Nigeria’s1914 Amalgamation Agreement Under British Colonial Rule
BY BARR JOSHUA D. EPHRAIM
The agreement talks about its renewal after 100 years.
First, the question is, who were the signatories to the agreement? Were they representatives (or relevant parties to the agreement) of the over 300 ethnic nationalities that made up the northern and southern Protectorates and the colony of Lagos?
In law (especially International Law), and in our situation at that time, who were the legitimate parties on the part of the Protectorates and the colony who could sign international agreements and perhaps treaties ( if these communities had the status of states or recognised parties in international law ) ? Being Protectorates and colony, under British rule (by force), could they be said to have the capacity to contract freely with their captors and masters? Therefore, with all these questions that border on the legality of what was entered into in 1914, could it be said that there was a valid and binding document that would operate, to date, in spite of one of the parties leaving or granting independence to the then created regions ( in 1958), on 1st October, 1960 ?
The British were a party on the one side, and if they opted out (either voluntarily or by force) , what would we say is the legal status of what was signed in 1914? Could it be said to be a “force majeure”, as it can be said that natural circumstances intervened? How could the agreement continue to have a life of its own, when it was not stated in the agreement, that even when the parties on the other side, the agreement should continue to have a life of its own? It only said it can be reviewed and renewed after 100 years. But a major party was absent (in 1960), when the agreement had not matured.
Independence, is an intervening factor. That is why all laws prior to independence had to be re-enacted as Nigerian inherited laws, or jettisoned. I am not sure that such pre- independence agreement was reviewed and re-enacted by the new government of Nigeria. Laws were re-enacted selectively. However, in the case of the 1914 agreement, it could be argued that although, it was not reviewed and re-enacted at Independence, or repudiated, and since nothing was done at independence to revive it, and Nigerians accepted the concept of “Nigeria”, as a “fait accompli”, everybody worked to preserve it and even fought a civil war that lasted 30 months to preserve its unity, it could be said that independent Nigeria accepted the merger, in deed, and in spirit. What is controversial however, is acceptance of the time-line for expiration and or, renewal of the said 1914 agreement.
But there is no doubting the fact that Nigerians have agreed to stay together as one country. One cannot now, due to dissatisfaction with the way things are being run now, give or, attempt to give life to a moribund and defective agreement whose purported existence was terminated in 1960, when the British colonial powers left and Nigeria became independent and capable of making its own laws, or treaties, and participating at the international environment as equal partners.
Some Nigerians have suddenly remembered such expired and or, defective agreement because of their complaints of bad governance by the current government. Governance is seen as being unjust, unfair, inequitable, nepotistic, and corrupt. Both religion and tribe have become flash-points and, instead of uniting, they tend to set the polity ablaze. Almost all the groups are saying that if we cannot have good governance, then let us go our separate ways.
Bad governance has been helped with a faulty federating structure. The choice of federalism was a good one and if practised honesty, it will take care of our many diversities. The foundation has been faulty ab-initio. It has a federal structure of a centre and the states. But in operation, it is unitary. Our founding fathers jettisoned the unitary system and opted for a system that recognises our diversities. They did not want a suffocating embrace but one that allowed space for free breathing. That was wise. Unfortunately, the military intervention in politics and subsequent civilian constitutions, following military rule, only gave lip-service to federalism and opted for unitarism in function. When you have a bad government, the problems are exacerbated, more so as the various diversities are ignored, for one reason or the other.
The federal center suppresses the supposed federating units as it (the center), is overloaded with 68 items on the Exclusive Legislative List. The center, getting into the hands of a political leadership with an unknown agenda can really be a hydra-headed monster. The states have been reduced to mere beggars on the streets of Abuja, begging for their share of the cake every month. Individual initiative has been killed. The country is on a very steep cliff. Something has to be done very quickly. If governance were good, even with the faulty structure, nobody would be agitating for secession. Diversity is beautiful. But in the weird wisdom of those in the corridors of power, because they have been milking the system to their benefits, they ignore cries of marginalization, discrimination, nepotism and attempt to continue to dominate others forever. This cannot happen in the 21st Century. It is an 18th century belief. There should be a rethink.
Barr Ephraim, a lawyer and public commentator, wrote this piece from Kaduna.