Before colonial rule, the region later called Nigeria was home to a wide range of political traditions. Authority could rest in councils, sacred leadership, monarchies, or Islamic courts, depending on place and history. Igboland in the southeast and Hausaland in the north offer a clear contrast. These systems developed independently over centuries, shaped by environment, trade, belief, and conflict. When British colonial administration expanded, it attempted to govern these diverse societies through a single framework, most notably indirect rule, altering long standing ideas of authority and legitimacy.
Governance in Igboland, councils, shared authority, and local balance
In much of Igboland, political authority was organised at the community level rather than concentrated in a centralised state. The village group, often made up of several related villages, formed the core political unit. Governance operated through councils of lineage heads, elders, titled men, and respected community members. These councils handled matters such as land allocation, dispute settlement, compensation, marriage regulation, and relations with neighbouring communities.
Leadership in this system was collective. Influence came from seniority, lineage position, ritual responsibility, reputation, and service to the community rather than from a permanent throne. Decisions were typically reached through discussion and consensus, reflecting the value placed on communal agreement and social balance.
EXPLORE NOW: Biographies & Cultural Icons of Nigeria
Age grades played an important supporting role. Organised by cohorts, age grades were responsible for communal labour, road clearing, market maintenance, enforcement of community decisions, and sometimes local defence. Where elder councils provided continuity and precedent, age grades supplied organised action and discipline, ensuring that agreed rules carried practical force.
Igbo political organisation was not identical everywhere. While decentralised governance was common, there were also areas where kingship or sacral authority existed. The Nri tradition is one of the most widely discussed examples, associated with a ritual leader whose influence rested on religious authority, moral sanction, and ceremonial roles rather than territorial conquest. In trading centres and riverine areas, different political forms could emerge due to migration, commerce, and external influence. Taken together, Igboland before colonial rule was characterised by strong community governance, shared authority, and regional variation rather than a single political template.
Governance in Hausaland, city states, courts, and kingship
In Hausaland, political organisation developed around urban centres and city states. These states were often fortified, commercially active, and linked to long distance trade routes across the Sahel and beyond. Authority was centred on a ruler, commonly referred to as a sarki, supported by a court and administrative officials responsible for governance, taxation, diplomacy, and defence.
While kingship was a defining feature, the structure of administration varied between states such as Kano, Katsina, Zaria, and Daura. Court offices, titles, and responsibilities evolved over time in response to warfare, economic change, and religious influence. Rather than a uniform system, Hausaland consisted of related but distinct political entities sharing similar ideas of monarchy and urban governance.
Islam played a significant role in shaping governance across many Hausa states. Islamic scholarship influenced law, education, and administration, contributing to systems of adjudication and record keeping. Judges applying Islamic legal principles were part of governance in several centres well before colonial rule. These influences intensified in the nineteenth century following the jihad that led to the formation of the Sokoto Caliphate, which reorganised political authority across much of the region and strengthened hierarchical governance structures.
Early colonial expansion and administrative change
British influence expanded unevenly across the region through treaties, chartered company activity, military campaigns, and the establishment of protectorates. In some areas, existing authorities were retained but increasingly supervised. In others, political structures were reshaped more directly. This uneven expansion explains why colonial policies produced different outcomes across regions.
Two administrative events were especially significant in reshaping governance.
The 1906 southern merger
In 1906, the Lagos Colony was merged with the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria to form the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. This reorganisation strengthened administrative coordination in the south, linking coastal trade centres, inland territories, and colonial infrastructure under a single administration.
The 1914 amalgamation
On 1 January 1914, Northern and Southern Nigeria were amalgamated into the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria under one central administration. Financial and administrative considerations were central to this decision. Colonial authorities sought to manage budgets more efficiently and integrate governance across the north and south under a unified structure.
Indirect rule, governing through reshaped authority
Indirect rule became the guiding principle of British administration. It involved governing through local authorities while placing them under colonial supervision. In practice, indirect rule did more than preserve existing systems, it often redefined them.
In northern Nigeria, hierarchical systems made indirect rule easier to implement. Emirs and established authorities could be integrated into colonial administration as intermediaries responsible for tax collection, local order, and administrative reporting.
In many decentralised societies, including much of Igboland, indirect rule produced sharper tensions. Colonial officials often sought identifiable leaders who could act as intermediaries, leading to the appointment or empowerment of individuals in ways that disrupted existing councils and participatory mechanisms. This shift altered local power balances and introduced new forms of authority backed by colonial force rather than communal consensus.
EXPLORE NOW: Biographies & Cultural Icons of Nigeria
The lasting change, legitimacy and power
The most enduring transformation was the change in how legitimacy was defined. Before colonial rule, authority rested on lineage, ritual roles, council agreement, kingship tradition, Islamic scholarship, or communal enforcement. Under colonial administration, legitimacy increasingly depended on recognition by the colonial state. This redefinition reshaped political life, influencing disputes, governance practices, and relationships between communities and authority long after colonial rule ended.
Author’s Note
Nigeria’s history shows that order does not come from one model alone. Communities once governed themselves through councils, kingship, courts, and shared responsibility. When colonial rule imposed a single administrative logic, it did more than change borders, it changed who people were expected to obey. The lasting lesson is that authority survives best when it grows from institutions people already trust.
References
Afigbo, A E, The Warrant Chiefs, Indirect Rule in Southeastern Nigeria 1891–1929, Longman.
Falola, Toyin and Heaton, Matthew, A History of Nigeria, Cambridge University Press.
Smith, M G, Government in Zazzau 1800–1950, Oxford University Press.
Lovejoy, Paul E, Transformations in Slavery, A History of Slavery in Africa, Cambridge University Press.
Annual Report on the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria, 1914, British Colonial Office.
