Emergence of the British Colonial Government

The Portuguese, who visited the coasts of West Africa in the fifteenth and sixteenth

centuries, did so for a number of reasons. One of these and perhaps the most important

was the urge in Europe during this period to establish a sea route, possibly along the coast

of Africa, to India and the Spice Islands. What brought about this urge were the

inconveniences encountered by the European traders in these areas along the Overland

routes. These overland routes along the bank of the Mediterranean Sea ran through

important towns like Milan, Florence, Genoa and Venice. In each of these towns traders

from Europe often paid tolls for going through them.

In addition, some vagabonds had made these routes terribly unsafe to traders; in fact, they

had converted them into a den of highway robbers. The end result of these inconveniences

was the sky rocketing prices of article from the Far East, such articles like pepper, ginger and

spices became luxurious articles for a significant number of people in Europe. It was the

uneven social situations caused by these high prices that inspired some people in Europe to

look for an alternative route to India possibly along the coast of West Africa, since the sea

which was going to be the highway was nobody’s property.

Also, there was the intention to spread Christianity and European brand of civilization to

what the Europeans described as the ‘lost’ peoples of Africa, also, the urge in Europe during

the period to look for the empire of a mighty African ruler called ‘Prester John’ who, they

thought, could help them in their task of Christianising and civilising the ‘unfortunate’ and

‘primitive inhabitants of the Dark Continent’. It was also thought that this famous king

would certainly be willing to begin with Europe a profitable trade, particularly in gold, gold

dust, diamond and other mineral deposits which were believed to exist in abundance in this
place. Also, their visits were motivated by the burning desire of some Europeans to collect

more knowledge about the biological structures of the peoples of other lands as well as the

types of life led by them.1

Unfortunately, when the Europeans got to Africa, rather than trading with the inhabitants of

the continent which was one of the intentions that brought the Europeans to Africa, they

began to capture and transport them as articles of commodity to the other part of the

world. This trade started as a result of unconsciously discovery of the New World (South and

North America and West Indies) by Spain and later Britain, Holland and France. Soon after

the discovery, they began to establish plantations where tea, plantain, sugar, cotton, ginger

and coffee were planted, particularly in the tropical and sub tropical areas of both North

and south Indies as well as in the two Americas. Efforts were made to mine the mineral

deposits that were available in large quantities in the land.

Initially, the native people (Aborigines and Red Indians) were at first utilized as slave labour

by Europeans until a large number died from overwork and Old World diseases, moreover,

the Red Indians were not strong enough to do such heavy work. Alternative sources of

labour, such as indentured servitude, failed to provide a sufficient workforce. A vast amount

of labour was needed to create and sustain plantations that required intensive labour to

grow, harvest, and process prized tropical crops. The basic reason for the constant shortage

of labour was that, with large amounts of cheap land available and lots of landowners

searching for workers, free European immigrants were able to become landowners

themselves after a relatively short time, thus increasing the need for workers. According to
Thomas Jefferson, he attributed the use of slave labour in part to the climate, and the

consequent idle leisure afforded by slave labour: "For in a warm climate, no man will labour

for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of

slaves a very small proportion indeed is ever seen to labour".2

These were the reasons for slave trade and slave trade continued for over two hundred

years without any of the perpetrators not wanting it to end or stop, because of its

profitability and gains made from the trade, and not minding the inhuman sufferings and

cries of the slaves. Even though the slave traders were blind folded by the profit they were

making from the trade and showed no interest in stopping the obnoxious trade, still there

were a section of people in Europe who considered it a natural injustice to keep fellow men

in perpetual bondage and under deplorable conditions.

These people, majority of who were church leaders, argued that it was crime against

humanity and before God to enslave others. As early as 1514, Pope Leo X commented on

this, also Pastor Las Casas who made the suggestion that started the trade, later came out

to protest strongly against the inhuman treatments meted out to the slaves by their

masters.3 In the 18th century, opposition developed against the slave trade in Britain,

America, and some parts of Europe. In Britain and America, opposition to the trade was led

by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and establishment Evangelicals such as William

Wilberforce. People who protested against the trade were opposed by the owners of land

and colonial holdings. Most of who could have protested in the parliament or in the society
was themselves plantation or mine owners who needed slaves to serve them. 4 However,

after much pressure and persuasion and the emergenc of industrial revolution in the

western world, slave trade was abolished.

In the 19th century the economic interests of Britain and the other major European powers

actually led to even more interference in Africa's affairs even after the official abolition of

the slave trade. By the end of that century the rivalry between the major powers culminated

in what The Times referred to as the 'Scramble for Africa'. All the major powers invaded the

African continent and established colonial rule.

The "Scramble for Africa" was the occupation, division, and colonisation of African territory

by European powers during the period of New Imperialism, between 1881 and 1914. It is

also called the Partition of Africa and by some the Conquest of Africa. In 1870, only 10

percent of Africa was under European control; by 1914 it had increased to almost 90

percent of the continent, with only Ethiopia (Abyssinia), the Dervish state (a portion of

present-day Somalia) and Liberia still being independent.

The Berlin Conference November,1884 to February 1885, which was called by the German

Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck to avert war amongst the Major European Powers. It was

meant to divide the territories of Africa amongst them and each nation would have its areas

of political, economic and social hegemony. The final agreements reached at the

conference, regulated European colonisation and trade in Africa, and are usually referred to

as the starting point of the scramble for Africa. Consequent to the political and economic

rivalries among the European empires in the last quarter of the 19th century, the
partitioning, or splitting up of Africa was how the Europeans avoided warring amongst

themselves over Africa. The later years of the 19th century saw the transition from

"informal imperialism" (hegemony), by military influence and economic dominance, to

direct rule, bringing about colonial imperialism.5

The scramble for and the eventual partitioning of African land could also be termed as

Imperialism. This is the practice by which powerful nations or peoples seek to extend and

maintain control or influence over weaker nations or peoples. Scholars frequently use the

term more restrictively: Some associate imperialism solely with the economic expansion of

capitalist states; others reserve it for European expansion after 1870. Although imperialism

is similar in meaning to colonialism, and the two terms are sometimes used

interchangeably, they should be distinguished.

Colonialism usually implies formal political control, involving territorial annexation and loss

of sovereignty. Imperialism refers; more broadly, to control or influence that is exercised

either formally or informally, directly or indirectly, politically or economically. In the case of

Africa, both terms are accurate, in the sense that between the 1860s and early 1960s and in

some cases 70s, Africa was wholly dominated and controlled by European powers in all

ramifications.

However, various motives were adduced or given for the scramble and eventual partitioning

of African territories amongst European powers. Historically, states have been motivated to

pursue imperialism for a variety of reasons, which may be classified broadly as economic,
political, and ideological. Theories of imperialism break down similarly, according to which

motive or motives are viewed as primary.6

The British unquestionably benefited economically from their control of Nigeria, but, to

their credit, they also endeavoured to create a colony in which the subject peoples would

ultimately be able to take over the country's administration. Side by side with the British

Government / commercial and religious groups with economic and religious motives, moved

into Nigeria and introduced new concepts and practices of the western world. Barriers to

effective administration and rapid advancement of native authority during the initial stages

of British control were due, not to the shortcomings of the British Administrators, but,

rather, in large measure to the traditions and social structures of the various peoples.

Moreover, sufficient revenue was not available due to the underdeveloped

economic resources and because local taxation was not introduced in the early days of the

British administration. Assistance in the form of revenue came from the British Government

and commercial groups. By the end of the Second World War administrative progress was

encouraging, and radical approaches to democratic self-government reached a high peak.

The process of transition to full-scale democracy on the British model proceeded rapidly.

Furthermore, the British Government assisted the establishment of popularly

elected majorities. The executive councils were taken over by politicians drawn from and

responsible to the majorities. The system of one man, one vote was initiated. In general,

Britain was remarkably successful in training Nigerians to assume control of their country,

and the British efforts cannot be erased from the history books or from the minds of many

Nigerians. The result was a united, viable, and independent Nigeria.

Direct British influence in the tribes of Upper and Lower Niger, which later became

Nigeria, may said to date from 1849, when British trades along the Bights of Benin and

Biafra request that a consul be sent to them (Elias, 1966). Because of their request, Mr. J.

Beecroft was posted there as the first British consul, with Fernando Po as the headquarters:

Fernando Po, now called Equatorial Guinea was discovered by the Portuguese towards the

end of the 15th century, had been ceded to Spain in the 1778, but it was only in the 1827

that Spain permitted the British to take over the administration of the island. The British

superintendent was granted a Spanish commission as governor. Mr. Beecroft had been

appointed governor in 1843 by the Queen of Spain, as there was no Spanish governor of the

island till 1858 (Elias, 1966:14)

The first actual involvement of the British personnel in the tribes of Upper and Lower

Niger, which later became Nigeria was the affair of Lagos. On January 1, 1852, a treaty was

signed between King Akitoye, chief of Lagos, and Commodore Henry William Bruce, who

was at that time commander–in-chief of Her Majesty’s vessels on the west coast of Africa,

and Mr. Beecroft on behalf of the Queen of England. The three major goals of the treaty

were to abolish the slave trade, to encourage legitimate trade, and to protect Christian

missionaries.

To ensure compliance with this treaty, a vice-consul was appointed for Lagos and the

Bight of Benin. By this appointment, Lagos, according to Elisa, separated from the oil rivers

(the River Niger, Benue, Bonny, Antonio, and Cross Rivers) until 1906. Akitoye was

determined to honor the treaty, but revolted under the leadership of Kosoko. Consul

Campbell felt compelled to intervene in order to protect the consulate and the missionaries.
 The British defeated Kosoko and his followers (Elias, 1966). However, the British

government accordingly instructed Mr. H. G. Foote, who was then the consul, to prepare for

the occupation of Lagos “because they are convinced that the permanent occupation of this

important point in the Bight of Benin is indispensable to the complete suppression of the

slave trade in the Bight, while it would give great aid and support to the development of

lawful commerce, and would check the aggressive spirit of the King of Dahomey, whose

barbarous wars, and encouragement to slave trading, were the chief cause of disorder in

that part of Africa (Elias, 1966:14).

Elias (1966) noted that in the following month, on July 30, 1861, the acting consul

(Mr. McCoskry) and Commander Bedingfield, the senior naval officer of the Bights Division,

invited Dosumu to a meeting on board the H. M. S. Prometheus (a British warship) lying in

Lagos harbor, and told him about the proposed occupation of the island (Lagos).

According to Elias, Dosumu had referred the matter to his chiefs. Two days later, they both

went to Dosumu’s house for a reply and found that he had been persuaded to refuse on the

main ground that the treaty of cession, which had been drawn up locally, could not have

been done on the instructions of the British government. Before they left, Dosumu was told

that Lagos would be formally occupied in the name of the Queen of England, if by August 6,

1861, he did not agree to cede to the British crown.

Elias (1966) also noted that King Dosumu and his chiefs reacted sharply against this

ultimatum by threatening to use force, if necessary, in resisting British occupation. The

presence of H. M. S. Prometheus within gunshot of the town, the party of armed marines

that accompanied the consul and Commander Bedingfield to their second meeting with

Dosumu at the latter’s invitation put pressure on Dosumu to comply with the British

request.
 On August 6, 1861, according to Elias (1966), King Decemo and four leading chiefs of

Lagos signed the treaty of cession at the British consulate. The British flag was unfurled after

a proclamation that the British had taken possession of Lagos in the name of the Queen of

England. Lagos was made a colony and settlement in 1862 and placed under the authority of

Mr. H. S. Freeman as governor. The new colony steadily grew with Badagry, Palma, and

Lekki (town around Lagos Island), followed later by Epe, Jekri, and others.

This expansion, according to Elias (1966), took place in all directions as far inland as

the heart of Yorubaland. Legitimate trade and commerce increased rapidly. Elias (1966)

noted that within a few months after the establishment of the new settlement (June 1862),

a legislative council was set up to assist Governor Freeman in the task of administration. The

council existed until 1922, and throughout its short life it always maintained an official

majority, although it varied in it’s composition from time to time (Ezara, 1960).

Furthermore, at the time of its dissolution it consisted of the British Governor as the

president, six British officials, and four unofficial members, two of whom were Africans

(Ezara, 1960). Ordinance No. 3 of 1863 of January 1, 1863 introduced English law into the

colony at Lagos and the surrounding areas to take effect from March 4, 1863. The Supreme

Court Ordinance No. 11 of April 9, 1863 provided for the better administration of justice

within the settlement of Lagos. The British penetration into the hinterland of Lagos had

reached such a stage that the colony and protectorate of Lagos had covered most of

Yorubaland by 1906.

In that year, the colony and protectorate of Southern Nigeria was formed by the

amalgamation of Freeman’s enlarged colony and protectorate of Lagos with the

protectorate of Southern Nigeria, which had been established six years earlier (Elias, 1966).

Lagos remained the headquarters of the new administration which was divided into the
western, the central, and the eastern provinces. The western provinces corresponded to the

colony and protectorate of Lagos, while the central and the eastern provinces together

made up the former protectorate of Lower Nigeria tribes, Warri being the headquarters of

the central provinces and Calabar that of the eastern provinces. Each of the provinces was

placed under a provincial commissioner. All of these commissioners were subject to the

direct control of the British Governor, whose seat was in Lagos. Sir Walter Egerton was

appointed in 1904 both as governor of Lagos and as high commissioner of Southern Nigeria

with a view to his organizing the amalgamation of 1906.

According to traditional setup, Nigeria is made up of a number of large ancient

kingdoms and other independent small-scale societies. Its boundaries were drawn as a

result of trade and overseas territorial ambitions of some Western European powers in the

nineteenth century. Flora Shaw suggested the name Nigeria in 1898. She later became Lady

Lugard to designate the British Protectorate on the River Niger. Contact between the

peoples of Nigeria and Europe began in the fifteenth century through various commercial

explorers. By early nineteenth century, the obnoxious trade in slaves, which had flourished

in the region, was in the process of being abolished.

Consequently, European traders began to turn their attention to trading in palm

produce, pepper, ivory and other articles up to the middle of the nineteenth century, British

trading activities were confined to Lagos and Delta ports of old Calabar, Brass and Bonny.

However, the need to expand trade to the hinterland and to undermine the coastal middle

men led the British to some involvement in local politics. Thus, their interferences in Lagos

politics following some internal squabbles among the ruling houses were necessitated by a

desire to secure the territory in the interest of trade with the Yoruba hinterland. This

interference resulted in Lagos being annexed in 1861 when it became a British colony. In
order to render the River Niger as a safe gateway into the interior, protectorates were

proclaimed in the Delta regions as far north as to Idah. In 1885, the Niger Protectorate was

proclaimed oil rivers protectorate and administered by the Royal Niger Company. When the

Royal Niger Company’s Charter was withdrawn in January 1900, the whole of Nigeria came

under direct Colonial administration. The territory was then divided into three main regions:

(i) The Lagos Colony (1861–1960)

(ii) The Protectorate of Southern Nigeria (1900–1914)

(ii) The Protectorate of Northern Nigeria (1900–1914)

In 1914, Sir Frederick Lugard merged the Protectorates of Southern Nigeria. The

whole country then became known as the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. Lugard

became its first Governor-general and ruled till 1919.

Sir Hugh Clifford (1919–1925),

Sir Arthur Richards (1943–48),

Sir John McPherson (1948–54), and

Sir James Robertson (1954–60) succeeded him.

After a series of negotiations, Nigeria finally got her independence October 1, 1960.

Lord Lugard, the successor of Sir Egerton, conceived the idea of amalgamation, which would

reduce the territories to single administration, but he was soon transferred to Hong Kong as

governor. Elias (1966) noted that after an interval of six years, Lugard was brought back to

the Upper and lower Niger tribes (which later became Nigeria) by the British government as

governor of both protectorates and was also given the specific assignment of working out
the necessary machinery for the merger of the two disparate administrations into a single

central government.

Lugard quickly gained the support and assistance of the two chief justices of

northern and southern tribes and of the senior administrative personnel. On January 1,

1914, the colony and protectorate of Nigeria was formally inaugurated under Sir Frederick

Lugard as governor-general (Elias, 1966). That is to say, that it was in 1914 that the name

“Nigeria” came into being. Lugard’s successors in Nigeria were referred to as governors until

Nigeria was turned into a federation on October 1, 1954, when the title of governor-general

was again conferred on the country’s chief executive, a Briton (Elias, 1966:22).

In addition, one of the important effects of the amalgamation of southern tribes

(Yoruba tribe, including Lagos, Ibo and other small tribes) and northern tribes (Hausa, Fulani,

and other smaller tribes), in the judicial sphere, was the introduction of the unified legal

system throughout Nigeria. This led to the appointment of two chief justices, one for north

and for the south, one chief justice and one attorney general for the whole of Nigeria. Elias

(1966) noted that under the central government formed in 1914 and enlarged in 1964, a

legislature was established, consisting of the governor, a Briton, as president, seven British

officials, two British non-officials, and two Nigerians, of whom one was Mr. Christopher A.

Sapara-Williams.

This new government was based on the interpretation Act of 1964: Section 45 of the

Interpretation Acts of 1964 reads as follows:

45. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, and except in so far as other provision is

made by any Federal law, the common law of England and the doctrines of Equity, together

with the statutes of general application that were in force in England on the 1st day of

January 1900, shall be enforced in Lagos, and in so far as they relate to any matter within
the exclusive legislative competence of the Federal legislatures shall be in force elsewhere in

the Federation.

(2) Such imperial laws shall be in force so far only as the limits of the local jurisdiction and

local circumstances shall permit, and subject to any Federal law.

(3) For the purpose of facilitating the application of the said imperial laws they shall be read

with such formal verbal alterations not affecting the substance as to names, localities,

courts, officers, persons, moneys, penalties and otherwise as may be necessary to render

the same applicable to the circumstances (Park, 1963:18).

The complete English common law and equity form parts of the Nigerian law,

together with certain English statutes were established. Park (1963) noted that there are

provisions similar to section 45 of the interpretation act in force in Eastern and Northern

Nigeria, but in 1959, the western region (Yoruba tribes) broke away to some extent from the

traditional pattern. English common law and equity are still part of the law of that

jurisdiction (Park, 1963), but that is no longer true of any English statutes.

In all these jurisdictions the reception of English law is subject to section 45(1) of the

interpretation act “except in so far as other provision is made by any federal law” (Park,

1963:20). This general provision can carry at least three different specific meanings. First, it

may taken to mean that the received English law may be amended, repealed, reformed,

added to, or abolished by enactments of the Nigerian legislatures.

Secondly, it can be a reference to the statutory rules, which affect specific

introductions into Nigerian law of the British law on particular subjects (such as probate,

divorce, and matrimonial cases and proceedings). In addition, the third type of the Nigerian

statutory rule covered by the phrase is that which provides for the continued operation of

customary law, despite the general reception of English law (Park, 1963). The change to
English common law and equity also changed the criminal code. Witchcraft, which was a

serious crime punishable with death in the Upper and Lower Niger tribes, was repealed and

replaced by treason and treachery (Nwankwo, 1995).

British Nigeria did not make use of confinement or cleansing as an administrative style, but

the colonial government did use other administrative styles: cloning and “indirect rule,” a

type of native administration, whereby the indigenous taxation system and the

administration of native justice were given to the local chiefs and Obas, who were in turn

authorized and supervised by the colonial governor (Crowder, 1978:119).It was also referred

to as a cloning strategy, whereby the indigenous cultures of the tribes that made up Nigeria

were cloned into the British culture (Crowder, 1978:119).

This type of administration as noted by Crowder, depended on indigenous chiefs; that is to

say that its had little power alternative to the use of existing political authorities as a means

of governing their protectorates. Consequently, indirect rule created inequality of power

and position in the British system. The chiefs, under the indirect rule system of British

Nigeria, ruled as “sole native authorities” (Crowder, 1978:119).They were permitted to

administer traditional justice, which in the case of certain emirs in the Moslem areas of the

north, included trying cases of murder for which a death sentence, subject to confirmation

by the governor, could be imposed (Crowder, 1964).

Furthermore, these chiefs and emirs were elected to office by traditional methods of

selection, and only in the case of the election of a patently unsuitable candidate to office

would the colonial power refuse recognition (Ade Ajayi, 1974; Crowder, 1978). The system

of indirect rule, in British Nigeria with modifications, was practiced whenever possible in

British colonies in West Africa and in most of her other African territories (Crowder, 1978).
However, there were notable exceptions, for instance in Eastern Nigeria, where the absence

of identifiable executive authority in most communities made indirect rule as practiced in

Northern Nigeria almost impossible to apply. In such societies as in Iboland, the British

assiduously made chiefs or invented them through democratically elected councils closely

corresponding to the traditional methods of delegating authority (Ade Ajayi, 1974; Crowder,

1964).

According to Crowder, the chiefs were the agents of the colonial power for carrying out its

more unpopular measures, such as collecting taxes and recruiting for labor. In most parts of

West Africa, French colonies resented their chiefs, although the chiefs retained no

traditional judicial authority such as that of their counterparts in British West Africa in their

native courts. They were just agents of the law (Crowder, 1964). In theory, these local chiefs

ruled under the guidance of the local administrator; in practice, they were the scapegoats

who were made responsible for the collections of money and men. For instance, Greene

(1965) documented this servile relationship in a speech made by the first colonial governor-

general of Nigeria in Sokoto, a town in Northern Nigeria. He stated: The government holds

the right of taxation and will tell the emirs and chiefs what taxes they may levy and what

part of them must be paid to the government (pp. 43–44).

In return, the chiefs and emirs enjoyed the colonial administrator’s favor. They had certain

privileges, usually good houses and land, and in a few cases subsidies; but “unless they were

completely subservient, they risked dismissal, prison, and exile” (Crowder, 1964).
Different type of courts during the colonial era

With the police in place, the new governor Mr. Henry S. Freeman who arrived in Lagos on

February 22, 1862 to take up responsibility as the first Governor of the Colony of Lagos

established four different courts—a police court, a commercial court, a criminal court, and a

slave court.

The police court, manned exclusively by the police, settled all petty cases.

The criminal court, chaired by a stipendiary magistrate assisted by two British (illiterate)

merchants as assessors, handled the more serious cases.

The slave court (staffed exactly like the criminal court) heard cases relating to slavery.

The commercial court, manned exclusively by British merchants, handled all cases of debts

and breach of contract (Ahire, 1991). From the organizational set up it was evident that he

intends to use the newly organized government force to “keep order and maintain law”

(Tamuno, 1970:37-38).

Modern Crime Detection Methods and Techniques

Following conquest, colonial rule was consolidated through a system that subjugated the

existing traditional informal law enforcement mechanism with the forceful imposition of the

Western idea of policing.

Thus, the colonialists introduced new laws, which replaced, or seriously threatened the

efficacy of native laws and customs, traditional religions and other sanctions, as well as

indigenous tribunals and justice. ( ref. obstacle of effective police)

Colonial Nigerian society had a well-defined structure and organization as well as a central

dynamic, which shaped social life in a specific way, and had a link with politics and

economics (Odii & Njoku, 2003). As a result of the politics and economics during this era, the

institutions of law, politics, morality, philosophy, and religion were forcibly adapted to fit
the conditions of economic life and were able to take on forms and values which were in

keeping with the dominant mode of production (Nwali, Njoku, & Odii, 2003; Marx & Engel,

1974).

The criminal code of law during this era, which emphasized treason and treachery (political

crimes) as the most serious crimes, gave expression to a specific form of fear and economic

relationships which were necessary to maintain for survival and well-being. Historically, the

British form of law introduced into Nigeria on March 4, 1863 designed to safeguard the well-

being and survival of the British socially, politically, and economically. In the courtroom,

Nigerian defendants were seen as legal subjects, bearing all the attributes of free will,

responsibility, and hedonistic psychology, which the British deemed applicable no matter

how far the actualities of the case departed from this ideal.

The Need for Nigerian Police

At the beginning of the British expedition, it was obvious that while Akitoye was willing to

sign the British treaty in order to become king, he was not willing to cede Lagos to the

British. When he died in 1853, he was succeeded by his son Dosunmu, who in turn was

pressured into signing a treaty agreeing to British occupation of Lagos. This period between

1852 and 1861 was a period of informal jurisdiction and had an important bearing on the

origin, development, and role of the modern Nigerian police that began in Lagos (Tamuno,

1970).

From what is now known and has been written by authors like Ikime (1977), Elias, and Ahire

(1991), is quite clear that Lagos was not bombarded in 1851 because Kosoko was a

notorious slave trader, nor did the British take over full powers in 1861 because Dosunmu,

the new Oba, had revived the slave trade. The real issue, therefore, was the British

determination to control the trade of Lagos and the Yoruba hinterland. However, it was not
long before they realized that the organizational arrangement in the Lagos area during that

period failed to provide the necessary security for commercial and other pursuits.

Apart from the succession debacles which later plagued Lagos in the 1940s and 1950s, there

were other developments in the region that had important bearings on the security of

Lagos. These events were the consequences of the Yoruba wars of the 19th century which

threatened the security of areas like Ikorodu and Egbaland, which were Lagos’s next-door

neighboring kingdoms. Particularly alarming was the reality of the alliance between the

exiled King Kosoko and King Ghezo of Dahomey, which threatened lives and the chances of

“legitimate” commerce on Lagos Island (Tamuno, 1970).

Common sense and prudence, therefore, dictated anxiety on the part of the British Consul

and European residents to have armed forces at their disposal to protect their commercial

interests. In response Consul Foote proposed the establishment of a consular guard of 100

men to be permanently stationed in Lagos, and controlled by consular agents. This marked

the first idea of a police force in colonial Nigeria. Foote’s request, however, was turned

down because of the reluctance of the Foreign Office to commit British capital to Lagos

without assurance of any returns.

Unlike in Britain, Ahire (1991) argues that the emerging ruling class in colonial Nigeria was a

foreign and illegitimate one which sought to dominate and exploit the indigenous people in

the interest of its own metropolitan (British) economy. The effort of this foreign ruling class

to subdue the indigenous people, and to impose a careful surveillance over them in order to

forestall any popular rebellion, created an obsession with the policing of public order.

The Early Hausa Police

In 1861 Acting Governor of Lagos Colony, McCoskry, therefore organized and established

the nucleus of the first police force—a Hausa constabulary of 30 men (Tamuno, 1970; The
Nigerian Police, 1981). This formation marked the beginning of the first modern police in the

history of Lagos. It was also the first modern police force in the territories later designated

Nigeria by the British (Tamuno, 1970).

One distinctive feature of the Hausa constabulary was that it was mainly military in

character, although the men did perform some civil police duties. For this, Ahire (1991)

points out that the 19th-century policing in Britain cannot be substituted wholesale for the

policing experience of colonial Nigeria, even though its basic logic is generally relevant. For

modern historians the paramilitary nature of the new police symbolizes the evidence of

imperial authority in Lagos. The police performed essentially beat duties at the trading

depots of the British merchants, and were the object of incessant attacks from the public

who resented their presence.

In the next year the strength of the constabulary was augmented to 100 men to form the

“Armed Police Force.” By October 1863 the strength rose to 600 and was called the “Armed

Hausa Police Force,” because it consisted mainly of Hausa-speaking ex-slaves from Sierra

Leone (Ahire, 1991). Earlier, in 1862, a battalion of the West Indian Regiment had been

moved from Gambia to Lagos to complement the new police force.

With the police in place, the new governor Mr. Henry S. Freeman who arrived in Lagos on

February 22, 1862 to take up responsibility as the first Governor of the Colony of Lagos

established four different courts—a police court, a commercial court, a criminal court, and a

slave court (Tamuno, 1970:37-38). The relevance of this judicial set-up was fourfold. The

first was the prominence given to British commercial interests in the new system of courts.

Second was the total absence of Nigerians in a facet of judicial administration that had their

interest as a prime target. Third was the inextricable implication of the colonial government

in private British commercial concerns. Fourth was the obviously ominous future and
inevitable public perception of the colonial police who were employed by all these courts to

maintain social control.

Onyeozili argued that this early employment of police resources to advance the colonial

political agenda in fact shaped the future of policing as an agency of oppression in the whole

history of Nigeria. Many other historians and criminologists—for example, Alemika (1988),

Ahire (1991), Ikime (1977), Crowder (1978a), Tamuno (1970), share the opinion that the

preoccupations of the police during the colonial era were tied solely to British ambitions in

Nigeria. Their view, according to Alemika (1988), has been that the colonial state ultimately

rests on force and violence, and the capacity to realize its ambition in spite of opposition

from the colonized peoples. In his words:

The colonial objectives were (to varying degrees during the phases of

colonialism in Nigeria) prosecuted through organized governmental violence,

vandalism and plunder on the part of the colonizers. . . . The sundry

administrative, coercive and surveillance organs (police, prisons, courts,

tribunals, “native” authorities, Residents and District Officers) were

established to prosecute, promote, and defend British imperialistic interests

in Nigeria (p. 164).

Worthy of note is the fact that imperial policing orientations and preoccupations have been

maintained and strengthened by postcolonial governments in Nigeria. Alemika (1988)

explains that despite formal independence, the political and economic conditions of

exploitation, oppression, and gross power and economic injustices that gave rise to colonial

policing policies have not been discarded. In other words, the nationalists against who

police terror and violence were used by the colonialists, and to whom power was
subsequently transferred at independence, cushioned themselves into employing police

brutality and terror against their opponents in post-independence political power struggles.

As stated earlier, no sooner was the police force established and the rudiments of a judicial

bureaucracy set in motion than the “Armed Hausa Police” were employed in a series of

colonial government atrocities. In April 1865 for example, 118 constables along with 18

marines from HMS Investigator and HMS Handy attacked the Egba force that besieged

Ikorodu, which the British considered a “friendly town.” In August 1865, 62 constables were

used to attack Edinmo village for disturbing the peace of the neighborhood (Ahire, 1991;

Tamuno, 1970).

From the late 1860s, under Glover’s administration (Freeman’s successor), some

communities were allowed to choose one or two constables as “country police” or District

Police. Their duties were to patrol the outlying areas. By 1895, and owing to the completion

of the “pacification” of Lagos, Police Ordinance No. 10 of 1895, dated 27 December, was

passed establishing a civil police force called “The Lagos Police” as a body distinct from the

constabulary. In 1901 the constabulary was absorbed into the West African Frontier Force

(WAFF), thereby leaving the Lagos Police (civil police) as the sole police force in Lagos (Ahire,

1991; Tamuno, 1970).

The new civil police comprised of a Commissioner, two Assistant Commissioners, one

Superintendent, one Assistant Superintendent, one Pay-and Quartermaster, one Sergeant-

Major, eight Sergeants, eight Corporals, 50 first-class “privates” and one master tailor

(Tamuno, 1970).

It is the view of this writer that we might regard December 1895 as the year for the

“civilianization” of the Nigerian Police, as well as a base for the professionalization of the

force. Not only was the military constabulary replaced, but Governor Denton also replaced
the “Hausa boys” with indigenous Yoruba recruits. In his speech before this radical

departure, Denton observed that:

In our Hausa Force we have a body of men dissociated from the countries

immediately around Lagos both by birth and religion, and who are as a

matter of fact the hereditary enemies of the Yorubas. This is such an

enormous advantage in any interior complication that I should be sorry to see

it abandoned if it be possible to obtain a supply of recruits in any other way

(Tamuno, 1970, p. 28).

In spite of their shortcomings, the new civil police had goals and clearly delineated duties. By a

further Police Ordinance (No. 14 of 1897), the Lagos police force was to become “an armed force.”

Its general duties included “the prevention and detection of crime, the repression of internal

disturbance, and the defense of the Colony and protection against external aggression.” The

ordinance further increased the force strength to include an armorer, and replaced the title of

“private” with “constable” (Tamuno, 1970). Although this change was mainly bureaucratic, as most

Yoruba-speaking members of the constabulary were absorbed into the new “all indigenous” force,

its principle was a milestone in the development of the police in Nigeria. It was also obvious that

the military complexion of the constabulary was present in the new force.

Qualifications and Training

Alemika (1988) has charged that the traditions of civility, efficiency, and submission to the

rule of law that constituted the bedrock of the British police system were not emphasized in

the establishment or running of colonial police forces in Nigeria. On the contrary, he argues

that law-and-order maintenance and riot suppression functions of the police were

emphasized to the exclusion of social services. In the Lagos Police, the qualifications for the
officer cadre, like those of the Assistant Commissioner of Police until 1897, were “a sound

knowledge of drill” in addition to a “clear practical knowledge of criminal law as well as a

sober judgment and great personal energy” (Tamuno, 1970, p. 29).

Except for a few officers attached to the force, and who had previous professional police

experience in criminal investigation, past service in the military seemed to be the main

criterion. Only a few of the forces developed sufficiently to carry out the primary task of

preventing, detecting and prosecuting crime. This is understandable, given the nature of

recruitment into the provincial forces, which required no specific educational standard. The

only requirement was physical fitness, and recruitment was largely based on the Oba or

chiefs’ patronage. Before 1959, the only form of training was drilling by the most senior

non-commissioned officer in the unit, an illiterate whose instructions were limited to

marching orders (Onoge: 179). Occasionally, Assistant District Officer in charge of the police

force gave lectures on the duties of a policeman, how to keep station records, make arrests,

and handle criminals.

In May 1906, the two police forces of the Colony of Lagos and the Southern Nigeria

Protectorate were amalgamated and designated the Southern Nigeria Police Force with Mr.

C.E. Johnstone as the Inspector General. It was not until 1930 that the two forces of the

amalgamated South and North (1914) were merged under the Inspector General Mr. Claude

W. Duncan. This merger, however, marked an important step in the evolution of national

police in Nigeria, and thus becomes relevant in the search for nationhood in a developing

colonial state (Tamuno, 1989:85). The force, now known as the Nigeria Police Force became

a focus of increasing public attention as measures for decolonization hit center-stage during

the constitutional conferences.

Generally, the police forces established during this period performed a principal duty

namely, the management of colonial disorder (the raison d’être for the establishment of

modern police in Africa). To make Africans (albeit Nigerians), amenable to colonial

exploitation and administration, the old social order, as already noted, was displaced while

new social systems were introduced. Policies were formulated to legalize the integration of

the continent into the expanding global capitalism. To manage the new “colonial order”, the

administration adopted authoritarian method of suppression and repression. In Nigeria,

series of armed military campaigns were waged between 1860 -1914 as a result of the

implacable political divide between the colonial interests and those of the people. Popular

aspiration of the people for freedom from oppression and economic exploitation was

brutally suppressed.

Beginning from the original participation in the conquest, the police played a leading role in

the consolidation of the colonial state and repression of the colonized (Onage: 177). The

central focus of the police establishment was the protection of the political and economic

interests of the colonial state rather than the contradictions among the people. In other

words, in “keeping the order” and “maintaining the law”, which were forcefully imposed

and sanctioned by the new imperial authority, the new police force played a principal role in

buttressing the new administration’s policy under British authority (Tamuno, 1970: 38).

To effectively perform such duties, the colonial police institutions had a distinct semi-

military character as they were trained in the use of firearms. For example, the Armed

Hausa Police were more like soldiers than police, and apart from their semi-military duties

in the districts adjoining Lagos Colony, they were useful adjunct to the imperial troops

needed for active service in the Gold Coast between 1872 and 1874 (Tamuno, 1970). The
justification for this policy was fourfold. First, semi-military police helped to reduce the cost

of separate establishments in the respective territories by making it possible for one man to

do the work of two. Second is the absence of readily available alternative sources of armed

assistance to cope with emergencies. The third and most crucial factor lay in the nature of

the people’s reaction to imperial jurisdiction and rule. Lastly, employing soldiers for civil

duties would have exposed the inherent military despotism in British rule.

In Nigeria, British efforts to establish effective control over the claimed protectorates

intensified the opposition of several chiefs and their people who fought for their economic,

socio-political and religious rights against the demands of the European traders and

Christian missionaries. Against this backdrop, there was the need for deployment of troops

and police as ready instruments of enforcing government orders when peaceful overtures

failed. Hence, by adept political maneuvering, the government established and developed

several police forces whose members not only received training in the use of firearms but

also carried out the duties normally performed by soldiers. (ref. Obstacle of effective)

In general terms, colonialism and the institution of a police system by the colonialists were

meant for exploitation, alienation of a people, and for their maintenance needs. In Nigeria,

the police very much enhanced this exploitative goal of the colonialist by subjecting the

natives to severe punishments and other kinds of humiliations leading to exploitation. The

hierarchical arrangement of people into allegedly superior and inferior classes was in

operation in the colonial police command system of Nigeria.

This was evidenced by the fact that Britons were the superior officers at the top of the

colonial police ladder, with a surplus of power, privileges, and resources, while the natives

of Nigeria in the police system experienced a marked deficit of power and privileges (Fanon,
1961; Zahar, 1974:13). Fanon noted that exploitation, torture, raids, racism, collective

liquidation, and rational oppression took turns at different levels, even in the police system,

in order literally to make of the native an object in the hands of the occupying nation.

BRITISH JUSTICE SYSTEM, LEGAL CODE AND PUNISHMENT METHODS

Colonial Nigerian society had a well-defined structure and organization as well as a central

dynamic, which shaped social life in a specific way, and had a link with politics and

economics (Odii & Njoku, 2003). As a result of the politics and economics during this era, the

institutions of law, politics, morality, philosophy, and religion were forcibly adapted to fit

the conditions of economic life and were able to take on forms and values which were in

keeping with the dominant mode of production (Nwali, Njoku, & Odii, 2003; Marx & Engel,

1974).

The criminal code of law during this era, which emphasized treason and treachery (political

crimes) as the most serious crimes, gave expression to a specific form of fear and economic

relationships which were necessary to maintain for survival and well-being. Historically, the

British form of law introduced into Nigeria on March 4, 1863 designed to safeguard the well-

being and survival of the British socially, politically, and economically. In the courtroom,

Nigerian defendants were seen as legal subjects, bearing all the attributes of free will,

responsibility, and hedonistic psychology, which the British deemed applicable no matter

how far the actualities of the case departed from this ideal.

The personalities and actions of Nigerian defendants were viewed by the British through the

prism of this ideological form of the British overlords which was automatically effective so

that the destitute and desperate victims were not in control of their own destinies once

they appeared in a court of law (Adewoye, 1977:69).

ruling classes in Nigeria, as well as the social and moral structures which supported them

and were directed against Nigerians, who lost their position through colonialization. Garland

maintains that “the criminal court is not only an embodiment of the abstract legal form; it is

also a weapon in the immediate class struggle.” The tendency to develop sentencing tariffs,

which calibrate punishments in arithmetical terms, is, in effect, the exchange principle in the

penal sphere, and the modern use of monetary fines fits perfectly within this bourgeois

structure.
Consequently, punishment during colonial rule in Nigeria was seen as social action, deeply

affected by legal forms and procedures; it never served as crime control, social defense, or

rehabilitation. Determinate sentences practiced by the British colonialists widened the nets

into which the offenders were put, merely for the British economic interest.

Exploitation, instead of the much-needed development and rehabilitation of offenders was

the order of the day. Supreme clemency, such as pardon, commutation, and reprieve was

applicable only to British residents in Nigeria. This is a good example of the power of

determinism of the British ruling classes in Nigeria.

During the British rule in Nigeria (1861–1960), two types of criminal law were enforced—the

indigenous and the English law. The basis for legal punishments emanated from these laws.

However, the duality of legal systems generated by colonial rule was bound to introduce

some measures of limitation in criminal sanctions.

The British recognized the existence of local criminal laws in Nigeria and implemented a

policy of allowing them to be applied through the medium of the traditional courts. At the

same time, they introduced successively the common law of crimes and then a criminal

code into northern Nigeria and finally into southern Nigeria, together with a colonial

magistracy and judiciary to apply them (Milner, 1969:263).

The British administrators in Nigeria made it clear to the local rulers that their customary

penal structures would be brought under close scrutiny. As a result, some customary

penalties such as mutilation and torture were specifically abolished by statute. Soon, the

colonialists made trials by ordeal and their built-in penalties illegal, and slavery as a penalty

was abolished by 1830s through treaties and ordinances (Milner, 1969).