Its been a little over a century since the amalgamation of the Northern and southern protectorate in 1914 to form Nigeria.
But now more than ever, the question resonates in the hearts of the beloved citizens of Nigeria.
Was the amalgamation a mistake, a master stroke or somewhere in between?
Some have even compared Nigeria to the proverbial cow who was dying for a trip abroad only to return as corned beef.
Ultimately, one can only ascertain if the 1914 amalgamation was successful by identifying the reason for the amalgamation in the first place.
Having a purpose helps check if you are on course and how well you are progressing. But without purpose, how would you judge and decipher between a sublime act of heroism and sheer cowardice.
Before we see the original blueprint (purpose) of the amalgamation lets take a brief history lesson of the preceding events.
In the 15th century popularly referred to as the age of discovery, the Europeans had come to the shores of Africa and began to explore the vast natural, mineral and human resources.
Our fathers were in awe of their technology. Imagine seeing your teeth and what you actually look like for the first time because the Europeans brought a mirrors. Funny right! As strange as it sounds right now, it was the unfortunate reality our fathers found themselves in.
The Portuguese were the first to make contact with present day Nigeria. Then came the stronger Brits and other European nations.
Then there was chaos as to who owned where and what. Of course everyone wanted the best piece of property for their nation and as is common with them one can only imagine the level of craft, cunning, threats and politics involved in taking charge of the most productive territories.
At the Berlin conference of 1884, African territories were divided among Italy, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, France and Britain. It was the only way to stop them from going to war with one another over territories.
Its no secret that Britain got present day Nigeria and effectively began their indirect rule system of government.
They dethroned, exiled and killed any African monarch who stood in their way including Jaja of Opobo anf the immortal Oba Ovonramwen Nogbaisi.
The indirect rule system of government produced exceptional results in the north but had hiccups in the southern protectorate as there were many kingdoms, kings and rulers
The Uthman Dan Fodio regime -even though at this time had being removed aided the colonial system of governance since all the emirs in the north submissive to the sultan of Sokoto- the caliphate.
The purpose for the amalgamation of the northern and southern protectorates in 1914 was more economic than political.
The south had more resources than the north. So while the economy of the south was booming, the north was consistently getting deficits. Since they were both British colonies the then Governor Fredrick Lugard decided to bring both protectorates together so that the surplus from the south could make up for the deficit of the north.
The reason for the amalgamation is glaringly obvious now. The Brits needed the southern resources to take care of the north (a trend that some think continues today).
So, maybe the amalgamation was a master stroke. One British colony supporting the other with its abundance of natural resources. It seems like a win win situation for the British colonial rulers and the northerners.
To think that the Brits had planned for the post colonial era is to be in dream land. I even dare say that the amalgamation was for the benefit of Britain with little or no concern for Nigeria.
It would absurd to think that Nigeria was amalgamated for Nigeria.
The 1914 amalgamation has proven to be Lord Lugard's master stroke but in the last century Nigerians are yet to be convinced that it was not a mistake.
Plagued with tribal, cultural and religious bias, it seems the amalgamation has not worked so well for Nigeria.
The continual incidence of Fulani herds men is become a bone in the throat of southerners.
Boko Haram insurgency who claims to hate western (or more appropriately southern Nigerian) culture is a purely religious sect bent on exterminating those who do not follow their religion.
There is also the case of the south easterners who might never get a real shot at the presidency because of claims that the northerners fear a repeat of the 1967-1969 civil war.
Its over a century and the people of eastern Nigeria are clamouring for the Independent Republic of Biafra.
The southerners moan consistently of the persistent rulership of the northerners.
Worst still is the fact that some dare say that it is the birthright of the northerners to be in power.
It must be noted though that this is not a case of what God has joined together. Nigeria was formed and named Frederick Lugard and his fiancee.
The dichotomy between the people was too great a parameter to ignore.
Before the amalgamation the northern and southern protectorates had different modes of administration.
It is obvious that Lugard amalgamated Nigeria to ensure smooth passage of National laws and bills which prior to that time was easy in the north but hideous in the south. But that has not worked so well in our post-colonial democratic system mainly because the northerners make up two-thirds of the legislature and by implication any bill that doesn't suit them directly even though it suits others cannot be passed into law.
Its a shocker when you hear political parties talk about zoning of electoral offices to different zones of a country that are supposed to be one people.
A people diverse in culture, religion, tradition and reasoning merged to form a country that almost no one after a century wants to be in. Perhaps we would have been better without the amalgamation.
The question - amalgamation: a mistake or a master stroke is one we cannot readily come to a consensus on because of difference in perspective from the north, south-east, south-west and south-south.
So you answer it. Was the 1914 amalgamation of Nigeria worth it? was it a mistake or a master stroke?
