GOVERNING ON NATIVE LINES
The fundamental principle aimed at by the Government in Northern Nigeria
is indirect administration, i.e. administration through the native
rulers of the communities, the Chiefs and their executives, under the
supervision and with the assistance of the Residents. That was the policy
laid down by Sir Frederick Lugard in a series of comprehensive Memoranda
which form not the least notable feature of the great work he carried out
during his tenure of office, a work entirely creative, be it remembered,
a work of which the value can but grow in public estimation as the sense
of perspective deepens with the years, and as additional information
supplies what in the early days of the occupation was largely lacking.
That was the policy Sir Frederick Lugard’s successor, Sir Percy Girouard,
found in being, not, indeed, unthreatened, but enthusiastically upheld
by the most experienced members of the Political Staff. He not only gave
it his full official support and checked certain leanings of an opposite
kind, but he brought to bear upon the situation a personal sympathy,
an illuminating and penetrative genius which popularized the policy in
quarters previously hostile or indifferent. Sir Henry Hesketh Bell has
loyally followed in the footsteps of his predecessors. That nothing
should be allowed to divert us from keeping on the same road is the
writer’s conviction, for what it may be worth, after several years’ study
at a distance and recent investigations on the spot.
A genuine and honest endeavour is being made not only to rule through
the native Chiefs, but to rule through them on native lines. Too much
importance can hardly be ascribed to the distinction. The success
already attained would be thrown away if policy were deflected in the
direction of substituting European for native ideas. If the native
machine is expected to perform functions for which it is unqualified,
the works get out of gear. If the Chiefs are called upon to exercise
their authority in enforcing measures essentially alien to the native
constitution, their prestige over the individual lapses. They become
mere puppets, and indirect rule breaks down. I hope to make clear what
the native constitution is, and what is meant by ruling on “native
lines.” The difficulties of improving and purifying when required a
native administration, without impairing its general efficiency, are
always considerable. In Northern Nigeria they are, for several reasons,
peculiarly so. If the result, so far, has shown the wisdom of the
original conception, it has been due to the determination and tact of the
senior Political Residents, and to the excellence of the native material.
Our task has been furthered by the administrative capacities of the
Fulani Emirs. Some were, indeed, found unfit and had to be removed, but
the majority are increasingly showing themselves not only capable but
quite indispensable to the work of government.
It would, however, be mischievous to conceal the fact that indirect
rule in the proper sense of the term, _i.e._ involving the preservation
of native law and custom, has to bear, in West Africa, the brunt of
constant and insidious assaults on the part of interested, or prejudiced,
or ill-informed opinion. This opposition is often quite honest and
quite easy to understand if the conditions are grasped. It is important
they should be grasped. Indirect rule is an obstacle to employment and
promotion in some branches of the service. It restricts the scope of
secretarial, judicial, police and military activities. It robs the
educated native barrister trained in English law, and the educated native
clerk, of a field for the exercise of their professions. It checks the
European capitalist in a hurry to push on “development.” The missionary
is apt to regard it as a stumbling-block to Christian propaganda.
Finally, there is the type of European who is racially biased against
the retention of any sort of control by the native in his own country.
Indirect rule, therefore, has very many enemies, and it cannot have
too many friends among the thinking public at home. So far as Northern
Nigeria is concerned, strenuous efforts will have to be put forward
by all who are convinced of the necessity of upholding indirect rule
therein, when the amalgamation of the two Protectorates is taken in
hand. That time cannot be far distant and the wind which blows from the
south is charged with many hostile particles. There would seem, then, to
be solid reasons for the public to appreciate the conditions, at once
severely practical, and of the moral order, which make the continuation
of the existing policy necessary to the welfare of the Northern
Protectorate.
Let us first consider geographical verities and ways and means.
Northern Nigeria is 255,000 square miles in extent and the territory is
divided into thirteen provinces. Of these provinces, Sokoto, the most
considerable in point of area, is nearly as large as Scotland and Wales;
Bornu is the size of Ireland; Kano is almost as large as Scotland;
Kontagora-Borgu is slightly larger than, and Bauchi and Muri the size
of, Greece; the Niger Province is as extensive as Servia; Yola is as
large as Denmark, and Nassarawa exceeds the area of Switzerland. It
is only by realizing space, by realizing that months of travel still
separate some provinces from others, that the expense, to say nothing
of other considerations, which would be entailed in gathering up all
the administrative threads of such a territory into the hands of a
staff of British officials can be understood. I have never heard it
suggested that the Lords of the Treasury parted enthusiastically with
the meagre sum allotted to Northern Nigeria. One cannot imagine that
their Lordships’ satisfaction would increase if they were presented
not with a bill of a quarter of a million but of two millions. The
single Province of Kano, which under the present system is supervised
by seventeen political officers, and more than pays its own way, would
require at least three hundred officials if direct rule were established,
or the prestige of the Emirs so weakened as to deprive them of all real
authority over the people, and this, exclusive of a swarm of native
officials who could not be done without in any case. That brings me to
my next point. Direct rule would, of necessity, involve an enormous,
directly paid, native staff. For its every action the Government would
be compelled to accept responsibility, and its members would, perforce,
be largely composed of the class of native—the most undesirable type, it
may be added—from which the policemen and soldiers are now recruited.
Putting aside the question of expenditure altogether, can any sane man,
disposed to look the facts squarely in the face and knowing anything
of the country, contemplate with equanimity the consequences of such a
_régime_? Then, assuming for purposes of argument the non-existence of
these impediments, where would lie the moral justification, let alone the
purely political expediency, of sweeping away the rule of the natural
rulers of the country?