Similarly, Tony Nnadi<\/a> a lawyer and Secretary General of Movement for New Nigeria insisted in 2014 that from 2014, Nigeria no longer exists because the lifespan of the amalgamation treaty has elapsed, and that the ethnic nationalities were free to declare autonomy for themselves.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018Nigeria has come to an end. That\u2019s the way to put it very simply,\u2019 he had declared. He argued that the amalgamation of the different regions did not happen in one fell swoop, but separate events that culminated in 1914, therefore there was equally a need to unbundle the package in order \u2018to come to a conclusion on the matter\u2019 of the amalgamation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018The British didn\u2019t get the territory overnight, the treaty of Lagos was in 1861 and in some places, they conquered, they got treaties all around, they now started consolidating and merging them as far as 1906, it was in 1906 that they could put all of what they got, their oil rivers here, Lagos there, they put it together as southern protectorate and then, it was in 1914 that they completed the processes because something, they thought the amalgamation could happen overnight, it was a whole series of processes, they had to merge the legal system, the tax system and all of that. In 1914, they consolidated all of those things into one sheet to become what we now call the amalgamation\u2019, he submitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This perspective is echoed by Paul Eric<\/a> who wrote in 2016 that \u2018And also because the amalgamation in 1914 was by treaty, obviously, in international law, any treaty that is not dated expires after 100 years and invariably marks the end of the country as it ceases to be legal entity.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, Paul Eric seems to be alone in his theory as this researcher examined tonnes of literature on the amalgamation, and there is no mention anywhere as to whether the amalgamation was a treaty or agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the first instance, there is no study or research, including Lord Lugard\u2019s Nigeria Report on The Amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria and Administration 1912 \u2013 1919 (sighted at the National Archives, University of Ibadan), with the indication that the amalgamation was a treaty or agreement. The dictionary<\/a> defines a treaty as \u2018<\/strong>an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation\u2019 or \u2018a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (such as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state.\u2019 There is no available record to testify to this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But in the case of the amalgamation, what appears more credible is the fact that it was an administrative fiat of Nigeria by the British colonialist overlord for economic and administrative convenience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Speaking on this matter, a Professor in the Department of History, University of Ibadan, Professor Rasheed Olaniyi<\/a> explains the basis of the amalgamation: \u201cThe unification of a country can come in any form. Some achieve unification of diverse territory through warfare and then they settle at the end of the day and then, unite. In other forms, it could have been through colonization just like we have it in Nigeria. It could also be through treaty or diplomatic maneuvering. But in the case of Nigeria, it was through colonisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe British thought it fit for their own administrative convenience and also for the purpose of budgeting as well as meeting fiscal responsibilities of Nigeria as a British colony by that time. Those were the basic three reasons for bringing the three sections together. Of course, it was for the purpose of British economic exploitation of the country, not for the interest of the peoples. I use peoples because of the distinct differences of ethnicity, culture and so on.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Historians Mathias Isiani and Ngozika Obi-Ani<\/strong><\/a> also argue that \u2018[T]he two protectorates were culturally apart, yet in 1914 Lord Frederick Lugard amalgamated them,\u2019 an indication that the amalgamation was a unilateral creation of the British Colonial Government without any due consultation with the regions so merged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lugard himself alluded to this in his much referenced report:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018It was clear that so large a country as Nigeria, with an area of 332,400 square miles – of which the North and South were connected only by a single railway, and the uncertain waterway of the Niger, while no lateral means of communication existed at all – must be divided into two or more dependent Administrations under the control of a Central Government. The first problem therefore which presented itself was the number of such Lieutenant-Governors, their powers, and relations to the various departments, together with the subordinate Administrative units throughout the country, and the control of such departments as the Railway and the Military Forces, which were common to the whole of Nigeria. The functions, and future constitutions, of the Executive and Legislative Councils, the unification of the Laws and the Regulations based upon them, and of the Executive \u201cGeneral Orders\u201d and other instructions, the Judicial system, the methods of Taxation direct and indirect, and the disposal of the Revenue so as to benefit the country as a whole, without creating jealousy and friction, the assimilation of the policy of Native Administration \u2013 these, with many minor problems, had to be solved by any scheme of amalgamation which should have any prospect of permanency\u2026\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Was there a Severance or Expiration Clause in the Amalgamation?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Again, a perusal of archival documents and accounts of historians and commentators did not yield any testimony to the perpetually acclaimed 100 years severance or ouster clause of the amalgamation. Once again, Professor Rasheed Olaniyi<\/a> opines that there was no timeline or time-scale in the matter of the amalgamation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018There was no time line, no time frame, no deadline. Not even 100 years. You see, in the process of agitation, for all kinds of break away or something like that, there will be propaganda of all kinds. Different kinds of narrative will come up so there is nothing like 100 years or whatever,\u2019 said Professor Rasheed Olaniyi<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere was nothing like agreement, it was imposed by the colonial state. As a matter of fact, the first time that the Nigerian political class would meet and discuss was 1947 and that was when Nigeria legislative council or the House of Representatives was constituted in 1947. That was the first time. Subsequently they met 1953,1954 then 1955 so, they met at different points in Lagos, there was a conference in Ibadan where all of them met, there was also a conference in London were all of the met and discussed various issues affecting Nigeria as far as the colonization and state government was concerned. So, they met not before 1947. It was the first time. The three legislative councils, the western province, the Northern Province then the eastern province so, that was the first time they met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere was no treaty for the amalgamation of 1914. There was nothing like a treaty. Who represented who and where? These are the questions we need to ask. Who represented the Southern or the Northern Province at that time? If at all, there was something like that, it was colonially imposed because one, there were differences in terms of the various resources of the various sections of the country by that time. So, there was a need to balance the budget in order to facilitate the provision of infrastructure for economic exploitation; there was a need to fund the railway, the customs, to fund so many other aspects of governance by that time.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n From all available data, including Lord Frederick Lugard\u2019s report, there is no proof that the 1914 Amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Nigeria had a 100 years expiry or cessation or ouster clause, as widely claimed by many commentators on the Nigerian state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is no record of any treaty signed by leaders of the respective regions, as the amalgamation was a British fiat, for the smooth running and governance purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\nBut was the amalgamation an agreement or treaty?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/O7bhUj6vJa9cGCCjXhDAZoQfE-wRKvjAUpqS7CpU0gelDZ_jzxhVHL4P64jjN1zqlBOGiwZjgLrMiDoyeJCU_zroaiy23FVa3483AnAPnF8SYXy-Te9cXwx1V7E_kekcZ_c5ZSgo\" "\\"\\"")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/lh5.googleusercontent.com\/ZCFiRCqMZAwRVK1hvyGXo2cAyoxtKffuJO35Ed3AFaGYMIq_lJ5xsT-4-WjjDSZQCFfxy51gb_F4VAyRrd9lY9dZeyxeASeBlpbVP1TBkIK13mCO4OTiVz215KO8ikzsPR4qX7I4\" "\\"\\"")