The establishment of colonial rule was officially made format with the declaration of the Berlin conference of 1864/5. After this conference, European countries such as Britain, France and German decided to occupy their particular colonies without going to war. The period of colonial rule therefore starts from the 1880s to the late 1950s.

This was actually a period of exploitation, forced labour, loss of fertile land and loss of independence.

On the other hand, it was a period for the growth of African nationalism and the struggle for independence in Africa.

Stages in the establishment of colonial rule by the French and the British

NIGERIA

The colony of Nigeria was simply created by the British from different Kingdoms and ethnic groups in the Niger region. Because these areas were in the Niger area, the country was therefore called Nigeria. This was named by Flora Shaw who later became Lugard's wife.

The first step in the British acquisition of Nigeria was the annexation of Lagos in 1861.

This was first major step in the promotion of their interests in Nigeria.

The second step was the establishment of a British protectorate over the oil rivers in 1855. This was as a result of the increasing rivalry and power struggle in the area.

A commissioner and some Consuls were appointed to take charge of the area. By 1897, this administration had reached many parts of the interior of Nigeria.

From 1888, Lagos and Yorubaland were administered as the colony and a protectorate of Lagos. This came as a result of two factors that is the French threat to attack Yorubaland and the Yoruba wars that interrupted trade with the British.

The colony and protectorate of Southern Nigeria was established in 1906. It was merged with the Coiorsy and protectorate of Lagos.

The protectorate of Northern Nigeria was set up in 1900. The British took over the areas being administered by the Royal Niger Company and Captain Lugard was appointed its High Commissioner.

There was the amalgamation (joining together) the colony and protectorate of Southern Nigeria and the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria in 1914. Lugard became the first Governor General.

All these can be summed up in the saying by Sir Ahmadu Bello, that" God did not create Nigeria the British did".

PROBLEMS FACING THE COLONIAL GOVERNMENTS AFTER THE PARTITION

The first problem was that of securing African recognition as colonial administrators.

Many people in West Afnca took long to recognise the British. That why it took the French almost quarter a century to crush resistance.

Many people therefore resisted the colonialist in order to protect their interests.

The third problem was the existence of indigenous political institutions. The traditional kingdoms such as Oyo, Benin, Dahomey. Asante among others had developed their native social, judicial and political systems that were deeply rooted in the various societies. It was therefore difficult to change in a short time.

There was a shortage of manpower and the administrative personnel to control their colonies.

In relation to the above, there was a problem of shortage of funds to pay workers and develop the infrastructure in West Africa.

There was a problem of multiplicity of languages, customs and cultures which the Europeans did not understand,

Islam as part of religion and culture was deeply rooted among the people was difficult to uproot.

There were hostile tribes that did not welcome the Colonialists.

BRITISH SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION

INDIRECT RULE.

The coming of colonialists in West Africa brought different methods of administration but the most outstanding ones were direct and in-direct rule. By definition indirect was a method of colonial in which the colonialists used the local chiefs to rule on their behalf. The chiefs were only supervised by the British.

In other words it was a method of colonial administration in which the local and traditional institutions were left in office to run the day to day administrative duties but only supervised by those whites.

The British indirect rule was a system of colonial administrators, that is native chiefs and headmen were used by the British to implement their subjects.

This system of administration was mainly used in centralised states. It was actually used in Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone. In other parts of Africa, it was used Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika.

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, ft 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 etc.-

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 manpower, to help in running the day to day administration of the vast conquered territories. This was even worsened by the high motality 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 outbreak of the Anglo- Boer wars in South Africa in 1899 - 1902 that equally claimed a large number of the European staff. It's 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 expatriate.

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 cf 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 rufe 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 avenues of colonial benefits as evident in the words of Frederick Lugard.

''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 other words the British looked at colonies as avenues or 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 modem 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 resistance from the elite class in areas such as Nigeria, Ghana etc.

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 grasscutting, 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 other words 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 ailing directly".

WHY THE BRITISH USED INDIRECT RULE.

This system was found to be strategically easy because it depended on the use of traditional rulers who ware easily accepted by the masses.

Since the traditional chiefs would be paid inform of petty gifts like old clothes or simple salary presents, it was found to be economically cheap.

The system was also preferred because there was shortage of white personnel. So the British wanted Europe to rule directly hence they resorted on the traditional chiefs who were readily available.

 The British feared immediate Africans response. So they used Africans chiefs as shock absorbers which their manpower capacity would not easily shoulder.

The traditional rulers understood their people better and spoke the same language or similarly related languages. Therefore the British thought that Africans chiefs could effectively promote their policies because of this double advantage.

The supporters of this system argued that the British used this system as a means of importing skills of leadership to African chiefs.

Lugard had similar experiences in India. This system had effectively worked in Canada.

The British feared resistance from overthrown chiefs.

The local chiefs would withstand harsh conditions.

It was viable in the centralised states which were available in Uganda.

The system created disunity among the African and there served the interests of the British better that is divide and rule.

The British knew that at one time Africans will have to rule themselves and therefore, it was meant to prepare them for self-rule

HOW INDIRECT RULE WAS PRACTISED.

1. Indirect rule was most successful in centralised states. Here, it was applied at the level of local governments but not at the level of central governments because such office were- reserved for the whites.

2. The Africans chief was the main actor at local levels like districts and countries. Policies were got from the central government and were passed to lesser chiefs who in turn passed over the policies on the local man.

3. The Lesser chiefs operated at the lowest level example the sub-county chiefs, village headmen, parish chiefs and clan elders. Therefore they provided basis of political authority.

4. The chiefs also presided over the native law courts and applied Africans laws to rule the masses. But in case there was resistance, from the Social people, then the British would step in.

5. The African chiefs acted as agents to collect taxes for the local treasury.

6. The British colonial government appointed and posted a resident Governor. It was this governor who appointed district officials to protect British interests in the interior.

The-policy implementers also faced the problem of foreign geography and diseases especially in the interior. This worked against indirect rule.

Where the British had limited military means, as with Carter in Yorubaland and Lugard in Huasaland, greater diplomacy was essential, it was also partly due to attitude of the officers toward their mission.

Carter and Lugard thought in terms of a protectorate on which they would change little in the indigenous system, But would rnereiy establish paramouncy.

The conquerors of Benin and Asante behaved as if they were creating a colony where indigenous institutions were to be destroyed and where British would rule directly.

1892, Governor Carter of Lagos created an incident with the ijobu which led to a crushing and spectacular military victory designed to overcome resistance.

Carter opened treaty discussions with Egba and Ibadan immediately after that. Egba secured internal autonomy. Ibadan also signed a treaty and others followed and not one Yoruba Oba deposited.

Little force was used but its presence was felt since Carter always walked with the Maxim gun. 

INDIRECT RULE.

Most of the newly conquered territories were controlled through the chiefs who were confirmed in their positions except in Asante and Benin where the kings had been deported.

The British brought in European administrators instead of accelerating the training of Africans for administrative positions.

Lugard in Northern Nigeria adopted the policy of ruling through the aristocracy of the conquered people i.e. indirect rule.

Lugard's system worked economically and satisfactorily and in 1914, he was requested to join together various colonies which later made up Nigeria.

In his period 1914 - 1919, he extended his theories to southern Nigeria. Later after retiring, he laid down his theory of indirect rule in a book " The Dual Mandate in Tropical Africa" (1922). The book became the handbook of British officers alt over the world for example in Tanganyika, Ghana and Gambia.

Role of the African chief (He acted as an Agent of European rule)

He appointed alt officials under him. He or his officials presided over the law courts which applied African law. His agents levied taxes for local treasury part of the revenue was sent to the central; government and the remainder used to improve roads, sanitation, markets, schools and pay salaries of local officials.

A chief was responsible to the district officer (British official) who on turn was responsible to the central government.

The resident District Officer (D.O) oversaw the question of taxes the treasury and courts but always operated through the chief.

The British official made changes which used to appear as if they came from the chief.

The chief whose authority was accepted by the people was a necessity for successful operation the indirect rule system.

In Northern Nigeria, indirect rule was successful because of the authority of the Emirs and partly because Lugard specifically designed it for the caliphate

The theory had a double duty of governing on the interest of the British and the colonial people (The Dual Mandate).

This required that each colony must finance its own administration and not burden the British taxpayer. It was ideal for the expansion of British trade.

The British assumed that the Africans tolerated British rule because there appeared no alternative.

The British assumed that African chiefs so controlled power that they could be used to bring change from the top rather than from the normal process of starting from bottom.

Among the Ibo, Tiv and Kru, chiefs or elders were spokesmen, powerless to act without popular consent. More West Africans lived under this system than under one which placed power in the hands of a single king or chief.

Lugard emphasized that British acted as shapers of African society. Africans tolerated colonialists as long as they were able to acquire benefit such as educational opportunities, a voice in policy - making sharing in wider rationality in which tribalism could be submerged (which indirect rule seemed to offer though at a small scale)

INDIRECT RULE IN NORTHERN NIGERIA

1.    Lugard confirmed Emirs who cooperated.

2.    He enthroned a new Emiral -umini at Sokoto and permitted courts and bureaucracy to function as before.

3.    British residents were to advise and if necessary to force the Emirs to follow policy approved by their conquerors.

4.    Confirmed the authority of Emiral - umini to strictly religious matters.

5.    If a colonial policy was cheap, produced peace and order and tranquility, it was judged to be a success.

6.    In the surrender terms, the British promised not to interfere with the Muslim, religion and this was interpreted by both parties to mean that Christian Missionaries would not be encouraged.

7.    This isolated Northern Nigeria and yet it had been cut off from North Africa, Northern Nigeria missed Missionaries with their modem influence of education and this showed the process of change.

8.    In Sokoto Caliphate Lugard's theories were similar. Lugard demonstrated his military strength by conquering Nupe and Kontagora. He deposed the Etsu Nupe and replaced him with a rival Fulani candidate. Lugard posed as the Liberator of the subject people .from Fulani oppression. The Fulani decided to accept after the British used both, force and persuasion. Oba Overnramwen delayed British negotiations in order to achieve national unity first.

9.    The militant chief precipitated war by ambushing and destroying the British advancing party.

10. In 1897, a British army advanced into Benin, burnt the capital and looted it of nearly 2,500 of its bronze treasurers.

11. Overnramwen was deported and the British offered positions of importance to chiefs who indicated willingness to cooperate.

12. Few major chiefs responded.

13. The British ruled indirectly through African agents.

14. The British had ruled the Fante people of southern Ghana directly wanted to rule the same way in Asante. They aimed at breaking up the Asante union, de - stool the Asantehene and destroy the Asante as a nation.

15. The few schools set up by the British government were not popular because they were competing with the Islamic system.

16. Since there was no place in the British administrative system for the products of the Islamic schools, when the British began to build up a civil service, they employed clerks in railways, post office, commercial firms, and these recruited from Southern Nigeria.

17. Thus out of the Maghreb and Middle East, and protectorate from southern Nigeria ideas and movements, Northern Nigeria presented a picture of tranquility, but not progress.

INDIRECT RULE AMONG THE YORUBA

The Yoruba state possessed a centralised government headed by Obas who held a certain respect for the Alafin of Oyo or Oni of Ife.

The British wanted to make Oyo the chief power.

In the 1890s the British wanted to make Ibadan subordinate to Oyo. This was not popular to the people of Ibadan, so either the chief accepted and became unpopular to his subjects or refused to accept and loose the throne.

In Abeoukuta Lugard ignored the Western educated cfass and tried to introduce the system which worked before the rise of the Western educated men.

He resorted to chiefly government and decided to elevate standards, It was the most conservative or Yoruba state. The Western educated class were suspicious of Lugard and ready to lead opposition to British rule.

The Yoruba Oba didn't posses much power, intact power was shared among a number of chiefs, representing lineage over which the Oba had limited power.

There were few Yoruba either Western educated or not who for internal political reasons were willing to see their Obas powers increased.

INDIRECT RULE AMONG THE IBO

There were few chiefs whom the British could control. The few chiefs in fact could not control the village meeting which was the basic institution of Ibo government.

it would have been better to introduce elected representatives who came from the village meeting and were responsible to it, rather than to give a lineage elder authority which made him a chief and gave him powers unknown in Ibo society.

The British had to deal with a society which was under -going rapid change in the 20th century.

The Ibo used the cooperative strength of their clans to build schools to educated their sons.

The chief (warrant chiefs) found on lboland by Lugard system were seen by the people as miniature tyrants.

In 1929, the British tried to impose direct taxation and the famous women's riots followed, the warrant chiefs were targets,

1931 to 1935 Donald Cameron Governor of Nigeria reformed indirect rule.

He checked the growing independence of the Emirs in the north as well as the efforts to elevate the Alafin on Yoruba land.

He put emphasis on developing the institutions rather than preserving them.

INDIRECT RULE IN GHANA.

Early 20th century the Fante - coastal area of Ghana possessed the largest Western educated class in West Africa.

Many of the chiefs were also Western educated.

By making the Asantehene a martyr in exile forced Asante nationalism and opposition to centre around him.

Governor Guggisberg brought Prempe back to the Asante stool in 1924 and this encouraged the Asante to work hard.

The government recognised Prempe as Kumasihene but to the Asante he was Asantehene and the British accepted this fact in 1935. The British gave back ait stool lands which they had confiscated when Asante was conquered.

Governor accelerated Ghana's economic development, found Achimota College for Higher Education oh 1927. Introduced three elected members into the Legislative Council and drew up a plan to increase the 25 Ghanaian civil servants in 1925 to 151 ten years later.

1827, the chiefs and educated class worked together against British efforts to confiscate land in Ghana and organised Aborigines Rights Protection society which upheld Ghanaian rights against any imperial attempt to reduce them.

 indirect rule caused serious divisions In Ghanaians leadership. The chiefs led by Nana Ofori Atta capable and Western educated pressed for Africanization of the civil service,

Because of the large Western educated class, the greatest complaint against the British of indirect ruic was that it emphasized the conservative and illiterate on the society.

INDIRECT RULE IN SIERRA LEONE AND GAMBIA.

indirect rule was a "success " in the interior because Creoles were excluded. There was little social change, peace ,order and stagnation went well together.

In little Gambia, the interior which was ruled indirectly was kept carefully separate from the colony area around Burthust. The system worked because the British showed social change on both countries.

PROBLEMS FACED IN THE APPLICATION OF INDIRECT RULE

In decentralised societies, they found a problem of single accepted authority at the top.

It was thus difficult to get individuals to use the councils of elders which were too weak to implement British policies.

The British used Africans as shock absorbers and this explains why they refused to work. Some people were even killed.

The frequent wars of resistance to some extent hindered the implementation of indirect rule.

There was lack of trained manpower.

The system faced the problem of administration costs more especially the British colonial government never wanted to use taxpayer money to finance the administration of Nigeria.

At times, the British failed to understand the social organisation of the people. Instead they introduced social laws which people rejected because they were harsh. As a result, the people did not understand the British.

SPECIAL ANALYSIS OF INDIRECT RULE IN NIGERIA

In Nigeria, the system was first introduced by Sir Frederick 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 its 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 focal 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 ail 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 detested 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 Ibo's were organised politically according to village democracy and the egalitarian nature of a socrelly 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 they were supposed to impose such as administering justice, collection of taxes etc.. 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 etc.

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 protectorate 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 emphasize 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".