When Britain formally consolidated its rule over Nigeria in the early twentieth century, it faced a major challenge: how to administer a vast, ethnically diverse territory with limited funds and a small number of European personnel. To overcome this, colonial administrators adopted indirect rule, a system where British officials governed through existing local rulers and institutions rather than replacing them outright.
The architect of this policy was Lord Frederick Lugard, who first implemented it as High Commissioner of Northern Nigeria (1900–1906) and later expanded it as Governor of both Protectorates (1912–1914) and first Governor-General of amalgamated Nigeria (1914–1919). In his influential book The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa (1922), Lugard argued that ruling “through” indigenous authorities would maintain order, respect native customs, and serve British economic interests efficiently.
While indirect rule appeared pragmatic, it did far more than preserve existing traditions, it transformed them. The policy altered indigenous political systems, redefined legitimacy, and produced markedly different outcomes across Nigeria’s major regions.
EXPLORE NOW: Democratic Nigeria
Origins and Structure of Indirect Rule
Though the principle of governing through intermediaries had precedents elsewhere in the British Empire, Nigeria became its most elaborate experiment. The colonial structure functioned through a hierarchy: British Residents and District Officers supervised Native Authorities composed of traditional rulers and their councils. These Native Authorities were responsible for taxation, local administration, and customary courts, though ultimate authority remained firmly in British hands.
Indirect rule worked best in societies with clear, centralized political hierarchies. Where no such systems existed, British officials often created new chieftaincies, appointing or “inventing” leaders who could act as intermediaries. This uneven application of indirect rule would later define Nigeria’s regional disparities and colonial legacies.
Northern Nigeria: Continuity with Constraint
In Northern Nigeria, indirect rule functioned with relative stability because the region already possessed a centralized Islamic political system inherited from the Sokoto Caliphate, founded by Usman dan Fodio’s jihad in the early nineteenth century. Each emir governed an emirate with established administrative divisions, Islamic courts (alkali courts), taxation systems, and district heads.
Lugard found this structure ideal for colonial adaptation. The emirs became Native Authorities under British supervision, responsible for collecting taxes, maintaining order, and administering local justice. Yet while the outward framework of power remained, its sovereignty was hollowed out. The emirs now ruled on behalf of the British Crown, not as autonomous leaders of an Islamic state.
British Residents could veto, advise, or depose emirs who resisted colonial policies, and many were removed, such as the Emir of Bida (1902) and the Emir of Kano (1903). Over time, the scope of Islamic law was restricted: from 1933 onward, Sharia courts were limited mainly to personal and civil matters. Thus, while Northern authority structures survived, their independence was curtailed, a condition of continuity under constraint.
Western Nigeria: Adaptation, Collaboration, and Tension
In Western Nigeria, the British encountered the sophisticated Yoruba political system, which included powerful kingdoms such as Oyo, Ife, Ijebu, and Egba, each with its Oba (king) and councils of chiefs. This made indirect rule feasible, but also more contentious than in the North.
Yoruba rulers were appointed as heads of Native Authorities, presiding over customary courts and local administration. However, colonial bureaucrats imposed strict rules, financial controls, and legal procedures that limited the autonomy of Obas and their councils. At the same time, a growing class of Western-educated elites began to challenge the authority of traditional rulers, creating new sources of tension.
Some Obas, such as the Alake of Abeokuta, cooperated closely with colonial officials to preserve influence, while others resisted. The British responded to defiance by deposing disobedient rulers, using this as a tool to enforce compliance. Research by Tunde Oduwobi (University of Lagos) on the Akarigbo of Remo and Awujale of Ijebu illustrates how deposition reshaped Yoruba chieftaincy and redefined the limits of royal power.
By the 1930s and 1940s, tensions between traditional rulers, colonial administrators, and Western-educated reformists deepened. Movements such as the Egba United Government (1914–1931) and anti-tax protests reflected Yoruba efforts to assert greater self-governance. Thus, indirect rule in Western Nigeria produced hybrid governance, blending tradition with bureaucracy, collaboration with resistance.
Eastern Nigeria: Warrant Chiefs and Widespread Resistance
The experience in Eastern Nigeria was dramatically different. The Igbo and many neighbouring peoples practiced acephalous (stateless) political systems based on village assemblies, councils of elders, age grades, and kinship networks rather than centralized monarchies.
Because indirect rule required identifiable rulers to act as intermediaries, the British created the warrant chief system, appointing individuals (often traders, interpreters, or colonial favourites) and granting them official “warrants” to serve as Native Authorities. Many of these warrant chiefs lacked community legitimacy, exercised arbitrary power, and were perceived as colonial collaborators.
Their abuses, particularly over taxation, forced labour, and court corruption, provoked deep resentment. This erupted in the Aba Women’s War of 1929, when thousands of women across southeastern Nigeria protested against proposed taxation and the misconduct of warrant chiefs. The protests, which spread from Aba to Owerri, Calabar, and beyond, led to several deaths and widespread property destruction. A colonial commission of inquiry followed, which reduced the powers of warrant chiefs and acknowledged the importance of indigenous female and community leadership roles.
This episode exposed the failure of indirect rule in decentralized societies. By imposing alien authority structures, the British undermined local traditions and provoked early anti-colonial consciousness.
READ MORE: Ancient & Pre-Colonial Nigeria
Changing Roles and Colonial Reforms Over Time
Over the decades, indirect rule underwent significant reform. In the early phase (1900s–1920s), traditional rulers exercised substantial administrative and judicial authority. However, by the 1930s and 1940s, the British increasingly bureaucratized Native Authorities, introducing colonial accounting systems, codified court procedures, and civil service regulations.
After the 1929 protests, reforms aimed to broaden participation through advisory councils and limited representation of educated Africans. Yet these reforms remained largely symbolic, ultimate control rested with British officials. The Richards Constitution (1946) and Macpherson Constitution (1951) gradually transferred power from Native Authorities to elected regional councils, further eroding traditional autonomy.
By the time Nigeria gained independence in 1960, Native Authorities had been largely absorbed into regional and federal governance structures. Nevertheless, traditional rulers continued to wield cultural and moral authority, especially in local conflict resolution and community leadership. The emirs of the North retained more formal influence than their southern counterparts, reflecting the enduring effects of the colonial model.
Legacies and Lasting Impact
The legacies of indirect rule continue to shape Nigeria’s governance, politics, and social structures:
1. Legitimacy and Authority
In regions where colonial officials distorted or created chieftaincy systems, traditional legitimacy was eroded. Some rulers became viewed as colonial collaborators, while others leveraged their roles to preserve and even expand influence within the colonial framework.
2. Regional Disparities
The uneven application of indirect rule reinforced Nigeria’s regional differences. In the North, the preservation of Islamic governance slowed the spread of Western education, while the South, especially the East and West, became more exposed to missionary schools and modern political ideas.
3. Dual Governance
Modern Nigeria still reflects a dual political structure: an official, constitutional system coexisting with a network of traditional rulers who command social respect and serve as custodians of cultural identity.
4. Resistance and Nationalism
Movements like the Aba Women’s War and other local protests nurtured early nationalist sentiment, linking community grievances to broader struggles for political freedom and self-rule.
Author’s Note
Indirect rule was both a pragmatic colonial strategy and a transformative political experiment that profoundly reshaped Nigeria. It succeeded most smoothly in the centralized emirates of the North, operated through compromise and contestation in the Yoruba West, and largely failed in the decentralized societies of the East.
By redefining the power, scope, and legitimacy of traditional rulers, indirect rule left behind a hybrid legacy, one where precolonial authority persists but under the shadow of colonial transformation. Understanding this legacy is essential to interpreting Nigeria’s enduring regional diversity, political hierarchies, and debates about the role of traditional leadership in modern governance.
References:
Frederick Lugard, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa (1922).
- E. Afigbo, The Warrant Chiefs: Indirect Rule in Southeastern Nigeria, 1891–1929(1972).
Tunde Oduwobi, “Deposed Rulers under the Colonial Regime in Nigeria: The Careers of Akarigbo Oyebajo and Awujale Adenuga,” University of Lagos Institutional Repository.
BlackPast.org, “Aba Women’s Riots (1929).”
Toyin Falola & Matthew Heaton, A History of Nigeria (2008).
