By Lasisi Olagunju
On 9 June, 1913, Lord Friedrick Lugard minuted on a document that Lagos “could never be made a healthy place.” It was his reaction to a proposed sewage scheme estimated to cost £186,000. He believed that that amount was too vast to expend on an unworthy Lagos. He was Governor of Southern Nigeria at that time.
On January 1, 1914, Lugard became Governor-General of the whole of Nigeria. Thomas S. Gale, who was very critical of his ways, notes that one of Lugard’s first acts “was to close the popular Ereko dispensary in Lagos. He also approved the cancellation of plans for a badly-needed Lagos maternity home” because Lagos people” insisted that it be staffed with indigenous personnel.” Lugard always referenced what he described as “the inherent racial qualities of the coast negro” as justification for the ‘apartheid’ he prescribed for Lagos.
The soil is the crop; the planter the yield. That is why I am writing this. This week marks the 80th anniversary of the death of Lord Lugard. He was the British colonial administrator variously blamed – or praised – for ‘creating’ Nigeria and its principal structural problems. I read him each time I get exasperated by Nigeria; whenever I wonder why we are where we are.
From 1900 to 1906, Lugard was High Commissioner of the Northern Nigeria Protectorate. His blitzkrieg conquered the North but the North counter-conquered him with bewitching love. He was pleased with northern Nigeria and never hid his love for the region and his appreciation for its loyalty to him and to the British crown.
The southern part, particularly Lagos and its environs which he later added to his portfolio, Lugard found very insufferable. His words for the people there share meaning with savagery and its synonyms. Probably if we understand our leaders, past and present, we can design our escape route out of their failure and foibles.
What were Lugard’s legacies in the North? His North had no western schools when he got there and he did very little to alter that situation throughout his years there. Check paragraph 161 of his ‘Report on Amalgamation’ published in December 1919. He later established two schools for the Muslim area of the North. There were 43 mission schools which Lugard wrote were “confined to the non-Muslim districts.” These mission schools, he wrote, enjoyed neither government’s financial assistance nor inspection and control. Lugard did so ‘well’ here for the North such that “at the time of amalgamation, the total number of pupils in government or mission schools was between 700 or 800 out of a population of some nine million.” Those were his words.
The man was lucky. With no western educated elite, he had no opposition, and he did not have to worry about the emirs. They cooperated with him on everything and he reciprocated their good behaviour by not allowing western culture and its Christian missionaries to disturb their region and religion. Earlier in 1903, after he conquered Sokoto, his speech to the new Sultan and his people ended with a charge that he had no issues with Islam. When he conquered Bida “a walled town that had been giving trouble”, his final words were to the effect that “every man was free to worship God in his own way.” He was wise. He later empowered the emirs with indirect rule which came with lucrative salaries and other inducements.
He was wise. He had superior weapons but he didn’t use them after defeating the north in battle. For these, he was respected in palaces and on the streets. He became the lord of the north, his word was law. Then, he was made governor of southern Nigeria in 1912; he came down to Lagos and encountered a set of Africans – negroes who argued with him. He did not find it funny and he acted and reacted so throughout his years in power.
On 28 March, 1913, Lugard, apparently after encountering the educated elite of Lagos, strongly counselled against giving western education to Africans outside Africa. He wrote in a memo: “It appears to me that residence in Europe is bad for the African. He returns at best an insufferable prig; at worst he is a very objectionable person.”
The amalgamation he midwifed was not for any negro to enjoy. It was for his country’s treasury to breathe and for it to use one slave to sustain another in perpetuity. And he said so. In an August 16, 1915 memo, Lugard wrote that “a great native city lives its life as its forebears did and is little affected by progress. Such a community has no desire for municipal improvement. It neither appreciates nor desires clean water, sanitation, or good roads or streets.” He said more than this. You can read it and other things he said and did in Thomas S. Gale’s ‘Segregation in British West Africa’, page 502. That was the man who led northern Nigeria into today’s Nigeria.
If anyone thought the white man came to Africa to civilise the uncivilised and show the heathen the way to heaven, Lugard, as early as 1893 knew it was not so and he said so in black and white. He wrote: “It is in order to foster the growth of the trade of this country (Britain) and to find an outlet for our manufacturers and our surplus energy, that our far-seeing statesmen and our commercial men advocate colonial expansion… If our advent in Africa introduced civilisation, peace and good government, abolishes the slave trade, and effects other advantages for Africa, it must not be therefore supposed that this was our sole and only aim in going there. However greatly such objects may weigh with a large and powerful section of the nation, I do not believe that in these days our national policy is based on motives of philanthropy only.” You can read him in his ‘The Rise of Our East Africa Empire’ published in 1893, page 381-382. If that work is too far out of reach, go read Toyin Falola’s ‘Ibadan: Foundation, Growth and Change, 1830-1960’, page 290.
Before Nigeria, Lugard was in several places, doing things his own way. He was in Kenya; then he crossed into Uganda. He chose Kampala as the capital of Uganda and that was after he arrogantly turned down an offer of a camp site from Mwanga, king of the country. That was on the 13th December, 1890. Lugard’s own words best describe his action on this critical occasion: “I declined to accept it nor yet another place shown to me. Eventually, I went to the top of a low, gravelly knot of wasteland and said I would camp there. Its name was Kampala. I got message after message from the king urging me not to use this spot, but I was obstinate and declined to move. Not only was it the only clean and healthy spot around, but I intuitively saw that if I was to do any good in this country it was essential that I should assert my independence from the first, and it appeared to me that Mwanga was even now already engaged solely in finding out to what extent he could order me about, and whether I was afraid of him. Later experience showed me that I had gauged his motives right, nor did he cease thus to endeavour to badger me and pit himself against me in matters of trivial importance, as well as in greater until he learned to his cost that his policy was a mistake.”
Lord Lugard is sorely hated in the South and, I think, very celebrated in the North. The man died on 11 April 1945. He was 87 years old. When he died, a flurry of reactions and reviews followed his transition. His official biographer, Margery Perham, who wrote in 1945 that Lugard “stands out too far above human stature,” denounced some liberals who denounced Lugard “as a dangerous buccaneer.” I saw that in Perham’s Lord Lugard: A General Appreciation, published in July 1945. The man’s other friends wrote beautiful tributes on him. I read ‘Lugard’ by H. R. Tate, John Eaglesome and Selwyn Grier; published in the July 1945 edition of ‘African Affairs’. If you are interested in what his critics thought of him, you should read ‘Lord F. D. Lugard: An Assessment of His Contribution to Medical Policy in Nigeria’ by Thomas S. Gale. It was published in 1976. For a deeper read of the man and his service to slaves, slavery and slave trade in Nigeria, read ‘Slow Death for Slavery: The Course of Abolition in Northern Nigeria, 1897–1936’ written by historian Paul E. Lovejoy and economist Jan S. Hogendorn. Or read the review ‘Lugard: the Devious Years’ by Barbara M. Cooper. When you read the last two here you can then imagine what sort of leader outlaws slavery without freeing slaves. What kind of man does that?
