield Memorandum of 1930 asserting the paramount of native interests (Wills, 1966). Lugard asserts that albeit British methods had not produced ideal results everywhere, British rule was fundamentally benign (Gerhart, 1997). He argued that the welfare and advancement of African peoples was the guiding principle of British rule and that Africans’ discontent with British rule arose from the exposure of Africans to the British values of liberty (Gerhart, 1997). On the contrary, however, in the case of Nigeria, Azeez (2004, p.332) notes that the absence of socio-economic security under the colonial regime engendered a situation where indigenes resorted to ethnic affiliations for welfare support. It is further observed that the division of Nigeria into three regions for administrative purposes by the Richards Constitution of 1946 strengthened regional as opposed to national loyalty (Azeez, 2004, p.333).

Nigeria is made of numerous ethnic groups which include the Yorubas, Ibos, Hausas and many other groups numbering up to two hundred and fifty (World Fact Book, Afonja, 2013). Ako-Nai (2004) argues that the colonial politics of divide-and-rule is mainly responsible for the propagation of ethnicity and ethnic rivalry in Nigeria as the British played the different ethnic groups against each other and thereby fostered ethnic differences, and at independence, there were no political institutions to protect the interests of the varying ethnic groups in Nigeria, including the minority groups. The ethnic rivalry and distrust engineered by colonialism was so intense that from independence till date, Nigeria’s political discourse is strongly colored by regional affiliations and loyalty as well as class and ethnic cleavages. At present, the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) is the political party dominating the South-West States of Nigeria. The All Progressive Grand Alliance is a political party with its roots and stronghold in the Eastern States of Nigeria while the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) which is the largest of the political parties and appears to have a nation-wide spread is mainly dominated by Northern Elites (Eames, 1985; Azeez, 2009;Okoye, Egboh & Chukwuemeka, 2012). The existence of only one party having a nation-wide spread is seen by Azeez (2009) as a stride into authoritarian one-party rule. It must be noted that the regional affiliation of political parties is not a recent development, but rather, has become embedded in the Nigerian psyche since the colonial period. It has been suggested that the 1954 Macpherson Constitution in Nigeria precipitated regional politics when political parties were formed along ethnic lines. The National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) had its stronghold in the eastern region; the Northern People’s Congress (NPC), as the name implies was the party for the northern region while the Action Congress belonged to the western region (Adebisi, 1999; Ako-Nai, 2004; Erhagbe, 2012). This situation precipitated what has been described as identity politics in Nigeria which persists till today (Iwara, 2004). The consequence of the colonially enforced formation of the Nigerian entity is best described by Eteng’s compilation of several authors’ uncomplimentary description of Nigeria such as “A notoriously precarious lumping together of peoples of separate identities”; “A mere collection of self-contained and mutually independent native states separated by great distance, differences in history, tradition, and ethnographical, racial, tribal, political, social and religious barriers. “The most artificial of any administrative units created in the course of British occupation of Africa (Eteng, 2004, p.39).

REFERENCE

Adesanya, B. (2009, June 12).Marriage, divorce and succession: The legal         aspects. Retrieved from

Adesomoju, A. (2013,July 22). New SANs emerge amid calls for reform.          Punch. Retrieved from www.punchng.com/feature/the-lawyou/

Afonja, B.(2013,November 13).Nigeria: A nation in dilemma. The Guardian.    Retrieved from www.ngrguardiannews.com/