Abstract

The role of history in intergroup relations, nation building and national development has been

greatly undermined in the Nigerian state. This is evidenced by the various administrations and

some scholars’ views on the ‘archaic’ feature of history as an academic discipline. It has almost

been forgotten the relevance of history as a major ammunition for the battle against colonial rule;

how history gave the national pride , establish nationalism and a strong sense of patriotism to the

Nigerian people. Today, history is almost misconcepted as a useless discipline with much emphasis

on science and technology for national development. However, in understanding the divergent

devastating political and socio-religious crises including the Jos/Plateau crisis, the Ogoni and

Niger Delta militant issues among others, there is a fundamental necessity to understand the

histories of the past. It is indeed a major disservice for any nation to deny the citizens knowledge of

their past especially in the attempt in understanding the present challenges. This study therefore

examines the concept of history as a discipline and a process of change, the term, ‘nation-building,

the position of history and its tremendous contributions to nation building project. It concludes that

there is indeed an urgent need for history to be used as a tool for the reconstruction of the present

Nigerian society.

Keywords; history, nation building, Nigeria, role.

Introduction

Every nation of the world is the product of history. It is history that gives a people, ethnic group, a

nation its identity. It can then be understood that the nexus between history and nation building

remains inseparable seeing that man’s past activities are what led to the current state of the modern

nation.1 Taking nation building from historical past, it could be traced to the primordial times when

men started living sedentary lives and as its population increased; there was the need to form a

social strata to cooperate. The collective life necessitated political mechanism of rules, regulations,

and leadership. With this, families developed into communities and communities eventually grew

into nation.2 It is in this way the historical antecedent of a collective people create its identity.3

It is quite pathetic that for several decades with focus on the Nigerian nation, the value of history as

an academic discipline and as a process of nation building has been challenged with a persistent

question of its value to the nation.4 It is against this background that this study seeks to examine the

unbreakable nexus between history and nation building; discuss Nigeria’s nation building process

from the pre-colonial times up to the era of independence; establish the relevance of this link

particularly in the era of globalization, analyze what could be gained from an ‘unattractive’ and

non-materialistic’ discipline such as history and suggest that the Nigerian nation could be imbued

with an enduring and proper sense

The Concept of History and Nation Building

Many definitions have been put forward at explaining the term “history” as an academic discourse.

While some scholars depict history as a branch of knowledge that deals with the past, another

group of scholars define history as a transformation of society in time and space. Few definitions

by some scholars will be reviewed. E.H Carr has surmised history as a dialogue between the events

of the past and progressively emerging future ends.6 E.J Rogers asserts that “like the poor , the past

is always with us; not because we choose to tolerate it (as we do poverty) but because we cannot
escape it.”.7 Jenneth Keightely observes that when the past is forgotten, ”its power over the present

is hidden from us, and our capacity to influence the future is severely restricted”.8 Adiele Afigbo in

defining Nigerian history depict it as a “strategic device or method which can be placed at bringing

Nigeria and the Nigerians together, as well as developing and sustaining them.”9 The definition of

history can be well summarized in R.V Daniel words as: “the memory of human group

experience…Without history, we have no knowledge of who we are or how we came to be, like

victims of collective amnesia groping in the dark for our identity. It is the events recorded in

history that have generated all the emotions, the values, the ideals that make life meaningful, that

has given men something to live for, struggle over, die for. Thus, historical events have created all

the basic human groupings- countries, religion, classes- and all the loyalties attached to these”.10

Nations are generally considered as culturally homogenous groups of people, larger than a

community sharing common language, institutions, religion and historical experience. Nigeria has

been defined as a nation-state where various distinct cultural or ethnic groups (a nation or a people)

inhabit a territory and have formed a sovereign state.11 With this in mind, nation building can be

defined as a process whereby a society of people with diverse origins, histories, languages,

religions and cultures come together to structure a national identity using the authority of the state

with the goal of affiliating the people within the state.12

The term ‘nation building’ has been interchangeably used with the state building. However, many

scholars would maintain that both terms are two distinct processes, while the former is seen as the

task of building functioning states capable of fulfilling essential attributes of modern statehood.

Nation–building on the other hand, refers to the more abstract process of developing shared sense

of identity or community among the various groups making up the population of a particular

state.13 While state-building has a focus on capacity-building programs directed at strengthening

key institutions, nation-building is more concerned with the character of relations between the

citizens and the state.14

PRE-COLONIAL NATION BUILDING IN NIGERIA

Nation building efforts in Nigeria dates back to pre-colonial period. Different communities and

ethnic groups existed and were spread around the river Niger and environs. These groups

eventually became known today as the Niger-Area people-Nigeria. These multiple ethnic groups

before the amalgamation by Sir Fredrick Lord Lugard in 1914 existed independently of one

another. Some of these various and numerous ethnic groups include: the Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa,

Fulani, Edo, Ijaw, Ibibio, Itshekiri, Nupe, kanuri, Igala, and many others. These groups were at one

time or the other in their various places had historical accounts and efforts in place at nation

building. Some of these nation building efforts would be examined thus;

PRE-COLONIAL NATION BUILDING IN YORUBA LAND

The Yoruba ethnic group in present day Nigeria has their historical origin at Ile-Ife in present day

Osun State. It was from Ile-Ife that the Yoruba spread to other parts of Nigeria. The Yoruba

kingdom occupy an area lying between the mouth of river Niger and longitude 10 east and between

Atlantic coast and latitude 90 north.15 There were about fourteen major kingdoms in Yoruba land

during the 18th century which included Oyo Kingdom, Ife Kingdom, Ekiti Kingdom, Egba

Kingdom, Ijebu Kingdom, Ondo Kingdom, Ketu Kingdom, Owu Kingdom and so on with several

other smaller kingdoms.16

The position of the old Oyo was one of the reasons for its rise to power. Due to the fertile soil and

various trade routes with the region, Oyo became a leading commercial centre, south of the Niger

was also an advantage. In addition to being at the Savannah terminus of the Trans-Saharan trade,

Oyo trade with Europeans at the coast through Port Novo, being situated at the Savanna belt made

expansion easy. Iron ore was also available.17 The industrial skill of the people also enhanced the
growth of the empire, their skills in weaving, dyeing, carving and decorated arts attracted traders

from far and wide. The Oyo also had knowledge of iron-working, made and used good tools and

weapons. Militarily, large cavalry which made Oyo the scourge and horror of most of her

neighbours and with which it fought wars of expansion. The leadership and valour of Oyo warriors

also contributed to the military effectiveness. The Are Ona Kakanfo was the commander-in-chief

of the army. The constitution and central government of Oyo also constituted to its rise. The

constitution allowed the provinces to have local autonomy which was desirable in an age when

means of transportation and communication were inadequate and slow. The constitution also

allowed conquered territories to be incorporated into the empire without disrupting the traditional

power in the conquered territories.18

The Alaafin was the head of the empire but two important groups- the Oyo Mesi (the supreme

council of state) and the Ogboni Society acted as limitations to the powers of the Alaafin. They

could not depose an Alaafin but could ask him to commit suicide (if he was not in the interest of

the empire) by sending the Bashorun to present empty calabash or a dish of parrot’s eggs. By

tradition, such Alaafin must take poison and die.19 Ethnic homogeneity also promoted unity that

welded all the Yoruba speaking people together as Oduduwa was believed as the general founding

father of the people. This was stimulating reason for the growth of the empire.20

PRE-COLONIAL NATION BUILDING IN IGBOLAND:

The Igbos and the Ibibio nations from others was that they had scattered pattern of settlement. They

lived in villages and village groups. A number of families formed a village and a number of

villages formed the village group. Another factor that distinguishes the Igbos from others was their

village democracy. Every male adult in Igboland had a right to voice out his opinion at the village

assembly. He took part in decision making.21 The Okpara (the head of a lineage) kept the ‘Ofo’

sticks- the symbol of their common descent. The eldest man kept the senior ofo stick for the village
or village group and his political powers were no more than those of any other elder.22. The factor

of common descent provided justification for the existence of a village and village group. The igbo

group also formed alliance with other village goup through inter-marriage. The villages were joined

together by a network of trade routes. Not only that, there were many markets which provided

opportunity for trade with fish obtained from the delta area while north-east area around Abakaliki

provided surplus yams for the thickly populated areas around Orlu, Okigwi and Awka. A village

group specialized in a certain type of craft work which other groups needed and purchased. A

network of oracles also unified the Igbo for it was believed that the farther away an oracle was

from those who wanted to consult it, the more the chance of an impartial answer from the oracle.

All these links welded the Igbo into a wider community than the apparently scattered and isolated

villages.23

AMONGST THE HAUSA/FULANIS OF THE NORTH:

In the present day Northern Nigeria and South-West of the ancient Bornu Empire, once existed a

chain of states commonly referred to as the Hausa states. These states which were fourteen (14) in

number existed in this area between A.D. 800-1800. They were founded originally by a tribe called

the Hausa who claimed blood relationship with the Kanuri of the old Bornu Empire. These states

were of two distinct groups. The first group consisted of seven states called the ‘Hausa Bokwoi’

state. The other group consisted of the remaining seven states, and were called the ‘Seven

Illegitimate’ or ‘Banza’ states. The word ‘Banza’ is an Hausa word meaning ‘Bastard’ or ‘Impure’.

The Hausa Bokwoi states included Daura, Gobir, Zaria (Zauzau or zegizegi), Katsina, kano Rano,

and Bilma. The ‘banza’ or ‘bastard’ states included the Yoruba town of Ilorin, Yauro, Jukun or

Kororofo, Kebbi, Zamfara, Nupe, and Yuri.24

The origin of these states is unknown. However a major agreement based on the history of origin is

their attributes to one called ‘Abuyazidu’ or ‘Bayigida’. The identity of this man is still shrouded in
myth and mysteryhe is sometimes referred to as a prince from the Far East or Bagdad. He came to a

town called Daura, a place seven miles north of the modern border of Northern Nigeria, and three

miles to Yobe. He was heroic in killing the snake that had terrorized the town with several victims

in its wake. In appreciation, the queen of the town, Daurana decided to marry him.25 their child

Bawo had six children who in later years founded six states named after them. These were the

states of Gobir, Katsina, Zaria, Kano, Rano, and Bilma. Throughout these periods, these states

regarded Daura as their spiritual home as well as regarding the king of Daura as being superior to

the other states’ kings.26

NATION BUILDING AND THE UTHMAN DAN FODIO JIHAD OF 1804 IN HAUSA
LAND

Uthman Dan Fodio was a Fulani descendant of a torobe family that was well established in
Hausaland. He was well educated in classical Islamic science, philosophy, and theology. He also
became a revered religious thinker. His teacher, Jibril ibn 'Umar, argued that it was the duty and
within the power of religious movements to establish an ideal society free from oppression and
vice. Jibril was a North African Muslim alim who gave his apprentice a broader perspective of
Muslim reformist ideas in other parts of the Muslim world. Jibril B. Umar was known as an
uncompromising opponent of corrupt practices and a stuanch proponent of Jihad. He begain his
intinerant preaching as a mallam in 1774-1775. Inspired by Jibril B. Umar, Uthman Dan Fodio
criticized the Hausa Kingdoms for their unjust and illegal taxes, confiscations of property,
compulsory military service, bribery, gift taking and the enslavement of other Muslims. Dan Fodio
also criticized the Hausa rulers for condoning paganism, worshipping fetishes, and believing in the
power of talismans, divination, and conjuring. He also insisted on the observance of Maliki Law in
the commercial, criminal, and personal sectors. Uthman also denounced the mixing of men and
women, pagan customs, dancing at bridal feasts, and inheritance practices contrary to Islamic
Law.27

Dan Fodio broke from the royal court and used his influence to secure approval for creating a
religious community in his hometown of Degel, As in other Islamic societies, the autonomy of
Muslim communities under Ulama leadership made it possible to resist the state and the state
version of Islam in the name of Sharia and the ideal caliphate. Uthman Dan Fodio's appeal to
justice and morality rallied the outcasts of Hausa society. He found his followers among the Fulbe
and Fulani. The Fulbe and Fulani were primarily cattle pastoralists. Hausa peasants, runaway
slaves, itinerant preachers, and others also responded to Uthman's preaching. His jihad served to
integrate a number of peoples into a single religio-political movement.

Usman Dan Fodio was proclaimed Amir al-Muminin or Commander of the Faithful in Gudu. This
made him a political as well as religious leader, giving him the authority to declare and pursue a
jihad, raise an army and become its commander. A widespread uprising began in Hausa land. This
uprising was largely composed of the Fulani, who held a powerful military advantage with their
cavalry. It was also widely supported by the Hausa peasantry, who felt over-taxed and oppressed by
their rulers. Usman started the jihad against Gobir in 1804. The call for jihad reached not only other
Hausa states such as Kano, Daura, Katsina, and Zaria, but also Borno, Gombe, Adamawa, Nupe,
and Ilorin. These were all places with major or minor groups of Fulani alims.28

By 1808 Uthman had defeated the rulers of Gobir, Kano, Katsina, and other Hausa Kingdoms. He
expanded territory south of Lake Chad and into Nupe and Yoruba lands as far as the forest zone.
After only a few years of the Fulani War, Dan Fodio found himself in command of the largest state
in Africa, the Fulani Empire. His son Muhammed Bello and his brother Abdullahi carried on the
jihad and took care of the administration. Dan Fodio worked to establish an efficient government
grounded in Islamic law. After 1811, Usman retired and continued writing about the righteous
conduct of the Muslim religion. After his death in 1817, his son, Muhammed Bello, succeeded him
as amir al-mu’minin and became the ruler of the Sokoto Caliphate, which was the biggest state
south of the Sahara at that time. Usman’s brother Abdullahi was given the title Emir
of Gwandu and was placed in charge of the Western Emirates, Nupe and Ilorin. Thus all Hausa
states, parts of Nupe and Ilorin, and Fulani outposts in Bauchi and Adamawa were all ruled by a
single politico-religious system. By 1830 the jihad had engulfed most of what are now northern
Nigeria and the northern Cameroons. From the time of Usman dan Fodio to the British conquest at
the beginning of the twentieth century there were twelve caliphs.

One of the major reasons for the Jihad was that many of the Fulani led by Usman Dan Fodio were
unhappy that the rulers of the Hausa states were mingling Islam with aspects of the traditional
regional religion. Usman created a theocratic state with a stricter interpretation of Islam. In Islam
outside the Arab World, David Westerlund wrote: “The jihad resulted in a federal theocratic state,
with extensive autonomy for emirates, recognizing the spiritual authority of the caliph or the sultan
of Sokoto.” At the end of the 1804 Uthman Dan Fodio Jihad, the Fulanis successfully overthrew
the Hausa regime and latter established a large empire instead of the fourteen Hausa mini-states.29

COLONIAL INTEGRATION AND BUILDING OF MODERN NIGERIA:

With the 1890 Brussels conference, Britain like her other colonial European counterparts began its
colonizing mission. Thus, Britain assumed political responsibilities over Nigeria and other West
African colonies of Gold Coast now Ghana, Sierra-Leone and the Gambia. Britain easily
suppressed all oppositions by the African rulers by its maxim guns.30 After these persecutions and
conquests, the British formally took over the full control of the administration of these colonies. In
all the colonies, Britain adopted the same pattern of government known as the ‘Indirect Rule’.31

The system of indirect rule was first introduced by Lord Lugard in Northern Nigeria, when he was
appointed as the British High Commissioner of this area in 1900. Hence, he was referred to as the
‘Father of the Indirect Rule’. Before long, the system spread, not only to other parts of Nigeria, but
also to other British colonies in West Africa. Indirect rule is the art of ruling a group of people
through the assistance of some agents. It was a policy of ruling through the traditional chiefs. The
success of the indirect Rule system in India and Uganda and the recommendation of the need for
the adoption of the system by British officials who had served in Nigeria before Lugard also
necessitated the adoption of the system.

The system of Indirect Rule was a huge success in what was then known as the Northern
Protectorate due to the type of authority the Northern leader had- Absolute Monarchy. The power
was very central. Lugard made use of the emirs including a new Amiral Muminin whom himself
appointed. It was these chiefs who ran the affairs of their areas, while the British administration
merely acted as ‘powers behind the throne’.32

Due to the huge success of the system of Indirect Rule in the Northern Protectorate, Lord Lugard
extended the system to the Southern Protectorate. Unfortunately the system was not as successful in
the south as in the north. This was due partly to Lord Lugard’s ignorance of the traditions of the
different peoples of the protectorates, as well as his deliberate discontinuance of the people’s
customs. The Yoruba Obas were not autocratic as the northern emirs, and had several checks and
balances restraining their authority. The system also failed to succeed with the Igbos. The reasons
for these were not farfetched from those already mentioned especially with its acephalous system
of administration. By choosing some chiefs by warrant, a very unusual political administration to
the Igbo, oppositions followed the indirect rule in the Igbo region. An example was the 1929 Aba
Riot. Thus, the system in Igboland was a bundle of failures and mis-adventure. It was the result of a
complete ignorance of the people’s traditions as well as the deliberate discontinuance of the wishes
and aspirations of the governed.33

In 1914, the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria was merged with the Protectorate of
Northern Nigeria and they were referred to as the Colony and protectorate of Nigeria. The
legislative council was this time allowed to make law for only the colony. The governor made laws
for the protectorates. Lord Lugard said the reason for this was “until communications by railway
are greatly extended, the proposition is physically impossible”. This was due to the large size of the
country. In place of a legislative council for the country, there was established an advisory body
called the Nigerian council. It had 30 members of whom 17 were officials and 13 non-officials. Of
the non-officials, four were nominated by the governor to represent commercial, shipping, mining
and banking interests. The remaining members were Nigerians appointed by the governor.

THE CLIFFORD CONSTITUTION (1922)

On assuming office in 1919, Sir Hugh Clifford, the governor, was pressured by the then West
African congress, led by Caseley Hayford, to provide constitutions in West African subject states.
This led to the making of the Clifford constitution of 1922. It introduced the first electoral system
in Nigeria which conducted into the legislative council with four slots: 3 for Lagos while 1 for
Calabar. However, the election was based on limited franchise which restricted the election to those
that earned a minimum of 100 pounds annually, which was very expensive for most Nigerians.

It also introduced a legislative council which replaced the Nigerian council. It consisted of 46
members with the governor as the head. There was also an executive council; however, it had no
Nigerians. It consisted of the governor, chief secretary, lieutenant governors, an administrator for
Lagos, attorney – general, commandant of the Nigerian regiment, director of medical service,
Comptroller general and Secretary for native affairs.

After Hugh Clifford, there were two other governors, Cameroon and Bernard Boudillion. They had
little impact in Nigeria’s constitutional development. However, Boudilion divided Nigeria into
East, West and North for administrative purposes which became the basis for future regionalism.34

THE RICHARDS CONSTITUTION (1946):

Before the end of 1944, the then governor, Sir Arthur Richards provided a new proposal for
constitutional amendment. This was as a result of pressure being mounted on him by the educated
elite with the belief that the Clifford Constitution did not represent the indigenous population. The
constitution provided for a new legislative council, it had: The governor, 16 official members, and
28 unofficial members. Of the 28, two were nominated by the governor while 4 were elected. The
North had 11 members; the West had 8 members while the East had 6 members. The elected 4 were
from Lagos and Calabar. Also, the constitution made the council legislate for the whole country
with members nominated by the native authority with no legislative body; they were just grounds
for discussing national issues. Also, the constitution reduced the amount of the limited franchise
from 100 pounds to 50 pounds. More people could vote and be voted for. However, it was still too
expensive for most Nigerians. The executive council in Lagos also had for the first time, Nigerians.
Despite all these improvements compared to the Clifford constitution, the constitution still had
some defects with limited franchise to only Lagos and Calabar. The money required for the right to
vote was still too expensive for most Nigerians. Also, the regional houses of assemblies could not
make laws just grounds for public discussion. The constitution also did not include the elites since
the nominees were nominated by the native authority.35

THE MACPHERSON CONSTITUTION (1951):

It also provided for regional legislatures that could make laws for their regions. The legislatures in
the West and North were bi-cameral, each having a house of chiefs alongside the regional
legislature. In the East, it was a unicameral legislature. It was also from the regional legislatures
that members were nominated to the legislative council.36

THE LYTTLETON CONSTITUTION (1954):

Despite, the improvements in the Macpherson constitution, it could not keep Nigerians united. It
collapsed soon due to problems from the legislature. In 1953, Anthony Enahoro of the A.G
proposed on the floor of the house that Nigeria should be given independence in 1956. The
Northerners, who felt they were not ready for independence, opposed this. They proposed that
independence should be given ‘as soon as practicable’. This led to them being booed in Lagos. This
led to a riot in Kano in reaction to what happened in Lagos. Also, the North threatened to secede.

In consideration of these conflicts, the then colonial secretary, Oliver Lyttleton called the leaders
for a conference in London. This conference led to the Lyttleton constitution. The constitutional
conferences of 1953 and 1954 held in London and Lagos respectively gave birth to the Lyttleton
constitution. The constitution fully introduced a federal system, with North, East, West and
Southern Cameroons with the Federal capital territory in Lagos. Judicially, the West African court
of appeal was abolished. There was a supreme court for Nigeria and individual high courts for the
regions. However, the highest court of appeal was the judicial committee of the Privy Council. The
Eastern and Western regions became self-governing in 1957 while the North became self-
governing in 1959. Southern Cameroon through a referendum opted out of Nigeria.37

THE INDEPENDENCE CONSTITUTION (1960):

On 1st October 1960, Nigeria became independent. This meant that Nigeria was a sovereign state
independent of colonial influences. However, this was not fully the case. The Queen was still the
head of state, although she was represented by a Nigerian in the person of Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe who
was the Governor-General while Tafawa Balewa was the Prime minister. The constitution was like
the 1954 constitution but with some changes including the inclusion of provisions for acquiring
citizenship of the country. There was also included in the constitution provisions for the procedure
for amendment of the constitution. Judicially, Judges of the courts were appointed through
nomination by the judicial service commission upon the assent of the Privy Council. The Privy
Council was also the highest court of appeal in the country.

The constitution divided legislative powers between the center and the regional legislature. It made
provisions for an exclusive legislative list. It also made provisions for a concurrent list. Items in the
exclusive list were to be legislated by only the central legislature. Items in the concurrent list were
to be legislated upon by the central legislature and the regional legislatures. Items not included in
any of the lists were regarded as residual lists which were within the sole purview of the regional
legislature. It also provided for a dual executive. This meant that we had the Head of State and the
Head of Government in two different people. The head of government was Nnamdi Azikiwe while
the head of state was Tafawa Balewa. The head of state had only ceremonial functions while the
head of government had executive powers. He was responsible for the day to day running of the
activities of government.

The constitution also provided for its supremacy. This was in contrast to the convention in a
parliamentary system. In a parliamentary system what we have is parliamentary supremacy, not
constitutional supremacy. However, due to the heterogeneous nature of Nigeria, the constitution
had to be supreme in order to dissuade fears of domination of minority groups.
Although Nigeria was purported to have gained independence from the British, there were still
some vestiges of imperialism in the independence constitution. One of them is that the queen was
still the head of state, who was represented by a Nigerian. Also, the highest court of appeal was the
judicial committee of the Privy Council in the House of Lords instead of the Nigerian Supreme
court. It was due to these that a new constitution had to be made. This was the 1963 republican
constitution.38

NATIONALISM AND NATION BUILDING IN NIGERIA

The term ‘Nationalism’ can be viewed from different angles. To some writers, it simply means
‘national feeling’. To some, it may mean ‘the pride for one’s nation, customs, tradition and
institutions’. It may also mean ‘opposition to foreign rule’, or ‘a desire to eliminate colonialism’. 39
Nigerian nationalism is a territorial nationalism, emphasizing a cultural connection of the people to
the land — in particular the Niger and Benue rivers. It first emerged in the 1920s under the
influence of Herbert Macaulay who is considered the founder of Nigerian nationalism. It was
founded because of the belief in the necessity for the people living in the British colony of Nigeria
of multiple backgrounds to unite as one people in order to be able to resist colonialism.40 The
Nigerian nationalists' goal of achieving an independent sovereign state of Nigeria was achieved in
1960 when Nigeria declared its independence and British colonial rule ended. Nigeria's government
has sought to unify the various peoples and regions of Nigeria since the country's independence in
1960.41

Herbert Macaulay became a very public figure in Nigeria, and on June 24, 1923, he founded the
Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP), the first Nigerian political party. The NNDP won all
the seats in the elections of 1923, 1928 and 1933. In the 1930s, Macaulay took part in organizing
Nigerian nationalist militant attacks on the British colonial government in Nigeria.42

The Nigerian Youth Movement (NYM) founded in 1933 by Professor Eyo Ita was joined in 1936
by Nnamdi Azikiwe that sought support from all Nigerians regardless of cultural background, and
quickly grew to be a powerful political movement. In 1944, Macaulay and NYM leader Azikiwe
agreed to form the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) (a part of Cameroon
was incorporated into the British colony of Nigeria). Azikiwe increasingly became the dominant
Nigerian nationalist leader, he supported pan-Africanism and a pan-Nigerian based nationalist
movement.43
Nigerian nationalism radicalized and grew in popularity and power in the post-World War II period
when Nigeria faced undesirable political and economic conditions under British rule.44 The most
prominent agitators for nationalism were Nigerian ex-soldiers who were veterans of World War II
who had fought alongside British forces in the Middle East, Morocco, and Burma; another
important movement that aided nationalism were trade union leaders.45 In 1945 a national general
strike was organized by Michael Imoudu who along with order trade union figures became
prominent nationalists. However Nigerian nationalism by the 1940s was already facing regional
and ethnic problems to its goal of promoting a united, pan-Nigerian nationalism.46

Nigerian nationalism and its movements were geographically significant and important in southern
Nigeria while a comparable Nigerian nationalist organization did not arrive in northern Nigeria
until the 1940s.47 This regional division in the development and significance of Nigerian
nationalism also had political implications for ethnic divide - southern Nigeria faced strong ethnic
divisions between the Igbo and the Yoruba while northern Nigeria did not have strong internal
divisions, this meant northern Nigeria that is demographically dominated by the Hausa was
politically stronger due to its greater internal unity than that of southern Nigeria that was internally
disunified.63The south that was ethnically divided between the Igbo and the Yoruba, though the
region was most in favour of Nigerian nationalism; faced the north that was suspicious of the
politics of the south, creating the North-South regional cleavage that has remained an important
issue in Nigerian politics.48 In 1960, Nigeria became an independent country. Azikiwe became the
first President of Nigeria and Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the first and only Prime Minister of the
country.

History and the Contemporary Nation Building Process in Nigeria

The modern Nigeria society faces the challenge of development. Most often than not, as Walter

Rodney once asserted, development is used in an exclusive economic sense with the rationale being

that the type of economy is itself an index of other social features. Thus, this explains the current

trends adopted by the various Nigerian governments to promote the pursuit of science and

technology considering its relevance to economic advancement.49. There is indeed no doubt that the

much emphasis on science and technology in realizing Nigeria’s development objectives is

appropriately desirable, however it should be duly noted that development is a multi faceted

process that begins with the individual and any aspect of personal development is strongly tied to

the state or society as a whole. This undoubtedly signifies that for any nation to develop, the

collective spirit of the people must be well fostered and disseminated.50 Here lies the significance

of history.

With the look at advanced technological nations of the world, true nationhood was primarily
accomplished before achieving rapid technological advancement. History was a relevant tool used
in the task of uniting the different cultures, peoples and values positively without being tied to the
damaging vanity of the past.51 Even up to the present time, History as a course of study is made
compulsory for every student in American schools.52 The Japanese under strong leadership has
indeed inherited from her past certain political, economic and socio-cultural institutions readily
adopted in sustaining the nation. In effect, Japan entered the modern times as a great power with a
heritage of political ideologies as well as an emotional disposition well fitted to supply driving
force and unifying power in the task of nation building.53

There is a strong realization by these nations that a state with a strong sense of identity creates a

major phase of economic development. This reinforces the statement of J.H Plumb who observed

that the purpose of history is to extend discernment concerning men and society “in the hope that a

profound awareness will help to mould human attitudes and human actions”. Indeed, there would

be no nation to build science and technology if the nation is besieged by ethno-religious and

political crises with the great instance of the present Nigeria state.54

In the pre-colonial time, History was the principal medium of transmission of culture (e.g. for
social control) including the cosmology of the people in a nation. Africans transmit their culture
through educational institutions indigenous to them, which are largely associated with puberty rites,
secret societies, initiation of age grades, training and initiation of priests and priestesses, diviners as
well as those ceremonies taking place before the coronation of a new chief or king. Besides,
another means of transmitting culture in Africa, is through the court historians and chroniclers. In
many parts of Africa there were carefully trained historians in the palace of kings and courts of
highly placed chieftancies. Such palace or court historians included the Arokin of old Oyo Empire
and the Griots among the Mende people of Western Sudan (like the Mende of Senegal, Guinea and
Mali). This depicts the importance of history in each African society.55
The works of the 1st generation historians in Nigeria– Kenneth. Dike, Saburi Biobaku, Afigbo

among others – can be readily acknowledged in their contributions to nationalism and patriotism.

The decolonizing of colonial historiography and the affirmation of Nigeria’s rich culture and

irrefutable history performed an important role in the preparations of the Nigerian people for

independence. Their works drew general recognition to Nigerian heroes and geniuses such as King

Jaja of Opobo, Nana of Itsekiri, Uthman Dan Fodio, Madam Efunroye Tinubu, Ajayi Crowther

amongst others. These historians were great intellectuals and philosophers who provided the

politicians and leaders the tool of legitimacy to attain independence.56 In short, the past was seen as

‘a birthright snatched away by the exploitation of the colonialists.57 This is the kind of crucial role

history plays in a nation and if harnessed, it can be significantly be used in the process of the

contemporary Nigeria’s nation building

The multi ethnic nature of Nigeria as well as its colonial experience has been repeatedly pointed

out as major reasons for the inability for unity and its inability to function as a whole. However,

should ethnocentricity be constituted as the veritable obstacle for national unity? 58 Obaro Ikime

observed, “How many mono-ethnic nations are there in the world? How many nations which now

have a lingua franca began with only one language? Even the Great Britain , the country that

colonized us is not a mono-ethnic nation…Take France, Germany, Italy, Russia or whatever nation

the story is the same… Our colonisers were themselves once a colony of the Roman Empire. Even

Japan today had her share of colonial experience. Clearly then, sixty years of colonialism cannot,

must not, constitute for us an eternal excuse for our inability to forge a united Nigeria”.59

Obaro Ikime has conclusively established that Nigerian history is no different from the history of

the rest of the world. With the instances of the above mentioned countries, it is quite clear that the

unity of any nation is invariably a product of history. Unity thus requires deliberate cultivating and

delicately nurturing.60 Among its several challenges, Nigeria has a problem of proper identity or as

C. Ifemesia has posited “blatant misconception and alienating stereotypes”.61 This is very much
evidenced in the various ethnic conflicts distorting the nation’s development process. However,

history has shown that different Nigerian peoples learnt to co-exist under some measures of

common direction for varying periods especially before the colonial era. Looking at the history of

the few Nigerian peoples before the arrival of the British, it is indeed true there was no singular

political entity but there was a great degree of inter-group relations among the ethnic groups. The

Bagayida legend of the Hausa kingdom has been often argued by the historians as a tool to

legitimize the unification of various ethnic groups in different areas and this fusion brought the

emergence of the Hausa people. Again, the history of origins among several ethnic groups depicts

affinity between neighbouring states, kingdoms and empires.62 An instance is the history of origin

between Ife and Benin, (despite some strong contentions concerning Oranmiyan) depicts a great

level of congeniality and diplomatic relationship between the Ife and the Benin.63 It has also been

well proven that the pre-colonial Nigerian peoples traded among themselves: Oyo and the Nupe;

the Efik, the Ibibio and the Igbo; the Northern Igbo and the Igala; Bornu and its neighbouring states

among several others.64

The Egungun festival was borrowed by Oyo from the Nupe as the outcome of the geographical

adjacency and their intense trade relations. In the Niger-Benue region, which comprises various

ethnic groups, it is evident that there are adoptions of Hausa cultural traits including the mode of

dressing as well the approbation of the Hausa language as the lingua franca in this region. These

common peculiarities are firmly functions of centuries of commercial relations and other social

contacts among these groups.65

Again, kingdoms and empires played important role in widening the scope of activities and

operations of the pre-colonial Nigerian peoples. This role was political, social, economic and ritual.

A major example was the Igala kingdom. Its emergence involved relations among different ethnic

groups including the Ebira, Benin, the Igbo, the Jukun, the Yoruba, Idoma and other ethnic groups.

These relations were formed by factors of migrations and settlement, military conquest and
expansions, commercial relations, war and geographical proximity. Obayemi has observed that the

Ajaokuta and Geregu on the Niger west bank are Igala speaking people, suggesting the

geographical affinity between the Yoruba and the Igala at some period of their history. 66 These

vivid examples can also be found in other kingdoms and empires including the Benin, Oyo and

Sokoto Caliphate. The Igbo groups of the West Niger, the Yoruba of Owo, Akure and some of the

Ekiti groups have adopted the Benin pattern of political institutions and title systems. Also the Aro-

Chukwu cult provided powerful ritual centre to which people from various ethnic groups came.67

These cultural similitude and legacy of collective affiliation can be equipped for the evolvement of

national unity. C. Ifemesia surmised that inter-group relations would be progressive ‘if culture

groups knew enough about the backgrounds and antecedents of their neighbours; for that would

enable the one to know the merits and defects of the other and so they can tolerate one another and

interact with the minimum of friction and conflict.’68 A good understanding of the culture of the

Nigerian peoples with a specific grasp of the people’s antecedents will greatly avert myriads of

ethnic based conflicts.

Towards Intercepting the Nigerian Crises:

Since political independence, Nigeria has undergone tumultuous dissensions as the nation has been

confronted with the realities of national development problems. As Kayode Adeogun observed,

“There is the need to learn lessons from history to correct the imbalances inherent in the system.

We must be able to ascertain our genesis, our present circumstances and a possible anticipation or

projection into the future for cultural renaissance and national development”.69

History is not only the study of the past. It is an exploration of change and the socio-political

dynamics of human society.70 An example is in understanding the Niger Delta crisis on resource

control. In comprehending this peculiar crisis, it is essential to understand the changing fortunes of

the Niger Delta region. Before the era of colonialism, the Niger Delta people were one of the most
enterprising merchants who dominated the economic scene in the Nigeria geographical area

throughout the periods of the slave trade and the palm oil trade. It is no wonder the pre-colonial

state system of the region has been referred to as ‘trading states’. However, by the 3 rd decade of the

20th century, the Niger Deltans lost their political and economic dominance with the establishment

of colonial rule.71 In the post-independent Nigeria, the Niger Delta region, formerly an entity of

trading corporations became minorities despite the oil wealth located in the area. Even as Nigeria

seeks to intercept the problems that confront the nation in the present time, there is a strong need to

collectively comprehend how things have come to be as they are.72

On the issue of religious dichotomy, a major crisis in the Nigerian state is itself a product of

history. The factor of the Uthman dan Fodio’s Jihad in the spread of Islam to several Northern

regions as well as south western states alongside the factor of the Amalgamation in 1914 in

creating religious intolerance between the Muslim North and the Christian South, are all grounded

in Nigeria's historical activities.73 It will keep proving difficult to stem the tide of religious

intolerance without a strong comprehension of the why’s and how’s of our present situation. There

again goes the importance of history in the provision of a groundwork to understand the inherent

problems of the nation; religious, political, among several others. It can then be favourably argued

that learning the histories that has produced these problems should become a ‘national necessity’.74

The Creation of National Consciousness:

It is no surprise that Nigerians identify themselves with their nationality only when they are in a

foreign country. The citizens identify themselves locally by their ethnic identity. The Igbo, Yoruba,

Fulani and so on. Ikime gives reasons for this, ‘We have never really sat down to fashion out an

Act of Union. The British brought us together as a colony; we attained independence as one nation.

We fought a civil war to keep that nation together. But we have not deliberately forged an Act of
Union.’ This union agreement can only be formed when there is a utilization of history for national

consciousness.

History has helped correct distorted account about the African past and it can also help create

national consciousness and provide the intellectual support for patriotism. It can be inarguably

affirmed that any nation rely to a large extent on the people’s love and respect for social order.

Indeed, the key to the kind of knowledge that the Nigerian citizenry must seek lies in the history of

our different peoples.

History education plays a major role of promoting citizenship for it helps foster a greater sense of

social cohesion, enriching multiculturalism since it is through the knowledge of history, citizens

come to understand and appreciate the background, culture, beliefs, values and traditions of others.

Thus, history becomes an effective tool for nation building for there is no nation that would acquire

true peace if it is characterized by ignorance and ethnic arrogance.

The Creation of a Political Culture:

One major explanation for the present political instability in Nigeria is the lack of political culture.

History can give the answer to this. Ikime observed that the Nigerian history establishes that there

was equivalence between power and authority on one hand and responsibility and accountability on

the other hand: “Even the most seemingly powerful ruler, the divine kings, knew that their divinity

had to be proved through service- plentiful harvests, high fertility, and absence of epidemics. When

the harvests were bad, fertility low or epidemics endemic, the ruler was in trouble.”

Nigeria is a democratic society facing endemic corruption and indiscipline among its political elite.

Ethnic nationalism has eaten deep into the fabric of its political system with the case in point of

electoral rigging in Nigeria politics which is undoubtedly unrestricted by the ‘we-want-our-man

syndrome’. Nigeria as a nation-state does not have a firm grasp of her people’s collective loyalty.
Hence, it is no surprise that the British colonial experience has been used by the political elite to

not only vindicate their failings but substantiate it. However, with examples of Germany, Italy

including the United Kingdom, Nigeria is not unique in its multicultural feature. The instances of

the adoption of bilingualism in Canada with regard to its French minority as well as the different

ministries established by Britain to cater for the different nations that form the United Kingdom are

distinct efforts to promote a sense of belonging.

In 1806, Napoleon Bonaparte wrote, “there cannot be a firmly established political state unless
there is a teaching body with defining recognized principles. If the child is not taught from infancy
that he ought to be a republican or a monarchist, or a free thinker, the state will not constitute a
nation. It will rest on uncertain and shifting foundations: and it will constantly be exposed to
disorder and change.” ‘A leading body with defining recognized principle’ can find a significant
symbol in the teaching and subject of history as a process of nation building. It is admittedly
observed that the Nigerian political elite have been guilty in utilizing facts of history for their
selfish gains.

Morally, history serves as a reference point for most Nigerian politicians as they often make
reference to history. The former military president of the federal republic of Nigeria (General
Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida) in 1986 during one of his public engagements was quoted as
saying that ‘history will forgive for taking a bad decision, but history will never forgive you
for not taking a decision at all’. Suffice it to say that most Nigerian politicians often refer to
history whenever they are being accused either rightly or wrongly. Many of Nigeria’s public
office holders when criticized whether fairly or otherwise often reply that history will
vindicate the righteous. This moralizing role of history tends to infuse in the public office
holders a deep sense of awareness that posterity will definitely put their actions on trial.
However, it should also be noted that history can also be used as a tool for peace building. A
cultural policy of responsibility can be well nurtured and groomed to the present and future
generations with an enduring sense of history.

The Department of History in the University of California has a mission statement on history

education which states; “In a democratic society, knowledge of history is the precondition of

political intelligence. Without history, a society shares no common memory of where it has been,
what its values are or what decision of the past account for present circumstances. Without history,

we cannot undertake any sensible inquiry into the political, social and moral issues in society. And

without historical knowledge and inquiry, we cannot achieve the informal, non-discriminating

citizenship essential to effective participation in the democratic processes of governance and the

fulfillment for all citizens of the nation’s democratic ideals.

It is then a duty for any nation that is desirous of development in all its ramifications to always

delve into its past achievements and shortcomings as well as those of other nations. With this, the

nation will be able to review past vices, derive insight from estimable past accomplishments and to

strategize for future progression.

Conclusion

The symbol of the Sankofa bird (from Ghana, meaning go back and get it) refers to the importance

of knowing the past to help understand and shape the present and the future. It is indeed true that

some aspects of history have been merely used in glorifying the past and are insignificant to the

contemporary Nigerian society but where the past can serve us well, we will do well to use it.

History can serve the nation well in such circumstances. The present Nigerian government keeps

failing to collectively hold the loyalty of its citizenry and history provides the key to this problem.

With certain elements of unification, history stipulates some answers to the national problems as

can be observed in the above mentioned paragraphs. In the making of the modern Nigeria, history

was the intellectual armour with which the nationalist equipped themselves in the contest against

the colonial administration and their ideologies. In the Nigerian contemporary society, if lauded by

the current generation of government, history can help create the right ideological and cultural

climate that will be very contributive to the nation building process and national development.