Indirect rule as opposed to direct rule is a method of colonial administration typical of the British which has been defined according to James Coleman as a system of local administration in which the essential features were the preservation of traditional political institutional structures under the supervision or direction of the British colonial officers.  In otherwords as a system in which the traditional rulers were allowed to rule their people but under the supervision of the British officials.  It was largely employed in the British colonies for example Uganda and Kenya, Sierra Leone in West Africa, Nigeria especially in the North Ghana and Gambia among others.

The employment of this policy was determined by a number of factors among which included the fact that the British colonial office had been confronted by an acute shortage of man power to help in running the day today administration of the vast conquered territories.  This was even worsened by the high mortality rate that was caused by the tropical climate and diseases for example malaria, sleeping sickness that had claimed a large number of European personnel that would have been used in administration.

The climax of which was the out break of the Anglo-Boers wars in South Africa in 1899-1902 that equally claimed a large number of the European staff.  It therefore under such circumstances that the British found it inevitable to employ the existing traditional political institutions in running their administrative  affairs but under the supervision of the colonial office.

Furthermore, British colonies were faced with a number of financial handicaps which subsequently made indirect rule on economically viable policy for it was rather cheaper to pay African traditional rulers than paying the white expatriates.

The political situation on the ground seemed to favour indirect rule as the only viable policy especially the existing centralised systems of administration.  It is little wonder therefore that indirect rule as a system of administration only and only succeeded under centralised institutions which would not easily be destroyed but only had to be maintained, but under the supervision of the colonial office.

In addition, the conditions of the populace seemed to welcome indirect rule as most appropriate because the populations were predominantly illiterate, backward whose leadership would only be managed by their own traditional institutions for they could not easily adopt to the British officials.  It is therefore in this light, that indirect rule was employed by the British.

The rulers of the several societies seemed more effective in running the day to day affairs of their areas.  For in an attempt to win political favours of the British officials, they were more harsh and brutal and essentive to their own natives than the British officials could have been.

Other scholars also argue that the system of indirect rule limited the chances of African rebellions because the existing rulers were normally responsible for the oppression and exploitation of the masses than their colonial masters,  In otherwords, indirect rule was used to make the African rulers act as shock absorbers of the colonial policies.

Lastly, the policy was employed being determined by the British attitude for they regarded colonies not as overseas provinces or entities but evenues of colonial benefits as evident in the words of Frederrick Lugard in the famous book:  The Dual Mandate in the British Tropical Africa.

“Europe is in Africa for a mutual benefit of her own industrial classes and the native races in their progress for a higher plain”.

In otherwords the British looked at colonies as avenues of exploitation for the Europeans while ironically they developed Africans.

Indirect rule however greatly assisted the British in managing to run their own affairs for they controlled a greater part of Tropical Africa using the traditional administrations in West Africa regions for example Sierra Leone, Gambia and Northern Nigeria.

The British was the confidence of the local natives and their rulers who according to Euro-Centric writers attained training in the art of governance of a modern level.

However,  a lot of criticism has been advanced against indirect rule as a policy part of which included the fact that indirect rule encouraged parochialism among the natives and their rulers which made it difficult to eradicate even during the post independence period.

Indirect rule also greatly retarded progress of self governance for the Africans by excluding the elite society from participating in government i.e indirect rule as a policy perpetuated European rule rather than African self rule.  it is little wonder therefore that the policy greatly registered resistances from the elite class in areas such as Nigeria, Ghana among others..

It also imposed petty British autocracy on the people under the guise of the training their African traditional rulers for self governance.  However, it would be noted that the African rulers were not given real lessons of leadership but activities like supervision of grass cutting,  being punished for their independent views, dictate upon them how to impose taxes, appoint chiefs all in the names of expert advise of the colonial officer.  In otherwords all that this  policy did was to represent interest of the British government and therefore with or without British officials working directly or indirectly the difference was more of a myth than a reality as Adu Boahen rightly concludes:

“Indirect rule in reality was the most indirect method of ruling directly”.

REASONS FOR ADOPTION OF INDIRECT RULE:

Fixed and static African societies: British public had a belief that African societies were static and their political institutions fixed. It was assumed that African population was barbaric, conservative and hated change. The possible means of enhancing change in such societies without causing disaster and disintegration would be using influence from the top through kings, chiefs, Emirs, and the like. In places where such strong leaders were absent like Eastern Nigeria, warrant chiefs had to be appointed.

A belief in social Darwinism theory: British public had a confirmed feeling that their social and cultural institutions were highly developed for Africans and if imposed would only serve to cause misunderstandings and disintegration of African societies. In this way indirect rule was seen as a way of effecting change and bringing Africans into a closer contact and harmony without trouble.

The British lacked enough manpower to carry out administrative activities in Africa. The .use of indigenous African rulers provided a practical solution for the lack of British personnel.

The system was economically cheap. The British lacked enough funds to cater for the costs of Administration- The use of local leaders since their salaries were lower than those required by the British Europeans solved the problem.

This system was suitable for British administration plans of their colonies. The British claimed that, unlike the French, colonies were separate entities that were supposed to have their own administrative systems. The British were not to have at least in theory uniform laws drawn from London for every British protectorate,

The existence of well developed African institutions such as in Buganda and Northern Nigeria provided a framework for an efficient administration. Besides, the British feared the danger of dismantling the local administrative set up. The use of these institutions was the best way of avoiding trouble with strong African leaders.

Indirect rule sought to use local chiefs because they were the accepted leaders of people. It was therefore a convenient means of using Africans as instruments for implementing British policies. By this, the British would avoid African rebellions.

The physical difficulties in colonial Africa also favoured the use of traditional chiefs. The thick forests the tropical dispases; wild animals, hostile tribes and lack of transport all made it difficult to employ the British at local levels. The British could only reach the grassroots through their accepted local leaders.

Indirect rule was the best method of ruling the illiterate masses of Africa. Since they could not be mobilised through the radio and the press, the use of African leaders seemed a workable solution. It was also a way of solving the language barrier between the British and their colonial subjects.

Lord Lugard also adopted indirect rule as a way of preparing Africans for eventual self- government. This could be achieved by allowing African leaders to exercise their responsibility.

Failure of Assimilation: this proved to be impossible because Africans remained Africans (insisted on their cultures). Africans greatly failed to turn into black Europeans. Thus for the purpose of security and minimising African resistance and create efficiency with effectiveness in exploitation of African resources indirect rule had to be adopted,

African shock absorbers: the colonial economic policies being unpopular and exploitative, they received a lot of resentment from the masses and to minimise this, the colonialists sought to use the indigenous rulers. The colonialists would remain behind the curtains of such unpopular orders.

MAIN FEATURES OR STRUCTURE OF BRITISH INDIRECT RULE,

At the Apex of the British colonial administration, there was a secretary for colonies resident in London. This secretary was responsible for the British colonial affairs and was answerable to the British parliament and cabinet.

Below the secretary for colonies were the governors each heading one of the British colonies or protectorates. These colonial governors were accountable to the secretary for colonies. However due to communication system, this accountability was loose.

Each British territory was divided into provinces each under a provincial commissioner. The provinces were then sub-divided into districts that were under a district commissioner. All these commissioners were British Nationals and not Africans.

These districts were then sub-divided (for the case of Uganda) into counties, sub counties, parishes, sub parishes and then villages in that order. It was from the county down to the village level that African chiefs who were charged with day to day affairs of administration featured.

Considering the above arrangement one can note that Africans featured in the local administration and not in central administration. It was at the level of local governments that the African chief was a key character. For example, the county chief appointed subcounty chiefs down to the village headmen who were all answerable to him. He also presided over native courts with the help of his appointed chiefs using African law.

In the operation of the British indirect rule, agents of the local chief carried out tax revenue collection which resources were used in developing roads, health facilities, Education and to pay the local administration staff in a bid to facilitate further African exploitation.

It should be remembered that under indirect rule the county chief was responsible to the British official, resident at the District. I.e. the District commissioner who was in turn answerable to the governor of the colony.

FAILURES OF INDIRECT RULE

Firstly, indirect rule undermined the progress of unity between the rulers and the ruled where it was applied. For example in northern Nigeria the powers of Emirs were increased to over shadow those of Caliph. In Buganda, the powers of the Lukiiko and other appointed chiefs were increased. More to this in Buganda it blocked the national consciousness of clan system and promoted Nationalism.

Secondly, it should be remembered that indirect rule had two basics namely ruling through the African chiefs and the preservation of the local institutions which were never fulfilled. In fact as professor Semakula Kiwanuka argues indirect rule was never implemented even if one focussed in northern Nigeria where indirect rule is claimed to have worked best, Lord Lugard deposed some Emirs and Caliphs substituting them with his appointees. This was quite contrary to their prophecy of preserving traditional institutions.

Thirdly, Africans were conditioned to serve without any willingness from their heart despite of the few opportunities for example the traditional chiefs had to obey orders of the British overlord and work tirelessly towards their implementation to please the boss. In Northern Nigeria among the emirs Lugard warned that

"The chief must himself understand he has no right to his post and power unless he renders his proper service to the state". This showed lack of truth in what was called indirect rule.

Fourthly, the system was quite exploitative and inconsiderate. For example, these African rulers were paid salaries by colonial government from the collection of African local revenues. This shows that they had changed African leaders into British servants. This is why some scholars call the system "Direct rule by indirect means". Local leaders were turned into functionaries of colonial exploitation.

More to this, contrary to their aims, the African modes of justice and culture were restricted by the very system that claimed to preserve them. for example in Buganda after the signing of Buganda agreement there were to be two levels of court system. Simple cases to be settled by Lukiiko court and sophisticated ones like murder to be under colonial court or any case that involved a white man. In Northern Nigeria the Islamic code of law suffered restrictions that were disgraceful to Islamic way of life. The Native court ordinance of 1914 stripped off the Sultan ofSokoto caliphate his Judicial powers. Although this system had good enlightened intentions, it worked along with unrealistic assumptions developed by Lord Lugard that equally led to the failure of the system for example;

It assumed that all African societies were centralised or at least that they could easily adopt the centralised system as that in Buganda and northern Nigeria. This was not   successful in Iteso, the Iboland, and Lango in northern Uganda because'of lack of traditional chiefs. The warrant chiefs appointed and sent in these areas were not suitable. They were brutal, tyrants and unpopular.

It wrongly assumed that African societies could not develop their own good institutions without the British assistance. This demonstrated British ignorance for the process of  African development. It's the British government that undermined the progress of African societies-

That Africans would willingly welcome the British system in their areas. To some Africans the mere presence of the British on their land represented a threat to their institutions and therefore resisted straight way for example in Zulu under king Dinizulu, Buganda under Mwanga etc-

It has been pointed out that if the British had not used force, in the implementation of indirect rule, it would have been a total failure. For example in Uganda, Lugard's forces were applied in Buganda (under Mwanga), in Toro and Ankole. In West Africa the Niger frontier police force was applied in Nigeria. In Buganda the Kabaka's powers were greatly eroded by the 1900 Buganda agreement. Then to what extent was indirect rule indirect? These policemen worked hand in hand with the African opportunists.

Indirect rule assumed that Africans were by nature conservative and static and amusingly went ahead and maintained the same leaders in these traditional posts without even exposing them to elite education. This is why the elite groups later formed nationalistic movements against them. Hence this confirmation of conservative political groups in power under strong British supervision made the system a failure.

APPLICATION OF INDIRECT RULE IN NIGERIA

In Nigeria, the system was first introduced by Sir Frederrick Lugard at the beginning of 20th Century whose history has greatly been evident in his famous work.  The Dual Mandate in the British Tropical Africa in which Lugard precisely admits that indirect rule as a policy of administration was first tried in Northern Nigeria and it is indeed in this region unlike the other parts of Nigeria that the policy of indirect rule was successful. 

This was majorly because of the existing political institutions of the Fulani Emirs and the chiefs in their positions who were left to carry on the administration, but under the supervision of the British administrative officers such as Resident District Deputies and Commissioners in which context the Fulani Emirs were left to continue with their responsibilities such as the collection of taxes for the Emirate treasury whereby although part of the revenue was always sent to the central government to help in the day to day administration, the rest was retained by the Emirs for the development of local projects such as markets, schools, railways, agriculture, health services and payment of salaries for the local Emirate staff.  This is a clear indication of the fact that although the British officials continued to interfere in the affairs of the Emirates, the latter were given some considerable powers.

The Emirs continued to administer justice through the Emirate courts of law where punishments were administered in form of flogging, fines and imprisonment.  However, like any other institutions, the British officials only came in to regulate these punishments..

The Fulani Emirs supervised public works such as cutting of grass along roads, agriculture, farms etc and all these were in the deep interests of the British officials.

The Fulani Emirs would appoint chiefs to assist them in the day to day affairs but with expert advice of the British officials.  In which case over the leadership of the Emirs was a representation of the British government and it is from this light that many scholars doubt the difference between direct and indirect rule.

Despite this controversy, the system proved successful in Northern Nigeria where Lugard had merely taken over and consolidated the Fulani administrations with a highly centralised organisation and a hierarchy of officials that was used for the maintenance of justice, law and order.  This enabled the British to control the territory of Northern Nigeria cheaply and effectively up to 1914. 

Turning to Western Nigeria, the Yoruba states were headed by the Obas who traditionally paid allegiance to the Alafin of Oyo.  To Lugard, this seemed to be a centralised system similar to that of Northern Nigeria.  Therefore he wanted to use the Obas as Emirs but could not register a lot of success for he tried to restore the supreme powers of the Oba but his influence had drastically declined and most of the Yoruba states were not willing to respect them hence the system could never have succeeded.

The worst was to come when the British made Ibadan subordinate to the Oyo when it was originally recognised as the supreme state of Yoruba land as it was regarded the spiritual home of the Yorubas.

In addition, in other areas such as Egba land where there was an influential class of the Western educated elites, indirect rule failed to succeed because it met resistance of the educated elite.

Furthermore, unlike the Fulani Emirates, the Obas did not possess autocratic powers for one could not act without the consent of his council of traditional title holders.  In which case therefore, indirect rule was a myth with such an institution.

In practice, the idea of taxation on which the policy of indirect rule flourished was greatly detasted and therefore leading to the fall of the system.

In regard to Eastern Nigeria, the system was a complete fiasco because in the first instance, the Ibos were organised politically according to village democracy and the egaliterian nature of a society with an absence of authoritative rulers able to command obedience of their people.

Moreover, the people of Ibo by 1928 were already used to the British ideal of direct administration since the British extension in 1893 and therefore could not accept the policy of indirect rule.

To make matters worse, the British attempted to solve the problem of absence of traditional rulers by creating “warrant chiefs” and gave them powers similar to the emirs in Northern Nigeria.  This institution was unknown among the Ibo people and especially the policies that they were supposed to impose such as administering justice, collection of taxes among others.  These made the chiefs become tyrants and unpopular among the people of Eastern Nigeria as evident in the over 22 riots in 1919 particularly against the system of taxation.  These were largely led by women and were later to spread over as far as Calabar, Opobo among others.

It was therefore as a result of the failure of this policy in some parts of Nigeria that a commission of inquiry was established, led by two Africans, Sir Kitoye Ayasa and Eric Moore as members to make an assessment of the system and make recommendations.  This was carried out in an attempt to introduce reforms in indirect rule and it is then that the leadership was taken over by Donald Cameron as the governor of Nigeria who tried to carry out reforms by curtailing the growing independent powers of the Emirs, abolish cruel practices such as flogging, imprisonment and other regions were given freedom to run their own administration.

Meanwhile in the West, he stopped the elevation of the Alafin of Oyo in Yoruba land.

Ibadan was made independent of Oyo to avoid riots, progress was made by evolving local governments whereby he abolished provincial courts and replaced them with a high court for the whole prefectorate with lawyers in practice independent of the government.

He abolished the posts of lieutenant governors for South and Northern provinces and renamed them chief commissioners to emphasise unity of Nigeria.

In conclusion therefore, a critical analysis of indirect rule as a system in Nigeria pre-supposed its success in the North and its gross failure in other parts of Nigeria.  It is therefore on this note that reforms were introduced in the first half of 20th Century as Ward rightly concludes;

“The 20th Century period was `a turning point’ in the history of indirect rule”.