Reconsidering Indirect Rule: The Nigerian Example

Abstract

the subject of Indirect Rule has been receiving the attention of a number of Nigerian scholars in recent years. What used to te Eastern Nigeria, Benin, the Delta Province and the Qyo Province have been the subjects of detailed study.1 While these studies have been extremely useful in providing details of the actual working of British administration in the areas concerned, they have not altogether succeeded in clarifying our understanding of Indirect Rule in Nigeria. Indeed there are noticeable differences of opinion among some of those involved in the study of Indirect Rule at the moment .This fact underlines the complexity of the subject and points to the conclusion that it is difficult, if not impossible, to see in Indirect Rule a set pattern or a system with clearly-defined attributes found in the different areas under British rule. Indeed the major issue with which this paper concerns itself is that of the criteria with which Indirect Rule is to be judged. The view is commonly held that Sir Fredrick Lugard was the father of indirect rule in Nigeria. Such a view implies that the system with which the British ruled Southern Nigeria in the pre-Lugardian era was not one of indirect rule. In fact Lucy Mair even goes to the extent of maintaining that indirect rule was deliberately not introduced into the Ibo country until after the Aba riots.2 Certain British administrative officers who wrote in the 1930's not only imply that there was no indirect rule in the south but go as far as claiming that the system which was in operation prior to the tax riots of the late twenties was one of 'direct rule'.3 The myth has therefore tended to grow that British rule in Southern Nigeria can be divided into two distinct periods one of direct and the other of indirect rule. This myth has been challenged, in respect of the former Eastern Region of Nigeria, by Dr A. E. Afigbo who has undertaken a study of the warrant chief