Colonial Experience and the Indigenization of the "Chief": Change in and Continuity of Authority in the Igbo Society of Nigeria

Abstract

In this article, the author examines the influence of the British colonial policy of using chiefs as local agents for colonial administration, and the people's reaction to that policy. Using the Igbo society of Southeastern Nigeria as a case study, the author describes the role that African people played in the process in which the status of the "chief" was introduced and established in a decentralized society. Through that analysis, the author tries to review the colonial experience on the status known as "chief" on the part of the African societies, especially those that had never had central authority before the colonial period. In the beginning of the 20th century, as the British penetrated into Igboland, the colonial government chose several indigenous people whom it considered as chiefs, and gave them warrants. That warrant was a paper appointing a person to the Native Court (as a court member) and giving him various administrative powers. Since the individuals who got warrants were those whom the colonial administrator regarded as chiefs, it gave rise to the concept of "chief" in Igbo society. Scholars refer to those with warrants as "warrant chiefs." Before the colonial era, Igboland was a mere aggregation of small subgroups, the majority of which had no central authority. Many problems arose with the introduction of the warrant chiefs, with their existence being particularly one of the major reasons behind a big riot that broke out in 1929. That is also why many people criticize early British colonial policy concerning the chiefs. However, in spite of that bitter criticism, the status of "chief" survived through the colonial period, and remains in force even today, some four decades or more since decolonization. That phenomenon is not peculiar to Nigeria. In various African states, similar "chiefs" who were once regarded as collaborators with colonialism still maintain their positions as local representatives, and are even recognized by their governments. Considering the resiliency of the position of chiefs, we must rethink the colonial experience of the African people as it pertains to the invention of that status. Many scholars share the opinion that the colonial rulers "appointed the chiefs." However, in a strict sense, they did not appoint the chiefs themselves but rather the members of the Native Court or Native Authority. Being a "chief" was a precondition set down by the colonial government for the appointment, and the word thereafter became wrongly used as a term of reference for those members. In the case of the Igbo society, the authorities known as chiefs were thus created through the confirmation of the warrant. However, that was because of the lack of understanding and ignorance on the part of the British colonial administrators, who believed that chiefs existed in all African societies. They did not intend to create the chiefs themselves. We must recall that famous slogan about early British colonial policy: not "making chiefs," but "finding chiefs." That is why the British colonial government decided to pursue administrative reform, and stopped referring to court members as "chiefs" once the failure of the early court member system became so apparent. However, although the colonial government had changed its mind on the matter, the Igbo people continued to call court members "chiefs." Moreover, they even began to use that term for other kinds of people, such as ex-court members and local councilors, whom the government had never regarded as chiefs. That is why the status of "chief" never disappeared during the colonial era, even after the aforementioned riot, and continues to exist in Igbo society today. In fact, though it was the colonial rulers who created the concept of "chief," it was the Igbo people

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)