BRITISH SYSTEM OF COLONIALISM

 The British in her administration of Nigerian territories made use of two major systems of governance, generally referred to direct rule and indirect rule.

Direct Rule

Direct rule was a system of administration adopted by the British in Nigeria especially in Lagos and Calabar where people were familiar with the British system of governance. The use of direct system of administration meant that, the British governed these areas or towns directly through British officials, the Governor and his subordinate officials. These officials were responsible to the colonial secretary in London for the good governance of the colony. Lagos was administered as a crown colony using direct system of administration. A Governor was appointed as the sole authority in the area and assisted by a legislative council. The council was composed of a chief justice, a colonial secretary and a senior military officer in command of the British military forces within her colonies.

Indirect Rule

The British employed a system of indirect rule during their colonial administration in Nigeria, especially in the northern region. Indirect rule was a method of governance where traditional leaders were utilised as intermediaries between the British colonial authorities and the indigenous populations.

Key aspect of indirect rule system in Nigeria

• Traditional Authority Integration: British colonial administrators appointed or recognised existing traditional rulers, emirs, or chiefs to serve as agents of indirect rule. These local leaders maintained their position and authority within their community.
• Local Administration: Traditional rulers became part of the colonial administrative machinery. They were implementing British policies, collecting taxes and maintaining order within their jurisdictions. However, they operated under the oversight of British district officers.
• Justice System: Native courts were established to handle local disputes based on customary laws. British colonial officers often supervised these courts, ensuring a degree of consistency with British legal principles.
• Impact on Education: The emphasis on traditional authorities in the North sometimes resulted in limited investment in formal western education. The British believed that relying on indigenous leaders would maintain stability but had implications for educational development. 
• Legacy: The legacy of indirect rule is evident in contemporary Nigeria. The administrative divisions created during this period often based on ethic and religious lines, continue to influence political, social, and economical dynamics.

Indirect rule was successful in the North, that Lord Lugard introduced it in the south when he became the Governor-General of Nigeria. In the western part of Nigeria, the Obas were used to practice this system. It however, met with little success because of the check and balance system in the Yoruba system of the administration. The Yoruba Obas were not autocratic or absolute rulers, unlike their northern counterparts who were absolute leaders. In Eastern Nigeria the system was not successful because of the absence of centralised leadership or authority system. The British officials appointed warrant chiefs whose activities caused the failure of the system in igboland.

Why Did Indirect Rule Fail In Eastern Nigeria

The implementation of indirect rule faced challenges in eastern Nigeria due to several factors, and while it may not be accurate to assert that it universally "Failed," the approach encountered difficulties in this region. Here are some reasons why indirect rule faced challenges in the eastern Nigeria:

1. Complex Societal Structure: The Eastern region had more complex societal structure compared to the north, which made the application of indirect rule challenging. The igbo society, in particular, lacked centralised monarchical system like the one found in the north, making it less amenable to the indirect rule model that relied on existing traditional hierarchies.
2. Absence of Centralised Authority: Indirect rule thrived in areas where there were existing centralised authorities that could easily be co-opted into the colonial administration. In Eastern Nigeria, the absence of a single paramount ruler or a well-defined aristocracy made it difficult to integrate traditional leadership into the colonial governance structure. 
3. Egalitarian Society Structure: The Igbo society traditionally had a more egalitarian social structure with less hierarchical distinctions.This egalitarianism made it challenging to identify and work through existing traditional leaders in the same way it was done in other regions.
4. Commercial and Economic Activities: The igbo people were known for their active involvement in trade and commerce. The economic dynamism and entrepreneurial spirit of the Igbos made it less dependent on traditional authorities for economic activities, reducing the effectiveness of indirect rule that relied on these leaders for governance.
5. Resistance of Nationalism: The Eastern region witnessed early form of resistance against colonial rule, with leaders like Nnamdi Azikiwe and others advocating for more active participation and representation. The rise of nationalist sentiments contributed to a desire for self governance and reduced enthusiasm for indirect rule.
6. Educational Attainment: The igbo people had relatively high levels of education compared to some other regions, fostering a desire for more participatory governance. Educated elites in the Eastern region were often more inclined towards nationalist and self-governance movements. 

In conclusion, indirect rule was successful in Northern Nigeria because of the existence of powerful traditional rulers and local pattern of government. which could be manipulated by the British officials to execute the indirect rule system.

In the West, the existence of the Oba system of rule also longed for a partial success of indirect rule. however, indirect rule failed totally in the East because of its absence of traditional rulers, reasonable and recognised structures. The appointment of warrant chiefs to function as native authorities proved abortive.