HIS 301 First Tutorial Question

With reference to the Sokoto Jihad of 1804, discuss the view that 'the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.' Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, Communist Manifesto, 1848.

Constitutinal Development in Nigeria

Constitutional History of Nigeria, an Overview

Many centuries before European imperialism in Africa, the unlettered people of Africa had been governing their societies through unwritten constitutions derived from their cultures, customs and tradition. The constitutional history of Nigeria began with the conquest of Lagos in 1861 by the British. This was followed a year after by the declaration of Lagos as a new ‘Crown Colony’ or Settlement (Burn: 1978, pp.130-131) and the introduction of the first colonial Constitution in Nigeria. A Legislative Council comprising a Chief Justice, Colonial Secretary and a senior military officer commanding the imperial forces, was introduced (Olusanya: 1980, p. 518). The Legislative Council was charged with the responsibility of advising the governor in framing legislation for the colony (Coleman: 1986, p.50).

Until 1928, the Legislative Council was dominated by the repatriates. One major factor that determined the exclusion of the indigenous people from the Council was the Western education which was the necessary prerequisite for effective participation. Even, the few educated Africans[1] that made appearance between 1872 and 1922 in the Legislative Council were all repatriates (Olusanya: 1978, p.518). For instance between 1872 and 1874, the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, A.H. Porter, an English merchant, G. Hutchinson and Captain J.P.L. Davies were wholly expatriates. Between 1874 and 1886, the colony lost its unofficial nominations into Legislative Council as a result of the British administrative strategy in which Lagos was merged administratively with the Gold Coast.

            The coalescing of both Lagos Colony and the Southern Nigeria Protectorate in 1906 extended the jurisdiction of the Legislative Council to the latter. Significantly, the amalgamation of the Colony and the Southern Nigeria Protectorate meant increase membership of both official and unofficial representatives in the Legislative Council. The official members became ten while the unofficial members were six. Despite growing number of the membership, the function of the Council did not extend beyond advisory role.  Still, the amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria Protectorate in 1914 did not usher in any improvement on the function of the Legislative Council. In fact, the competence of the Council which covered the Southern Nigeria Protectorate before was truncated by Governor Lugard (Olusanya: 1980, p.520). The creation of the Nigerian Council for the rest of the country, i.e. the Northern and the Southern Nigeria Protectorate in 1913, did not salvage the issue of proper representation. The Nigerian Council consisted of twenty four official members and twelve unofficial members. Of the twelve unofficial members, six were Europeans representing economic interest of colonial government; the remaining six were first class Nigerian chiefs (Tamuno: 1967, p. 118).[2] Like the previous Legislative Councils, the Council was no more than advisory body. By 1922, the Council was abandoned due to the perpetual absence of traditional chiefs who because of language barrier found the legislative proceeding boring (Coleman: 1986p. 50).

A few points could be observed from the Constitutional History of Nigeria before 1922. First, the Legislative Councils established by the colonial administration were not true representations of the people of Nigeria as they were dominated by official members. Even those Africans that were later allowed to participate were not only repatriates but also nominees of the governor. The inclusion of the traditional chiefs in the Nigerian Council, though a welcome idea, was no more than a cosmetic measure as they were unable to understand, least contribute to the legislative debate.

More importantly, the legislation by the Council was no more than window dressing as no resolution passed by the Council could take any effect without the ratification of the governor. Hence, in reality, the Legislative Council and the Nigerian Council were advisory boards to the governor. Finally, the people for whom legislations were been enacted were not informed, and were least involved. Thus, whatever constitutions handed down by the British colonial administration before 1922 violated the true principle of constitutionalism which places people at the centre of law. But in fairness to the colonial administration, the western-style constitutional process was at that nascent stage strange to Nigerians and required gradual learning and training.

Nevertheless, the pre-1922 colonial legislation was not without advantages. First, the introduction of the Nigerian Council in 1913 was an indication that the colonial government was not unaware of the need for public opinion. Hence, the advisory role played by the Council. Second, the increase in the number of unofficial members of the Legislative Council started from 1906 represented an increase of African participation in their domestic affairs.

The Clifford Constitution of 1922

Having recognized the failure of both the Legislative Council and the Nigerian Council in providing criticism of government policies and a check upon official extravagance, Sir Hugh Clifford proposed substitution of Nigerian Council with a new Legislative Council whose jurisdictions would at least covered the whole South (Tamuno: 1967, p.120). However, the Northern Province was to be governed by the Governor’s proclamations. The difficulty involved in the size of the country, poor transportation and communications, cultural diversity and legal differences between the colony and the Islamized North were among reasons for the exclusion of the Northern Province from the Legislative Council (Tamuno: 1967, p.121). However, the annual budget, expenditure and custom duties that concerned the North were also discussed by the Council.

            The Clifford constitution was important in that it embodied for the first time the principle of election in Nigeria. Of the 46 members of the Legislative Council- 27 unofficial and 19 official - four of the unofficial members were elected through limited male adult franchise; three from Lagos and one from Calabar. The condition of election was the residential qualification of one year in any of Lagos or Calabar and a gross annual income of £ 100 per annum (Olusanya: 1980, p.522). The Clifford constitution also established an Executive Council to advise the governor. It was not until after 1943 that the first two unofficial Africans were appointed into the Executive Council (Okonkwo: 1962, p.211). Another major effect of the constitution was that it stimulated the formation of political organizations in the country such as the NNDP (Afigbo: 2003, p. 52). This constitution remained operative for 25 year.

Richard Constitution of 1946

Before the end of December 1944, Sir Arthur Richard, the new Governor of Nigeria, published a new constitutional proposal (Olusanya: 1980, p. 524). The constitutional proposal was in response to the demand and agitation by some sections of the country, particularly the more educated south for either self-government or more participation in government. This opinion was articulated by the WASU and the NYM (Coleman: 1986, p. 271). The proposals for the new constitution which was already been prepared by the previous Governor, Bernard Bourdillon, was presented to the Legislative Council of Nigeria on March 6, 1945 (Ibid).

Perhaps the most distinguished feature of Richard constitution was regionalism. It has been argued that the inclusion of the principle of regionalism in the constitution was a compromise between the radical regional separatists who preferred three strong states and the federalists who wanted the Native authority system linked with the central parliament (Coleman: 1986, p.276). Nevertheless, the stated objectives of the constitution as presented in the white Paper were:

1.      to promote the unity of Nigeria ;

2.      to provide adequately within that desire for the diverse elements which make up the country; and

3.      to secure greater participation by Africans in the discussion of their own affairs (Okonkwo: 1962, p. 255).

As observed by Coleman (1962: pp274-275), the introduction of regionalism seemed to be attractive to the British for three reasons. First, the idea of regionalism would at least partially assuage the nationalist agitation. Second, it would ensure that the Legislative Council did not grow too large and unwieldy. Lastly, it would also serve as ‘defense against a possible seizure of central power by an educated minority in Lagos’. The composition of the new Legislative Council included the Governor, 16 official members and 28 unofficial members, 24 of whom were nominated by the Governor and the remaining 4 elected.  In addition to two official members, the Northern Province was represented by nine unofficial members. The Western and the Eastern Provinces were equally represented by two officials each and six unofficial and five unofficial respectively (Okonkwo: 1962, p. 255).

            Unlike previous constitutions, the Richard Constitution had a few advantages. First, the constitution integrated both North and South for legislative purpose. Second, the income qualification of the aspirants was reduced from £100 to £50. It was also a constitutional advance for Nigeria as the Central Legislative Council was empowered to legislate for the whole country. The constitution also introduced Regional Councils. While the Regional Council for the North had two chambers (House of Assembly and House of Chiefs), the Western and Eastern had one chamber each. Lastly, the creation of Regional Council brought government closer to the people of Nigeria.

            The constitution was criticized for a number of reasons. First, the claim that the constitution increased the participations of Nigerians was a false claim as majority of unofficial members were nominated by the Governor and even in reality were traditional chiefs who had problem to communicate in English language. Second, the election principle under the constitution did not extend beyond limited franchise even though income qualification was reduced. Third, the elections of the four unofficial members were limited to Lagos and Calabar. Also, there was no proper consultation of the indigenous people as promised by the previous Governor, Sir Bernard Bourdillon. Perhaps the worst criticism came from the educated nationalists who claimed that they were excluded from the process and that the constitution was an imposition on the country. It should be noted that even though the constitution’s claim of greater participation was not adequate, it nonetheless provided greater opportunity for discussion and debating public opinion. Not only that, the restriction of election to Lagos and Calabar was probably because the level of literacy in other part of country was still rather low. The numbers of the northerners in the parliaments exceeded that of the southerners, this of course became the reference point for establishment northern hegemony or domination of the country. This again may have arisen out of the British coy to extend their stay in the country, and this was testified to by the northerners’ unwillingness to gain independence when they opposed independence movement made by Anthony Enahoro in 1956.

Macpherson Constitution of 1951

By March 1949 a Select Committee of Legislative Council was set up to make recommendations on the proposed new constitution of Nigeria. Having examined the problems emanated from Richard constitution, a wide consultation was made even to village level (Olusanya: 1980 p.530). This was followed by an all Nigerian Constitutional conference in January 1950. Among other things, the conference agreed to federal system and transformation of the three regions from administrative to political regions. The new constitution came into effect in 1951.

The constitution introduced a single chamber central Legislative House (known as the House of Representatives) and the executive Council for the entire country. The constitution introduced bi-cameral legislature, the House of Assembly and the House of Chiefs- into the Western and the Northern regions but only House of Assembly for the Eastern region. Besides division of the country into three, the constitution also established regional executive council for each region. The composition of the House of Representatives comprised of the President (the Governor), six ex-officio members, One hundred and thirty six elected members and six special members appointed by the Governor to represent interests not adequately represented (Okonkwo: 1962, p.275). Of the one hundred and thirty six elected members, sixty eight were to come from Northern House of Assembly, thirty one from the Western House of Assembly and three by the Western House of Chiefs. The remaining thirty four were members of the Eastern House of Assembly.

One major advantage of Macpherson Constitution was that it increased the level of participation of indigenous people in the government. For the first time, the number of unofficial members in the House of Representatives was overwhelming. It is significant to note that the number of unofficial elected members was far greater than unofficial nominated members. More importantly, the constitution provided much longing opportunity for Nigerian nationalists to learn the art of constitution making.  Lastly, the constitution ushered in the formation of new political parties.

Yet, the constitution was not without a few shortcomings. First, it is true that the constitution granted election principle; the franchise granted was limited by economic status and sex. Second, the election into the Federal Legislative Council was through electoral process. This was unsatisfactory to some politicians. The Governor still had power to veto any bill he deemed inconsistent with general interests. Lastly, the constitution as argued by some disgruntled politicians, further widen the ethnic relation gap in the country. But it should be noted that the spate of ethnic chauvinism and regional divisions that followed the Macpherson Constitution was orchestrated by the selfish politicians who bent on acquiring powers by all means. Hence, the creation of the Action Group and Northern Peoples Congress were forged along ethnic lines.

Lyttletton  Constitution of 1954

By 1954, it became obvious that the Macpherson constitution could not work any longer. Two major factors were responsible for the failure of the 1951 constitution. First, in 1953, a member of House of Representatives, Chief Anthony Enahoro of Action Group party moved the motion for self-government in 1956.  This generated crisis in the House as Northern delegates opposed the motion on the ground that the North was unprepared for such sudden decision.  The leader of the NPC in the House, Sir Ahmadu Bello proposed that the date 1956 should be substituted with ‘as practicable as possible.’ The crisis was aggravated when the Northern legislators were subjected to ridicule by the Lagos crowd (Olusanya: 1980, p.536). Second, both the North and the West were critical and unsatisfactory of the concentration of power in the Central Government in Lagos. (Okonkwo: 1962, p. 294). The consequence of this was the Kano riot of 1953 and the threat of secession by the North. More importantly, the crisis stimulated London Conference where the decision to review Macpherson Constitution was made (Ibid). After protracted deliberations in London and Lagos between 1953 and 1954, the conference granted self-government to the regions (the west and the east) which desired it. The position of Lagos which had hitherto been controversial was solved. Lagos became Federal Territory with direct representation in the Central Legislature.

A new constitution that recognized the demands of each region was drafted. In addition to the existing three regions -the North, the West and the East- Southern Cameroon attained a separate region each, with regional Legislative Council and Lagos, the Federal Territory. At the Federal level, the office of the Governor became Governor-General while that of Lieutenant-Governor at the regional level was transformed to the Governor. A Federal Supreme Court replaced the West African Court of Appeal, and High Courts were provided for regions, including Southern Cameroon and Lagos. More autonomy was granted the regions. For instance the regional executives were responsible for the formulation and execution of policies for their regions except matter related to the Exclusive List of the Central government.

It would appear that the London Conference of 1953 was the most agreeable constitutional deliberation that Nigerian nationalists would embrace before independence. The conference agreed to allocate limited but specific power to the Federal Government while the regions operated within residual list (Coleman: 1986, 371). The constitutional conference conveyed in 1957 ushered in two momentous developments. The formal attainment of self-government by both the Eastern and the Western regions on August 8 was approved. More importantly, there was creation of national government by the Prime Minister, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa in spite of regionalization of the three major political parties- the AG, the NCNC and the NPC.

It should be noted that despite the full participation granted Nigerians in the 1957 constitutional deliberation, the Nigerian politicians did not display enough maturity that could guarantee lasting peace and unity. By 1958, three knotty obstacles were observable. These problems reflected in the minority questions, agitation for separate states and the threat to national unity (Coleman: 1986, 384). The growth of ethnic nationalism, and close association and allegiance of political parties to the major ethnic groups no doubt instigated the fear of domination exercised by the minority groups. As Coleman aptly observes, ‘the interlocking leadership of the principal cultural and political association has furthered frustrated the tribalization of political groups.’

Another problem emanated from party rivalry between the AG and NCNC. In a bid to gain more vote in the opponent’s region. The promise of autonomous to the minority groups created agitation for separate states by the Middle Belt movement, Benin-Niger Delta and Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers State Movement. To solve the problem, the Henry Willink Commission was set up to look into the minority problem. On August 18, the commission submitted a detailed report (Olaniyan and Alao: 2003, p.6). Four crucial points could be noted from the Willink Commission report. First, the commission advised that creation of new regions rather than solving the problems would escalate it. Second, the commission recommended that one strong police force that would not be subject to the manipulation of regional politicians be established. Third, it recommended that areas where problems existed should be declare Special Area and organization of boards that would complement development be established in the areas.  More importantly, the commission advised that fundamental human rights should be incorporated in the Independent Constitution (Olaniyan and Alao, p. 17). Consequently, the 1960 constitution came into effect. The constitution was modeled on Westminster parliamentary style. But unlike the British constitution which was unwritten, Nigerian constitution was a written one. The constitution provided for Federal parliament made up of Governor-General, a Senate and a House of Representative. The former had forty-four members while the latter had 312 members. Although the constitution granted the country political independence, not complete sovereignty.

The Presidential Constitution of 1979

The 1979 constitution, though was Federal, was not based on the ‘Westminster’ parliamentary model. A new model, patterned on the ‘Washington Model’ was introduced. On 18 October, 1975, a Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) was inaugurated by the Murtala-Obasanjo regime (Agi: 1986, p.22). The Head of State, General Murtala Muhammed charged the Committee to devise a constitution that would eliminate cut-throat competition, discouraged institutional opposition to the government, establish the principle of accountability, removed over-centralization of power in a few hands (Ibid).

            The 1979 constitution provided for presidential system of government whereby the President was the Head of State and Head of Government. The governor was the head of government at the state level. A unicameral legislature was operated at the level while the bicameral legislature system was adopted at the federal level. The National Assembly comprised of the Senate and the House of Representatives. While the former was made up of five senators for each state, the latter was made up of 450 members across the country on population basis. The Judiciary was vested with the judicial power and the Supreme Court was the highest court of order. More importantly, the constitution enshrined principle of separation of powers and check and balances (Falola: 1985, p.33).

            It is significant to note that the 1979 constitution was not without flaws. First, the constitution concentrated much power in executive president at the centre. As observes by Falola, the constitution edited out the common people, hence there was hardly accountability to the electorate by politicians. The question of minority was another problem of the constitution. The worst feature of the constitution was the power of the central government to legislate exclusively on matter which could have otherwise delegated to the states. Lastly, the constitution provided that where there is conflict between the Federal and the State on concurrent list, the former should prevail. Hence, the constitution strengthened the central government more than the remaining tiers.

The 1999 Constitution

The 1999 constitution like that of 1979 was designed by the military regime. Unlike the 1979 constitution which at least was debated one year before it was instituted, the 1999 constitution was an imposition on Nigeria by the military regime. According to Sagay (2000: p.40) the constitution ‘tells a lie about itself…’  Section 4 of the constitution that contains the legislative that renders state Houses of Assembly inferior (Babawale:2006, p.1). Section 11 of the constitution empowers the National Assembly to handle the functions of Houses of Assembly when they are unfit to perform their function. The control of the Nigerian police force is also within the exclusive list of the federal government. The implication of all these is that the constitution has theoretically subjugated the sub-national units to the central government.

 The constitution makes provision for the formation of multi-party system. The 1999 constitution provides for declaration of state of emergency in the federation or any part thereof. The 1999 constitution is entrenched with some military decrees such as land use decree of 1978 and the National Youth Service Corps decree of 1973.

References

Agip, S.P.I. (1986). ‘The Problem of Incorporating ‘the Westminster Model’ in a Written Constitution: The Experience of Western Nigeria, 1962-1964 and Subsequent Reaction’ Journal of African Politics, Development and International Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 1. Pp.13-32.

Alao, Akin (2006). ‘Constitutional Development, Sub-nationalism and the Political Process in Nigeria’ in Alao, Akin (ed.) The Nigerian States: Language of Its Politics. Rex Charles & Collins Publisher, Nigeria.

Babawale, Tunde (2006). Nigeria in the Crisis of Governance and Development. Lagos: PARC.

Burn, Sir Alan (1978). History of Nigeria. London: George Allen & Unwin. Eight Edition.

Coleman, J.S. (1986). Nigeria: Background to Nationalism. Benin City & Katrineholm: Broburg & Wistrom.

Falola, Toyin (1985). The Rise and Fall of Nigeria’s Second Republic, 1979-1984. London: Zed Books Ltd.

Okonkwo, D.O. (1962). History of Nigeria in a New Setting. Aba: The International Press.

Olaniyan, R.A. and Alao, Akin (2003). ‘The Amalgamation, Colonial Politics and Nationalism, 1914-1960’ in Olaniyan (ed.) The Amalgamation and Its Enemies. Ife. Obafemi Awolowo University Press Ltd.

Olusanya, G.O. (1980). Constitutional Development in Nigeria, 1861-1960 in Ikime, O. (ed.) Groundwork of Nigerian History. Heinemann.

Sagay, I.E. (2000). The 1999 Constitution: A Critique. Lagos: Centre for Constitutionalism & Demilitarization (CENCOD).

Tamuno, T. N. (1967). ‘Governor Clifford and Representative Government’ Journal of historical Society of Nigeria, Vol. IV, No1. Published by Historical Society of Nigeria and the Ibadan University Press.

---

[1] Captain james Pinson Labulo Davies (he was appointed in 1872), C. J. George, James Johnson, C. A. Sapara Williams, and Dr Obadiah Johnson.

[2] The traditional chiefs in the Council included Sultan Attairu of Sokoto, the Alafin of Oyo, the Emir of Kano, Chief Dogho Duma and two educated Africans. See G.O. Olusanya, Constitutional Development in Nigeria, 8161-1960 in Obaro Ikime (ed) Groundwork of Nigerian History (Ibadan: Heinemann) p. 520.

HIS 104 NAPOLEON AND THE REVOLUTION IN WAR

Critics of Napoleon often argue that the true legacy bequeathed by Napoleon to posterity was a loss of status for France and many needless deaths, perhaps six million Europeans. Comparing the personality of the Duke of Wellington and that of Napoleon Bonaparte, Bloy painted the picture of the latter as overambitious, egoistic, egocentric and erratic warlord. Despite this gamut of acidic criticism, Bloy did not forget to describe Napoleon as outstanding genius. While his contributions are visible in the political, economics, social and legal areas, Napoleon efforts have been powerfully felt in the military.

Born on August 15, 1769 to a minor noble family on the Mediterranean island of Corsica, Napoleon rose from obscurity to become Napoleon I, Empereneur des Francais. His military career can hardly be separated from his political life. Napoleon’s fame began during the French Revolution which he carried to almost every part of Europe.

Napoleon’s most important innovation whose French antecedent could not be denied was the gradual adoption by the Convention policy that at least in theory approached universal conscription. The expansion of his staff and the proliferation of his army gave him upper hand over his enemy. By forming the Grande Armee, Napoleon possessed the largest force in Europe in the nineteenth century. He solved the problem of supply by adopting the principle of living off the enemy’s land. This is a clear departure from the eighteenth century strategy. “To know…how to draw supplies of all kinds from the enemy’s country you occupy makes up a large part of the art of war.” This principle of living off the enemy’s land was fundamental to Napoleon’s campaign, a factor which became ineffective in his Moscow campaign. Napoleonic battle was also characterized with many imponderables and uncertainty but Napoleon possessed a better understanding than is possible in strategy of many its components- terrain, strength of his troops and enemy. If his opponent was numerically superior, Napoleon waged a frontal battle especially on terrain with natural obstacles. If his forces were equal or superior to those of enemy, he would attempt to outflank him by launching a flank attack. Even though outflanking tactics was not unknown in the warfare of that time, the ability of Napoleon to practicalize this war concept placed him on higher pedestal than his enemy.

He sometimes staged defensive war to exhaust his opponent, Napoleon disliked purely defensive battle. He was a firm believer of Absolute war. “No one emerged to equal Napoleon in his mastery of operational techniques and his passion for physical annihilation of the opponent”. His trust in the massive accumulation and use of force, his insistence on absolute victory, his rejection of limited goal confirmed Napoleon as the master of the modern war fare.

Napoleon’s charisma not only boosted the morale of his officers but also instilled dread fear in the officers and generals of his opponents. Wellington thought his presence was equal of forty soldiers. French troops from several miles to Napoleon were commanded to shout Vive l’Empreur to fake enemy of close encounter with in the battlefield.

It should be noted that war strategy was not without its flaws. In the first instance, the policy of living off the enemy’s land became the decisive factor that occasioned his defeat during the Moscow campaign as Russia countered him the principle of Earth Scotched Policy. Also, his tendency towards the mobilization of gigantic forces created serious flaws beyond the basic defect of insufficient power. Although he fought many major wars to victory, Napoleon did not contribute technologically to art of war fare. Much that has existed as weapons were effectively utilized. Napoleon’s adoption of one-man rule and one-man command a synthesis of his principle of absolute rule with military ruined much he had won from the revolution. Neither his peninsula war in Spain nor his invasion of Russia was bounded by reasons but instigated by disastrous policy, the Continental system.

Nevertheless, Napoleon thought remains relevance in the modern military. Napoleon has assumed in the mind of many soldiers, a timeless paradigmatic quality, which in its essential not affected by technological development. Jean Collin asserts, “While we can not copy Napoleon’s actual maneuver, we should nevertheless be inspired by it.

References

1. Paret, P. Napoleon and Revolution in War, in Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to The Nuclear Age, Peter  Paret  (ed), Oxford University Press, 1986.
2. Bloy, M., A Web of English History, Amazon.co.uk, August 21, 2008. Source 04/09/2008
3. Napoleon Bonaparte The Emperor of France 1769 to 1821, www.solarnavigator.net Souce: 05/09/2008

                                                        

European Penetration of Yorubaland and the Loss of Independence

Whereas the British presence in the Niger area had been gradually established through the activities of explorers, missionaries and traders, the effective occupation of any part of Nigeria by the British did not take place until punitive expedition against Lagos in 1851.  In 1892, the Ijebu, who had failed to learn from the fall of Lagos, witnessed the show of British Military power. The Itsekiri in 1894, the Nembe-Brass in 1895, the Benin in 1897 and the Aro between 1901 and 1902, all acknowledged the superiority of the British maxim guns. There is dichotomy among scholars on the motives of the invasions and the reasons behind the ineffective resistance by Nigerian people. The major reason loudly advertised by European scholars was the humanitarian theory. Scholars in this school of thought argue that, the British military expeditions had the primary motive of abolishing slave trade, human sacrifice and other emblems or evidences of savagery and cannibalism among African people. Furthermore, there was need to check African rulers who were “isolated soulless Leviathans who mercilessly ground overwhelming majority of people under their heels.”

The humanitarian excuse by the British invaders appears unfounded. It is true that the British humanitarian policy was geared towards abolishing slave trade and some African practices, the British Abolition Act of 1807 came after the British capitalist elite had amassed wealth to lead  in the waves of industrial revolution sweeping through Europe. Not only that, despite interactions of the British explorers, traders and missionaries with indigenous African peoples, their state of knowledge about African culture and tradition was too scanty.  Hence, to the British invaders, African rulers with their sophisticated administrative ingenuity were no more than the Leviathans.  It is significant to note that at the time of invasion, the British administrative system was by no means superior to many African states. In Oyo for instance, there existed a system of limited Monarchy based on checks and balances. Similarly, while the Ibadan operated republicanism, the Igbo political system was peculiarly democratic in nature.  

The economic theory or what some scholars have called the Legitimate Trade Thesis was very popular among scholars of African origin. They argued that indeed industrial revolution in England and Europe might not have taken place without the fortunes and capital wealth that the highly profitable slave trade enabled most European powers to amass. The sudden decision of Britain which hitherto was the leading country in the transaction in human being was questionable. After the Abolition Act of 1807, Britain assumed un-usual abolition posture and aggressive diplomacy, bullying and bribing other European countries, particularly Spain and Portugal, to emulate the British anti-slavery policy. Similarly, to stop slave trade, the British established the Free Colony or settlement in Sierra Leone for the recaptives, sent a detachment of British navy, the West Africa Naval Squadron, to patrol on West African Waters and bribed and signed different treaties with African in order to stop the traffic of slave from the source. But it is significant to note that all these efforts were geared towards securing African goods such as rubber, palm-oil and ivory-tusks.

Although African people were not passive in resisting the British invaders, the form of resistance mounted was ineffective. Certain factors were responsible for this. First, African traditional rulers in their political shortsightedness failed to provide a united front against the invaders. One would have expected for instance that both Caliph of the Sokoto Caliphate and Sheu of Borno Empire would provide united front in the north. Rather, the hostility between the two empires increase as the Caliphate sponsored disgruntled elements within Borno.

At the time of the British invasion, each exiting state in Nigeria had its own peculiar internal problems. In Lagos for instance, there was succession dispute between the rival branches of families of Kosoko and Akitoye over the Obaship of Lagos. Thus, the political crisis and excuse of slave trade provided the fertile ground for the invasion of Lagos. Similarly, Benin was facing both political and economic crisis. The period that preceded the reign of Oba Ovonramwen was marked with internecine wars and political crisis. Shortly after his ascension to the throne, Ovonramwen embarked on massacre of his political rivals. The Empire also faced serious economic crisis. Yorubaland was not excluded either as civil and mutually destructive wars prevailed. The military exploit and imperial ambition of Ibadan brought it into conflict with many Ekiti and Ijesa kingdoms. The conflict between the Ibadan warriors and the Ekiti Parapo army lasted for uninterrupted 16 years. All these prevented the almighty Ibadan warriors to provide leadership role that could mobilize other Yoruba state for a united front against the British invaders as they did against the Fulani Jihadists. The ultimate explanation of ineffective resistance to colonial conquest by African states lay in the superiority of the colonial armies in arms, strategy and experience. The technological breakthrough that followed the industrial revolution in Europe placed the white race above other races of the world. Hence, after the bombardment of Ijebuland, the Ibadan and the Egba needed no lesson to acknowledge the overwhelming technological superiority of the British invaders.          

 The British in Abeokuta

The establishment of British protectorate on Abeokuta was preceded by two major events. First, the coming of  the Christian Missionaries marked the beginning of serious interaction of the Egba people with the Europeans. As early as 1842 the presence of the British had become visible. On December 6 1842, Thomas Birch Freeman, the Wesleyan Missionary Pioneer in West Africa, visited the Egba war camp but arrived in Abeokuta on 11 December at the request of the Sierra Leoneans emigrants. Rev. Henry Townsend accompanied by Samuel Ajayi Crowther arrived on 3 August 1846 to establish the Wesleyan Mission. The Wesleyan Mission was joyously received by the people of Abeokuta. They were given land to build church and houses. They were permitted to preach freely among the Egba people and hold property. The Rev. C. Martin visited Abeokuta in 1847 and established the Anglican Church. This was followed by the Baptist Mission in 1850 by Rev. Bowen.

Second, the security of the Abeokuta was threatened by the Dahomey which had asserted its independence of Oyo control since early 1820s. After the fall of Oyo, Dahomey found an opportunity to retaliate several years of humiliation. In March 1851, Dahomey army estimated at about 10000 men and 6000 wowmen under their leader, Gezo attacked Abeokuta. With the help the British, particularly Rev. Henry Townsend, the Dahomey forces were decisively routed by the Egba. After the war the British remained steadfast in support of the Egba. The British authorized Beecroft to supply arms valued £300, sign treaty with the Egba and warn Gezo not to repeat his attack on Abeokuta. Not only that, the British sent Commander Forbes to teach the Egba some elements of military tactics, to train some Sierra Leone immigrant volunteers as gunners and conclude the anti-slave trade with them. The acceptance of the British protectorate by the Egba was not a sign of weakness. The Egba welcome the missionaries and the British gesture in order to obtain the white man wonder-striking arms and ammunition. They needed to survive the hostility from Ibadan and menace from Dahomey. Hence, the support of and access to the European ammunitions would provide the much-needed protection. After the British invasion of Ijebu Ode in 1892, the Egba had not only realized the superiority of the white man’s technology but also futility in resistance.

The Ijebu

Before the invasion of their land in 1892, the Ijebu had enjoyed relative tranquility and built wealth through trade even when other parts of Yorubaland were engulfed in war. They were preoccupied with how to protect their trade and sovereigntyThe strategic location of the Ijebu as the midway between Lagos and the interior gave them trade monopoly over others. The Ijebu maintained their trade monopoly by opening or closing the trade routes at will. This had many grave effects. In the first instance, the Ibadan imperial ambition was affected as a result of inaccessibility to the fire arms from Lagos to prosecute their war against the Ekiti Parapo. The British economic interest in the interior was also badly affected. The closure of the trade route meant that the British traders could not transact business directly with the people in the interior. Worst still, unlike the Egba, the Ijebu saw the missionaries as the agents of the British. Hence, their hostility towards the missionaries.  In 1891 when Acting Governor Denton visited to persuade the Ijebu to open the trade routes, the Ijebu refused to discuss with him this was regarded as an insult.

The expedition against the Ijebu lasted between 12 and 20 May 1892. The British army was commanded by Colonel F. C. Scott. The British made use of the Detachment of the West India Regiment commanded by Major Madden and the Lagos Hausas and Gold Coast Hausas under Captain Tarbet and Bayly respectively. The British army was guided and accompanied by the Ibadan soldiers. After series of battles, the Ijebu soldiers surrendered and sued for peace.   

  

 References

J.F. Ade Ajayi and Michael Crowder, History of West Africa, Volume II (Longman: 1976).

J.U.J. Asiegbu, Nigeria and Its British Invaders: 1851-920 (Enugu: Nok Publishers, 1984).

Obaro Ikime, The Fall of Nigeria (Heinemann, 1977).

S. Biobaku, Egba and the Neighbours (Ibadan: University Press, 1991)