The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention
Volume 3 issue 6 2016 page no.2342-2358 ISSN: 2349-2031
Available Online At: http://valleyinternational.net/index.php/our-jou/theijsshi
The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social
Contract Theory Of The State And The 1914 Amalgamation In
Nigeria
Isaac Iorhen Akuva
Department of Political Science, Federal University, Dutsinma
PMB 5001 Dutsinma, Katsina State-Nigeria
Abstract: The study used the theoretical framework of John Locke social contract theory of the state to
revisit and assess the 1914 Amalgamation in Nigeria which resulted to the creation of the Nigerian
state. It was discovered in this work that the discrepancy between John Locke’s social contract theory of
the state and the manner in which the Nigerian state was created in 1914 by the British colonial
masters is responsible for some of the incessant violent protests and the continuous demand for
secessions by some groups in Nigeria. It is therefore recommended that the Nigerian government give
Nigerians the opportunity to discuss the statehood of the country in other to come up with a framework
that will promote the continuous existence of Nigeria as a nation. If it becomes necessary, a referendum
should be conducted to end the perennial demand for secession by groups in Nigeria.
Key words: Effects, Discrepancy, John Locke’s Social Contract Theory, 1914 Amalgamation
Introduction
The Social Contract Theory of John Locke
emphasizes on how the emergence of the state is a
product of social contract. The contract of the
state depicts the people consenting to establish a
body of politics known as the society. According
to Dienstag (1996), any account of social contract
in a society begins with how the state was
established. This is very important because it was
the starting point of Locke‟s account of the civil
society. To Locke the state is a product of the
people‟s consent in which they agree to live
together under a government of their choice
(Locke, 1690). Locke‟s notion of state creation
connotes a voluntarily compact among the people
to create the state without being coerced.
However, In 2005 Thomas Friedman complained
that many countries do not apply the principles of
Social Contract Theory in a historical sense of a
voluntary contract among citizens to establish
their governments (Friedman, 2005). Thomas
Friedman‟s complain seem to fit into the situation
in Nigeria as illustrated in this study.
2342
It is difficult to have 100% consent of the people
in the society on any issue due to human
differences, so John Locke advocates for the
social contract of the will of the majority of the
people, once it is established that a particular issue
has the consent of the majority, Locke says such
position be accepted as the will of the people
(Locke, 1690). When the majority accepts an
issue; it applies to all people including the
minority who have a different opinion from the
majority. Thus, John Locke identifies two major
attributes of social contract to be consent of the
majority and the participation of the people on
issues that concerns the people freely without
being coerced (Locke, 1690; Keeley, 1995). It is
on this premise that the creation of the Nigerian
State is examined.
Before examining the Nigerian case, it is worthy
to note that model examples of states that were
created out of social contract by the people as
posited by John Locke. For instance, the creation
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
of the United Kingdom which includes England,
Wales and the Kingdom of Scotland was the
product of a social contract ratified by the
Parliaments of England and Scotland which they
signed and regarded as the Compact Union Act of
1707. Also, in 1776 some 13 Colonies in America
agreed among themselves to come together to
form the United States of America (Omoleke,
2009). Similarly, in 1867 some British Colonies in
North America consented to come together to
form a Confederation known as Canada (Dare,
2003). In the same vein, in 1975 the Athenians
through a referendum accepted to return to
democracy after their orthodox model of
democracy crashed in 338 BC (Nigeria‟s National
Conference Report, 2014).
In 2014 when some of the Scottish people wanted
to cede from the UK, their desire was passed
through a referendum in other to get the consent
of the people in the Union which was eventually
rejected by the people in a referendum on the 17th
September, 2014. In 1963 Sabah and Sarawak
agreed to join the Federation of Malaysia through
a compact among people in Sabah, Sarawak and
Malaysia (Means, 1963; Kahin, 1964 and Fong,
2011).
Also, when Nigeria was about to get
independence in 1960, the Northern part of
Cameroon that was part of Nigeria before
independence was given the opportunity to decide
whether to remain with Nigeria as a federation or
not at Nigeria‟s independence in 1960. These
Cameroonians decided to join its counterpart in
the Southern Cameroon (Obe, 2014). The
Nigerian state was not imposed on the Northern
part of Cameroon; the people in the Northern part
of Cameroon were allowed to negotiate a new
social contract with the Southern Cameroon which
eventually became the Cameroon Republic (Dare,
2003).
Locke‟s argument for the people‟s consent to form
the state was to respect the right of the people to
decide what they want without the use of force.
John Locke believes that man is born free with the
inalienable right to decide where and how to live
with the consent of other persons in the
community in other to keep-on with the peaceful
state of nature in which man had existed time
2343
2016
immemorial. Locke contends that, from time
immemorial man was not born to live a solitary
life as argued by Thomas Hobbes who sees the
state of nature of man in time past as solitary,
nasty, and brutish. So, for men to come together,
Locke posits that it should be in the atmosphere of
each other‟s consent and not by imposition.
Hence, Locke rejects the exclusion of citizens
from exercising their liberty on issues that
concerns them generally (Ellies, 2006).
It is based on this kind of social contract
arrangement of establishing the state that Nbete
(2012) argues that the state will enjoy better
legitimacy when it is formed out of a covenant or
compact among the people as postulated by John
Locke. It is premise on this assumption of Locke‟s
Social Contract Theory of the state, that the
formation of the Nigerian statehood is re-visited.
To consider the creation of the Nigerian state it
must be taken into cognizance that Nigeria has
over 200 ethnic groups (Nnoli, 2011; Alubo,
2008) as potential social contracting individual
groups in a pluralistic society. With the multiethnic background of Nigeria, it brings to question
the following:
(a) When and how did the over 200 ethnic groups
in Nigeria or their representatives agreed to
create Nigeria?
(b) If not, how did the Nigeria State was created,
and by who?
(c) What is the implication of the creation of the
Nigerian State without the consent of the
people who constitutes it?
It is important to re-visit the historical background
to the creation of the Nigerian State to answer
these questions. The answers to these questions
will afford the opportunity to understand the
genesis of the crisis of Nigeria‟s statehood, the
reason behind the demand for cession by some
groups in Nigeria and its implications on the
current political dispensation in the Nigeria‟s
Fourth Republic. Karl Marx calls this approach of
resorting to historical facts to identify the root
problems of issues as historical materialism
(Gana, 2003).
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
The Tenets of John Locke’s Social Contract
Theory of the State and Civil Government
John Locke identifies two major attributes of
social contract; that is consent and participation by
the people on issues that concerns them in the
society (Locke, 1690; Keeley, 1995). Locke‟s idea
of social contract is the voluntarily participation of
the people in the process which results to the
agreement by the people to live together based on
acceptable rules and regulations. As an ideal
model for democracy, social contract is an
agreement entered into among the citizens and
between the citizens and their rulers (Dunning,
1905; Hopfl & Thompson, 1979; Hampton, 1980;
Grant, 1988; Britannica, 2014). Social contract is
the ground on which political societies are
established based on the consent between two or
more parties to make certain sacrifices in other to
realize some benefits. This implies that social
contract is the agreement between citizens and
their government this agreement forms the
bedrock of the political society (Garner &
Jackson, 2009).
Consent is the pivot of John Locke‟s Social
Contract Theory. In Locke‟s political theorization,
neither social contract nor consent exists without
the other. In effect, social contract is established
on consent. Consent in general parlance is the
right which the people retain to decide to form a
civil society, political institutions, and right to
resist and alter the government in the event of
adverse abuse of power. This depicts that those
who govern do so on the consent of the people
who also have the right to check them at the
instance of the abuse of power to avoid being
harm in their liberty and freedom to preserve the
social contract from being damaged (Grant, 1988;
Ellis, 2006; Locke, 1690; Dunning, 1905;
Kramnick, 2005; Ward, 2005; Sami & Shaikh
2013). John Locke therefore presents the society
as a product of contractual relationship based on
the people voluntary consent.
Furthermore, to Locke (1690:145), consent is a
situation whereby men “by agreeing with other
men to join and unite into a community for their
comfortable, safe and peaceable living, one
amongst another in a secure enjoyment of their
properties and greater security of against any that
2344
2016
are not of it”. Elucidating further, Locke states
that the civil society exists when the people by
agreeing:
…they unite into society to the majority of
the community. And this is done by barely
agreeing to unite into one political society,
which is the entire compact that is, between
the individuals that enter into or make up
commonwealth. Thus that which begins and
actually constitutes any political society is
nothing but the consent of any number
freemen capable of majority, to unite and
incorporate into such society…or beginning
of any lawful government in the world
(Locke, 1690:146).
Therefore,
social
contract
implies
the
establishment of the civil society based on the
consent of each other and not by the imposition of
decision or actions on anyone against his will. In
2005 Thomas Friedman complained that many
countries do not apply the principles of Social
Contract Theory in a historical sense of a
voluntary contract among citizens to establish
their governments which became the undoing of
those countries. Where the consent of the people
is missing there is no social contract (Friedman,
2005; Grant, 1988; Sami & Shaikh, 2013; Keeley,
1995; Mattie, 2005).
The Sophist as well as Locke premises the social
system of man on two major elements. The first is
the consent of the participants to contractual
issues in the society; the second is the degree of
agreement with the principles of societal morality
(Keeley, 1995). Invariably, the social system of
man is built on social contract based on the
explicit consent of the people, anything short of
this is alienating the people from the society and
such alienation is capable of generating social and
political misunderstanding which has the tendency
of breeding tension. The interpretation of John
Locke‟s social contract implies the birth of two
issues: the political society and the institutions to
execute the laws of the civil community (Hopfl &
Thompson 1979). Two principles are eminent
here: first, Locke places emphasis on the power of
the majority in the society as the deciding force.
Second, the community which constitutes every
contracting individual gets it authority from the
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
people to carry out its function of law enactment
and law adjudication. Therefore, sovereignty in
the view of John Locke is placed in the
community that is the individuals who are the
product of the social compact.
Two issues are crucial in Locke‟s Social Contract
Theory: first the contract is based on a unanimous
decision of the people which means the people
willingly agree to form a compact. Second, the
contract is the decision of the majority of the
people. It implies that the contract must be what
the people all accept without duress attached to it.
John Locke theory of consent is so central to his
Social Contract Theory to the extent that Sami &
Shaikh attests that it forms the baseline for all
forms democracy; without the people‟s consent
there will be no genuine peoples‟ oriented society
and government (Gherghe, 2011; Sami & Shaikh,
2013). In connection, Jefferson cited by Dienstage
(1996:997) states that “the body politics is formed
by a voluntary association of individuals. It is a
social compact, by which the whole people
covenant with each citizen and each citizen with
the whole people, that all shall be governance by
certain laws for the common good.” This denotes
the free will consent of people to come together.
John Locke puts so much emphasis on consent as
one of the essential properties of every individual
in the society (Locke, 1690; Keeley, 1995).
Society comes about by the people consenting to
unite their hitherto existing rights of governing
themselves to the representatives who rule on their
behalf (Locke, 1690). When people consent to
come together and establish a state they also
decide the type of government to practice.
Without the consent of the majority in establishing
the state and the government it will be difficult for
the people to be united. Locke‟s Social Contract
Theory assumes that, to use force is to violate the
individual‟s property of consent, when people are
forced into a political society it amounts to a
contract the people accept by coercion (Laslett,
2013; Margaret, 1999; Freeman, 1990)
From Locke‟s State of Nature to the social
contract of the state and government, he
predominantly shows the place of consent. This is
crucial to note because it shows that freedom is
the absence of restrain on ones right or liberty to
guarantee the individual the ability to expression
2345
2016
at anytime as necessity demands but at least
within the provision of the law. With consent the
people set up political societies, choose
representatives and decide in referendum on
crucial issues concerning the political societies in
which they find themselves (Lasleet, 2013). John
Locke presents the idea thus:
For, when any number of men have by
consent every individual, made a
community, they have thereby made that
community one body, with a power to act as
one body, which is only by the will and
determination…which is the consent of
majority or else it is impossible it should act
or continue one body, one community,
which the consent of every individual that
unit into it agree that it should; and so
everyone is bound by that consent to be
concluded by the majority (Locke,
1690:145).
John Locke developed the idea of consent to show
the obligation to justify the extent to which the
citizen can obey the law and the state entity. The
citizens will not obey the state or the law when
they are made without their consent (Dunfee et el
1999). The doctrine of consent implies that there
cannot be arbitrarily source of power or
constitution for the ruler over the people. When
the consent of the people is removed from
governance it makes the system tyrannical. John
Locke further postulates that, when the society is
establish by the consent of the majority of the
people, the people who form that compact equally
have the right to leave the compact if they so
desire to leave under peaceful negotiation.
According to John Locke:
For every man‟s children being by nature as
free as himself, or any of his ancestors ever
were, may whilst they are in that freedom, to
choose what society they will join
themselves to, what common-wealth they
will put themselves under. But if they will
enjoy the inheritance of their ancestors, they
must take it on the same terms their
ancestors had it, and submit to all the
condition annexed to such a possession.
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
A good example of this is the case of Scotland in
the United Kingdom. When some of the Scottish
people wanted to cede from the UK, their desire
was passed through a referendum in other to get
the consent of the people in the Union which was
eventually voted against by the people on the 17th
September, 2014 thus maintain the Union
(Omoleke, 2009).
The major preoccupation of John Locke was to
theorize a type of society and government which
will make it unlawful for the state or the leaders to
be arbitrary. The civil society and government
John Locke theorizes in his Social Contract
Theory is the society which promotes collective
will
and
participation,
rule
of
law,
constitutionalism, separation of power, checks and
balances and majority rule. That is why (Gherghe,
2011:155-156) rightly observes that, “… Locke‟s
main problem is to find out how society was born
and consequently how the political power
emerged, its area of control, and who has the right
to have it, because this power represents the cause
of all political crisis, revolutions and social
disorder.” In 2005 Thomas Friedman complained
that many countries do not apply the principles of
Social Contract Theory in a historical sense of a
voluntary contract among citizens to establish
their governments (Friedman, 2005) and this
seems to be a source of problems in most
democracies like Nigeria around the world today.
Based on John Locke‟s social contract theory of
the state hinged on consultation, consent and
participation by the people, how did the Nigerian
state emerge in 1914 when it was created?
The Nature and Character of the Emergence of
the Nigeria State: 1826 to 1914
The crisis of postcolonial Nigeria arising from the
poor application of Social Contract Theory cannot
be properly understood without a historical
examination of the impact-factor of colonialism
on the politics and governance of the country. The
entity called Nigeria was not there with the people
in the beginning, it was a colonial creation in
1914. The question is not even on the creation of
the Nigeria state, but the degree to which it was a
social compact among Nigerians. There are some
fundamental questions to be addressed in other to
2346
2016
have a clear picture of the issues surrounding the
creation of the Nigerian state. For instance, who
were those responsible for the establishment of the
Nigerian State? What was the motive for creating
the Nigerian State? How did Nigerians respond to
the creation of the Nigerian State?
The record available shows that Nigeria was
colonized by Britain (Ojo, 2004, Obe, 2004).
Before the advent of the British Colonial Masters,
there was no territory known as Nigeria yet
(Takaya, 2001; Elaigwu, 2011). How did the
British get to Nigeria? Immediately after the
abolition of the slave trade in 1807 by Great
Britain which started in the late Fifteenth and
Sixteenth centuries (1650-1850). European traders
started making their ways into the hinterlands of
most of the African countries including the
territories in the present Nigeria (Coleman, 1986).
As a result of this influx, in 1826 twelve British
merchant ships arrived with British traders at the
dock of Bonny River in the present Niger-Delta
Region in Nigeria with their goods for commerce
(Coleman, 1986 & Kinnan et al, 2011). When the
British traders arrived in the Niger Coast in the
Eastern part of the present day Nigeria, the people
of Benin and Biafra rebelled against the traders.
To deal with this rebellion, the British traders
agreed to establish a structure to quell the
notorious threat from the natives (Coleman, 1986;
Crowder, 1980).
So in 1849, a Consulate was established for the
Bights of Benin and Biafra (the Niger Delta Area)
with its Headquarters located at Fernando Po. The
British Government assisted the traders with a
military staff in the person of John Beecroft to
head the Consulate and regulate all commercial
activities within the Bight of Benin and Biafra and
ensure peace for the British traders in the area
(Afigbo, 2001). For effective execution of his
assignment, in 1872 Beecroft was given more
authority by the British Government to impose
taxes and apply punitive measures to those natives
who would resist peaceful commercial activities
with the British traders. As a result, Beecroft was
permitted to establish a standing army and a Court
of Equity in the Consulate (Coleman, 1986;
Crowder, 1980; Afigbo, 2001).
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
In 1851 British traders used military force to
dethrone the King of Lagos, Oba Kosovo because
he did not allow the British traders to do business
in Lagos, and installed a new King, Oba Akitoye
who was coerced to sign a treaty to cede Lagos to
the British Government, it became clear that force
rather than consent, cooperation and dialogue was
needed to rule the Natives due to their resistance.
In January 30, 1861 Lagos was illegally captured
and annexed by force to Great Britain as a Colony
and kept under the jurisdiction of the British
Governor of the West African Settlements
resident in Sierra Leone in 1866-1874 and the
Governor of Gold Coast in 1874-1886 (Albert,
1994 & Dorward, 2014).
Furthermore, in 1885 the Consulate/Niger Delta
Area was renamed Oil Rivers Protectorate (ORP)
with its Headquarters at Calabar, in 1893 the Oil
River Protectorate was expanded and renamed the
Niger Coast Protectorate with its Headquarters at
Lokoja, eventually in 1900 the Niger Coast
Protectorate became the Protectorate of Southern
Nigeria. In 1906 the Colony of Lagos and
Protectorate of the South were merged to form the
Southern Protectorate (Coleman, 1986 & Tamuno,
2001). This is the first segment of how the British
traders with the aid of their home government
used force to gradually merge territories in the
Eastern and Western Regions to form the
Southern Protectorate without the consent of the
people. Throughout the process of merger which
resulted to the Southern Protectorate, there was
neither negotiation nor consultation with the
natives before establishing any of those territories.
The people‟s consent was completely ignored,
there was no social contract whatsoever between
the people to live together under the leadership of
the colonial masters; the colonial masters used
force to get at this point. The same line was toed
in the establishment of the territories in the
Northern Region by Sir Lord Lugard, a British
military officer.
How was the Northern Region formed? The
consolidation of the Northern Region was begun
by a successful British businessman, Sir Taubma
Goldier the Managing Director of the Royal Niger
Company (RNC). He played a major role in the
penetration and gathering together of the different
2347
2016
units in the Northern part of the present Nigeria.
Sir Goldier‟s business activity started in Bight of
Benin and Biafra in 1877, when there was a strong
scramble for trading areas by Europeans traders in
1879 he organized all the British companies into
one conglomerate called the United African
Company (UAC). In 1882 he changed the name to
National African Company (NAC). He was
concerned with dealing with the rival business
companies from other French and German
European countries that were making inroads into
communities the British traders under his
leadership had made trading treaties. It became
clear that the French and the German
Governments were behind its traders (Obikeze &
Anthony, 2003).
So, in 1886 Sir Goldier changed the company‟s
name back to Royal Niger Company and got
Trading Charter permission from the British
Government empowering the RNC to trade,
collect taxes and duties freely in the areas they
have claimed without interference from other
European countries. In 1884 Goldier had perfected
thirty seven treaties with most of the Northern
Local Rulers. By 1886 RNC had established its
Headquarters in Asaba on the River Niger with a
High Court of Justice and Constabulary. At this
time the RNC had dominated trading in the Oil
Rivers Area and part of the Northern Region
(Obikeze & Anthony, 2003).
In 1898 the British Colonial Secretary set up a Six
Man Niger Committee to look into the territories
under the British control in Nigeria and to
recommend what to be done with them. The
Committee was headed by Sir Ear Selborne.
Members of the committee were: Sir Ear
Selborne, Sir Clement Hill, Mr. Reginald
Antrobus, Sir Ralph Moor, Sir Henry McCallum,
Sir George Goldie (Akinjide, 2000; Osuntokun,
1979; Uzoigwe, 2001). The Committee
recommended that the territories should be
gradually merged into one country. As a result, in
1900, the British Government withdrew the
Trading Charter given to RNC and appointed Sir
Lord Frederick Lugard the High Commissioner of
the Northern Area to compete the conquest of the
area which was started by Sir Goldeir in the
North. From 1900 to 1905, Lugard used military
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
force to cow the Caliphates and Emirates of Zaria,
Borgu, Sokoto, Gwandu, Kano, Katsina, Lower
Benue (i.e Kffi) and Upper Benue (i.e Muri), Bida
Borno, Ilorin, Kabba, Kaduna, Gobir, Kotangora.
By 1906 Lugard created and declared the
Northern Protectorate (Albert, 1994; Crowder,
1980; Onuaha & Ebe, 2012).
On 1st January, 1914 the Southern and the
Northern
Protectorates
were
officially
amalgamated and named Nigeria by Sir Lord
Frederick
Lugard
in
line
with
the
recommendations of the Six Man Niger
Committee. Sir Lord Frederick Lugard became the
first Governor General of Nigeria. How did the
colonial masters arrive at the name Nigeria for the
Northern and Southern Protectorates which they
amalgamated in 1914? It was not through social
contractual agreement between the two
protectorates; the name was suggested by Miss.
Flora Shaw the colonial editor of the Times of
London Magazine, Miss Flora Shaw who later got
married to Lord Lugard (Campbell, 2011). The
intrusion and occupation of Nigerian territories
was vehemently opposed by local Chiefs who
were brutally dealt with and dethroned some were
sent on exile while some were killed by the
colonial masters. Some of the dethroned
traditional rulers were: The Emir of Kano, Aliyu
Baba; King Jaja of Opobo in 1887; the „Oba‟ of
Lagos, Kosoko in 1851; „Oba Ovonramwen‟ of
benin in 1897 and the Emir Abubakar of Katsina
in 1904 (Nnoli, 2011; Dorward, 2014; Akinjide,
2000). In Oyo Empire the colonial masters
abolished the checks and balance system that was
in place. The „Oyomisi‟ was no longer to check
the „Alafin‟ but the colonial masters who would
give instructions to the „Alafin.‟
Clearly, there was a breach of social contract
relations between the people and the colonial
masters. All through it was the politics of
intimidation and the use of force, the consent of
the people did not have expression at any point,
those who complained were ruthlessly dealt with.
The
Sir
Selborne
Niger
Committee
recommendation which led to the emergence of
the Nigerian State had no single Nigeria on it as a
member. This meant that there was no social
contract whatsoever among Nigerians in the
2348
2016
establishment of the Nigerian State. The purpose
for the amalgamation was purely for imperial
benefit, and not to for the interest of the Nigerian
citizens. That notwithstanding, was the creation of
Nigeria accepted by the people? There were
several statements by Nigerian national leaders
which pointed to the fact that the creation of
Nigeria was not a welcome development to the
people.
The Reactions by Nigerian Leaders to the 1914
Amalgamation in Nigeria
There were several reactions from prominent
leaders in Nigeria which pointed to the fact that
there was no social contract among Nigerians in
the creation of the Nigerian State. Let us consider
some of the speeches made by some prominent
Nigerian leaders which showed that the Nigerian
statehood was not welcomed. Their statements
also implied that they did not have confidence in
the Nigerian state. This was what Chief Obafemi
Awolowo the Premier of Western Nigeria said:
Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere
geographical expression. There are no
Nigerians in the same sense as there are
„English‟, „Welsh‟ or „French‟. The word
„Nigeria‟ is merely a distinctive appellation
to distinguish those who live within the
boundaries of Nigeria from those who do
not. Incompatibilities tend to grow in size as
those concerned become more educated and
civilized (Eresia-Eke & Eberiye 2012:109).
The statement of Awolowo implies that Nigeria is
just by its name and not of the people because
there is nothing common among its components.
Similarly, the Late Prime Minister of Nigeria, Sir
Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa was reported in
1952 in a speech in the Northern House of
Assembly in Kaduna to have said that, the
Southerners in the Northern Region were intruders
and not welcome in the Northern Region. Balewa
emphasized that that the amalgamation in 1914 by
the British Government to put Nigerians into one
country was impossible because the people are
different in every way including religion, custom,
language and aspiration. He categorically stated
that the unity of Nigeria was not for the Northern
Region (Adeleye, 2012).
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
When Chief Anthony Enahoro moved a motion in
the Legislative House in Lagos that Nigeria
should be granted independence in 1953, the
Northerners led by the Sardauna of Sokoto,
Ahmadu Bello strongly opposed it. The Sardauna
said “independence as soon as practicable” by
implication, Nigeria was not matured for
independence; they were indirectly not in support
of it. Nigeria to the Northern was not a country yet
to be treated with such a political release. The
Sardauna remarked in his autobiography My life:
An Autobiography published after independence
in 1962, that the amalgamation that brought the
North and the South together in 1914 was a
mistake. He called it “the mistake of 1914” which
was not popular among the people. To him the
mistake was the omission of consulting with the
different groups in Nigeria before amalgamating
over 200 ethnic groups which are not identical in
one geopolitical entity call Nigeria; Ahmadu Bello
subsequently traced the political crisis of the First
Republic to the error of the 1914 Amalgamation
(Eresia-Eke & Eberiye, 2012; Nwobu, 2014;
Adeleye, 2012; (Bello, 1962).
Consequently, Sir Ahmadu Bello stated that they
did not want to have anything to do with the
Southern part of Nigeria since they had nothing in
common (Nwobu, 2014 & Eresia-Eke & Eberiye
2012). As the Premier of the Northern Region, the
Sardauna of Sokoto Sir Ahmadu Bello did not
hide his feelings about his displeasure with the
Southern Nigeria. As a result he came up with a
Policy in the Northern Civil Service which sought
to reserve all civil service jobs for the North, in
the event that a Northern person was not qualified
to fill the vacancy, he preferred it was given to the
Europeans. For the Southerner to have the jobs it
were better to split the North from the South what
he called in Hausa language „araba‟ (Nwobu,
2014:3). The statement by Sir Ahmadu Bello
pointed to the secession of the country.
Furthermore, in 1948 while addressing the
Legislative Council, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa
declared that, since 1914 the British Government
has been trying to make Nigeria one country. The
Nigerian
people themselves however
are
historically different in their backgrounds, in their
religious beliefs and customs and do not show
2349
2016
themselves any sign of willingness to unite.
Nigerian unity is only a British intention for the
country (Nwobu, 2014). From the Eastern Region,
Lt. Col Odumegu Ojukwu, the Military Governor
of the Eastern Region, on May 6, 1967 remarked
that Nigeria cannot exist as a country and there
can be no unity among its people (Eresia-Eke &
Eberiye 2012). The expressions by prominent
Nigerians who were alive when Nigeria was
created in 1914 clearly pointed to the fact that,
they were not interested in the Nigerian project.
Besides, it also point to the truth that they were
not part of the decision to create Nigeria in 1914.
These responses from reputable leaders in Nigeria
left so much to be desired and thought about
concerning Nigeria‟s geopolitical entity. Even
though Nigerians are living together in the same
country they are still divided along regional, tribal
and religious line as the Sardauna of Sokoto once
told Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, “I am a Muslim and a
Northerner, you are a Christian and a Southerner”
(Eresia-Eke & Eberiye 2012:109).
From the foregoing it is clear evidence that the
formation of the Nigerian State was not a product
of a social contract among Nigerians jus as Alhaji
Tafawa Balewa in 1948 puts it, that the 1914
Amalgamation of Nigeria was a British idea and
not the idea of the people in Nigeria (Eresia-Eke
& Eberiye 2012). It is down to earth from the
different reactions from the political and
traditional leaders of the different regions, that the
Amalgamation of 1914 was just the geopolitical
and administrative merger of the North and the
South and not its people. Despite the merger the
people consistently made references to their
differences which show that there has never been
any interest or social contract among the people to
live together.
What were the salient factors behind the 1914
Amalgamation? Let us first understand that Lord
Lugard was an employee of the British trading
companies who was appointed to fulfill the
economic interests of the British traders (Akinjide,
2000 & Baba-Ahmed, 2012). The first reason for
the amalgamation was the eminent need to start
evacuating the economic raw materials from the
North to the South for export to Europe since the
North did not have sea ports like the South. This
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
resulted to the construction of a railway line from
the North all through to the South.
The second reason was cost minimization instead
of employing European staff to rule the colonies it
was cheap and convenient to put the different
communities under the leadership of one person as
the Governor General. The third reason was the
lack of resources from the North to run the area;
the amalgamation was to afford the colonial
masters the opportunity to use the human and
financial resource from the South to administer
the North (Akinjide, 2000 & Fabiyi, 2014).
Therefore, the alienation of the protectorates in
deciding their destiny of staying together through
a mutual democratic Social Contract by
conducting a plebiscite or referendum was
immaterial to the colonial masters. The Colonial
masters ended up pulling together over 200
different ethnics and religious faithful together
without their consent. So, the difficulty of
coexisting in Nigeria among the various ethnic
divisions is a historical factor imbedded in
colonialism. This is exactly what John Locke
propounds, that the absence of consent is tyranny
which eventually attracts resistance from the
people. The Nigerian state is suffering the
problem of legitimacy arising from the breach of
social contract principles.
The Impacts of the Dichotomy between
Locke’s Social Contract Theory and the 1914
Amalgamation in Nigeria
Late Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu the clamorer for
the Biafran Republic out of Nigeria and the then
leader of the Ibo people had said Nigeria cannot
exist as a country in peace this prediction seems
to be manifesting given the incessant political and
religious unrests since Nigeria got her
independence in 1960 (Nwobu, 2014; Adeleye,
2012). Looking at the process and manner in
which the Nigerian State was created by the
British colonial masters, it shows that there was a
variance between Locke‟s social contract ideas of
creating the state based on the consent of the
people. To John Locke, the people should be
involved in the contract of creating the state. But
the Selborne Committee which recommended the
2350
2016
creation of the Nigerian state did not have any
Nigerian on the Committee. Again, when it was
time for the amalgamation in 1914, none of the
over 200 ethnic tribes in Nigeria or their
representatives were consulted or involved in the
decision to amalgamate the territories which they
occupied even before the advent of the colonial
masters. According to available information from
Onwudiwe (2004), Onuaha & Ebe (2012),
Chimee (2009), Coleman (1968), Elaigwu,
(2011), Nnoli, (2011) and Egwu, (2005) shows
that Colonel Lord Lugard without consulting with
the people unilaterally joined the Southern and
the Northern Protectorates in 1914 for the interest
of the colonial government and not really to unite
the ethnic groups in Nigeria in anyway.
Since the Nigerian state was not a product of the
people‟s social contract, the preamble of the 1999
Constitution of Nigeria is fallacious which reads
“WE THE PEOPLE of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria: HAVING firmly and solemnly resolved:
TO LIVE in unity and harmony as one indivisible
and indissoluble sovereign Nation…” (The 1999
Constitution of Nigeria pg 18); There is no
document anywhere in the historical archives of
Nigeria to show or confirm that the people of
Nigeria [that is the over 200 ethnic groups] or
their representatives at any time „firmly and
solemnly resolved to live‟ together in the territory
called Nigeria. The preamble of the 1999
Constitution is directly opposite to what happened
during the 1914 Amalgamation, it was not the
people who consented to create Nigeria but the
British colonial masters. The 1914 Amalgamation
is evident that there was no social compact
between the people to form Nigeria it was the
independent handiwork of the colonial masters
which did not involve Nigerians.
But the question is why has Nigeria been together
for a century as a country after the 1914
Amalgamation? The existence of Nigeria for the
past one hundred years does not mean they are
comfortable with the way Nigeria was put
together by the British Colonial Masters. In the
early years of the 1914 Amalgamation, the
colonial masters kept using force to keep the
country together and met all attempts of protests
and resistance from the people with military force.
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
After independence, the Nigerian Government
consistently continued to decline and to resist all
attempts by groups in Nigeria agitating for a
discussion of the Nigerian statehood.
When people are forcefully suppressed to live
together against their wish and have been together
for a long time, it does not amount to their consent
to the illegality into which they are compelled to
accept. The colonial masters and the Nigerian
government have refused Nigerians the
opportunity to discuss issues relating to the
statehood of Nigeria. The opinion of David
Gauthier is suitable in describing the scenario of
Nigeria being together after one hundred years of
the non-negotiable amalgamation of Nigeria in
1914; he says that:
Coercive authority induces men to conform
to principles of mutual action not in
themselves maximally beneficial for all
persons, by imposing cost, penalties, or
punishment on failure or refusal to conform.
Coercive authority will appear arbitrary
from the standpoint of those subjected to
it…such coercion would be totally arbitrary
from the standpoint of those whose position
was worsened by it (Gauthier, 1977:144).
The exclusion of the ethnic tribes in the
amalgamation process in 1914 was thus arbitral in
the light of Locke‟s Social Contract Theory. The
illegality of the 1914 Amalgamation gave the
colonial masters the opportunity to shape the
geopolitics of the country in favor of the Northern
Region which is one of the contentious issues in
the geo-politics of Nigeria (Chimee, 2009). The
North was carved out to be bigger than the other
regions in Nigeria to give the Northern Region
political advantage over the other regions. The
North was a favorite of the colonial masters
because it was more subservient to colonial rule
than the other regions.
The geographical imbalance in the country gave
numerical strength to the Northern Region which
it has used to monopolize postcolonial politics in
Nigeria at the expense of other ethnic groups since
Nigeria‟s independence in 1960 (Dudley, 1982).
2351
2016
The lopsided Federal Structure gave rise to fear
and suspicion among the ethnic groups with
regards to the Northern hegemony; these fears
have been the bane of postcolonial politics in
Nigeria (Elaigwu, 2011, Gana, 2003). This
geopolitical imbalance is responsible for the
agitations and the demand for the rotation of the
Executive positions of the President around the six
geopolitical zones in Nigeria and the
Governorship position to be rotated around the
three State Senatorial Districts in each state to
ameliorate the fear of marginalization of minority
groups in the country.
Wheare K.C reminds us that a federating state
should be premised on the desire of the people to
agree to integrate their territorial units at the same
time consent to operate the system of government
they desire in the federation. Wheare‟s position is
obviously a reiteration of the opinion of John
Locke‟s social contract principle on state creation
based on the principle of consent and participation
(Locke, 1690; Keeley, 1995). This implies that a
federating state should be a voluntarily exercise
by the contracting parties rather than the use of
force as it was the case with the 1914
Amalgamation in Nigeria by the British colonial
masters (Alemlka, 2003; Oni, 2014). The
omission of genuine social contract in the 1914
Amalgamation exercise is responsible for the
renewed clamor for true federalism and secession
in Nigeria since the Fourth Republic started in
1999.
The effect of the creation of the colonial state in
Nigeria has brought a lot of civil dissatisfaction
throughout the postcolonial politics of Nigeria.
Kramnick (2005) points out that when contractual
agreements are not appropriately done, the people
express their dissatisfaction in different ways. The
1914 Amalgamation attracted a variety of
reactions some were verbal utterances from
national leaders as already stated in this paper.
The tones of those utterances point to the fact that
the national representative leaders from the
different parts of Nigeria were not in agreement
on the amalgamation of Nigeria. While some of
the reactions were demonstrative and peaceful,
others were destructive in nature.
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
In 1999 for instance at the dawn of the Fourth
Republic, the Yoruba speaking people of the
Western Nigeria under the auspices of the O’dua
People’s Congress (OPC) and the Hausa-Fulani in
the Northern under the umbrella of the Arewa
Consultative Forum (ACF) both indicated their
desires to cede from Nigeria. At yet another point,
the controversy was over the nomenclature of the
federal system for Nigeria. While the Northern
Region proposes and supports a strong central
government; the Western Region proposes and
supports a federal system with stronger Regional
Governments (Elaigwu, 2011; Vande, 2013). This
controversy came up because there was no
appropriate social contract from the beginning by
the ethnic groups on how to operate the federal
system of government which was imposed on the
people by the colonial masters. This omission is
one of the factors affecting the practice of
democracy and true federalism in Nigeria‟s Fourth
Republic.
As far back as in 1967, the Ibo ethnic group
expressed its displeasure to continue to associate
with the Nigerian State. This led to the declaration
of the independent Republic of the Ibo Nation
known as „The Biafran Republic‟ (Suberu, 2005).
The attempt by the Federal Government to ensure
the Ibo people remain in the Nigerian Federation
led to a three year [1967 – 1970] Civil War which
resulted to the death of over 200,000 persons
(Gana, 2003). In 2000 the Ibo renewed its
determination for its ambition for the Biafran
State under the leadership of an Ibo civil group
known as Movement for the Actualization of the
Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB). On May
27, 2000 MASSOB hoisted a Biafran flag in
Enugu State its proposed Headquarters for the
Republic of Biafra. Again in 2001 the arch leader
of the Biaran agenda Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu [a
late retired Lieutenant Colonel with the Nigerian
Army] opened an office for the group in New
York to solicit international support to realize the
dream of the Republic of Biafra (Elaigwu, 2011).
This project for the Ibos is still much alive and
they are determined to pursue it by all means.
There have been several agitations from the Ibo
ethnic tribe to be allowed to secede from Nigeria.
The latest effort was the attempt by some
2352
2016
members of the Pro-Biafra Group and the Biafra
Zionist spearheaded by Benjamin Onwuka who on
8th March, 2014 invaded the Enugu Government
House to take over power at the same time
stormed the Enugu State Broadcasting Service to
hijack the Radio and Television Stations to make
broadcast but they were intercepted by the Police,
however one of the Police Officer lost his life in
the process (Edike, 2014, Uzodinma, 2014). The
upheaval and death of the Police Officer was as a
result of the protest against the illegality of the
Nigerian State over the Ibo ethnic tribe. Their
action points to the fact that the Ibos need
recognition which they feel they have been denied
in the Nigerian Federation to rule the country
since Nigeria got its independence in 1960. This
concern of alienating the Ibos from the country‟s
presidency confirms the clamor for the
Presidential rotational system being clamored for
by Nigerians.
In addition, on 22 October, 2015 twenty (20)
persons who regarded themselves as Pro-Biafra
activists on the platform of the Indigenous People
of Biafra (IPOB) protested in Rivers States in
support of the Biafra Republic. The protesters
were arrested and remanded in prison for felony
against the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Again on
7th November, 2015 in Owka in Anambra State
over ten thousand Ibos and supporters of the IPOB
marched in protest of the 1914 Amalgamation and
demanded for the State of Biafra. The federal
government of Nigeria has since apprehended
Nnamdi Kanu to face prosecution for treasonable
felony (Onoyume & Igata, 2015). The protest
shows that the Ibos are still demanding to be heard
concerning the 1914 Amalgamation of Nigeria in
which they were alienated by the colonial masters.
Similarly, the Niger Delta Region in Nigeria [the
states hosting the federal crude oil] led by the
Ogoni extraction in 1990 came up with the „Ogoni
Bill of Right‟ demanding for secession from
Nigeria because they were not comfortable with
the Nigeria State and its inhuman treatment mated
on the Niger Delta. This struggle was fronted by
the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni
People (MOSOP). The confrontational posture of
the Federal Government to this group made it to
metamorphose into a violent militia group (Albert,
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
2004, Ekanem, 2014). The MOSOP was letter
joined by other forces within the region to fight a
common cause for the Niger Delta. Some of the
militias that emerged were the Niger Delta
Volunteer Force (NDVF) and Movement for the
Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) among
others. By 2009 available records shows that there
were over 50,000 youths who were recruited into
various militia groups in the region armed with
over 250,000 assorted weapons to push their
agenda forward (Ekanem, 2014). Recently in May
2016 a new militia known as the Niger Delta
Avengers (NDA) lunch renewed attacks on oil
pipelines in the Niger Delta, they are requesting to
be allowed absolute control of the oil resources in
their region. The NDA attack on oil pipelines has
reduced the oil production of Nigeria from over 2
million barrels per day to at least 1.4 million as at
June 11, 2016.
The militia groups became responsible for the
incessant kidnaps; deaths and the destruction of
oil pipelines in the country. Between March and
May 2003, some 7 Multinational Oil Corporation
(MNOC) Staff were killed which led to the
MNOC to withdraw their Staff and closed
operations of the oil factories. As a result of this,
the country‟s crude oil output dropped from 2.6
million barrels a day in 2005 to 1.3 million barrels
in June 2009 (Obi, 2010 & Ikelegbe, 2005). The
activities of the militants show that between
January 2000 to September 2008 the volume of oil
stolen or bunkered per day total at 2,663,934
million barrels while 238. 4 billion represents the
total quantity of oil that was stolen or bunkered
for a period of nine years that is from January
2000 to September 2008. Relatively, the total
volume of oil shut in per day for the period in
question came up to 33,430,000 million while the
total volume of oil shut-in per annum is estimated
at 77 billion and a whooping sum of 114.4 billion
dollars was lost to oil theft/bunkering due to
militia activities. To curb the excessive of the
militia the Nigerian military became brutal with
the people of the Niger Delta; raided their land
killing the people and rapping their women with
their farm lands destroyed (Burdin (2009; Albert,
2004). These implications came up because of the
continuous protest by the people of the Niger
Delta regarding inhuman treatment of that part of
2353
2016
the country in the Nigerian Federation; they felt
they were not carried along as components of the
federating units of Nigeria.
That notwithstanding, there has been several
national conferences in Nigeria with different
appellations to discuss the political future of
Nigeria to no avail. The first radical attempt to
address the unity of Nigeria was the move made
by the then Military Head of States, Major
General Ironsi when he introduced Decree No. 24
of 1966 which was tagged the Unification Decree.
The Decree moved the country away a Federal
Structure to a Unitary System but the Decree was
repealed when Lt. Col Yakubu Gowon took over
from him in July, 1966. In all the PostIndependence National Convocations in Nigeria,
Nigerians were not given the opportunity to
decide on the statehood of the country. This
refusal is suppressive and contrary to Locke‟s
concept of social contract system. According to
Locke, every people have the right to decide
under peaceful negotiation whether to remain in a
compact or not. In the case of Nigeria even the
accentors did not welcome the 1914
Amalgamation of the country. This reflected in
their speeches and opinions as earlier mentioned.
In this case, the descendants of the Nigerian
project have the rights to demand for a
reconsideration of the 1914 Amalgamation.
According to John Locke (1690):
For every man‟s children being by nature as
free as himself, or any of his ancestors ever
were, may, whilst they are in that freedom,
choose what society they will join
themselves to, what common-wealth they
will put themselves under. But if they will
enjoy the inheritance of their ancestors, they
must take it on the same terms their
ancestors had it, and submit to all the
condition annexed to such a possession.
One of the guidelines for the convocations of
national conference to address Nigerian issues
given by the conveners at each time was that the
sovereign unity of Nigeria was „a-no-go-area‟ for
deliberation (Ama-Ogbari, 2011). Table 1 shows
the six Post-Independence political confabs, their
dates and conveners which were put in place to
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
address the political future of Nigeria over the
years to no avail.
Table
1
Post-Independence
Convocations in Nigeria
Date
Appellation
of
Confab
September, The
Ad
Hoc
1966
Constitutional
Conference
October,
The
Constituent
1977
Assembly
January,
The
Political
1986
Bureau/ Constituent
Assembly
July, 1995
The
National
Constitutional
Conference
February,
The
National
2005
Political Reform
March,
The
National
2014
Conference
Source: Author‟s Compilation, 2015
National
Convener
Lt.
Col.
Gowown
Lt.
Gen
Obasajo
Gen.
Babangida
Gen.
Abacha
Chief
Obasanjo
Dr.
Jonathan
The denier of Nigerians the opportunity by
conveners of National Confabs in Nigeria to
discuss the statehood of Nigeria is a continuation
of the disregard of the consent of the people on
the statehood of Nigeria initiated by the colonial
masters. If this is not addressed the dissatisfaction
among the people will continue to heat the polity
and threaten its peace and security. According to
Locke the people have the right to decide on their
continuous association with a state or not. The
decision according to Locke must be unanimous
and by a majority decision (Dienstag, 1996). The
example of Scotland is worth emulating. In 2014,
some of the Scottish people wanted to cede from
their Union with the UK, their desire to cede was
passed through a referendum in other to get the
consent of the people in the Union which was
eventually voted against by the people on the 17th
September, 2014 thus maintain the Union
(Omoleke, 2009). Nigeria needs to democratize
political issues to allow the people decide their
relationship in the Nigerian federation through a
mutual social contract system to negotiate and
agree on the terms on how Nigeria ought to be
governed.
2354
2016
Conclusion
The creation of the Nigerian State by the British
colonial masters in 1914 was clearly a deviation
from the principle of John Locke‟s Social
Contract Theory. The dichotomy between John
Locke‟s social contract of the state and the
creation of the Nigerian Sate in 1914 frustrated
the people from expressing their right of consent
in the creation of the country which implies that
the people were not part of the creation of the
Nigerian State. This is responsible for the present
demand for ceding. The omission of genuine
social contract in the 1914 Amalgamation exercise
is responsible for the lopsided geopolitical
structure and the renewed clamor for true
federalism in Nigeria since the Fourth Republic
started in 1999. This clamor needs to be re-visited
and corrected for the sake of peace, justice and
unity among the federating units. After all, the
concept „federal‟ implies a covenant among the
component states and among the citizenry of the
different communities to form a common civil
order.
The demand by the major ethnic groups in Nigeria
to secede point to the fact that the Nigerian State
needs to be re-negotiated to come up with a frame
work that would enhance the cooperate entity and
existent of Nigeria. If the country will continue to
exist, the people need to decide how the
Federation needs to be operated; this is where
social contract is necessary among the people to
arrive at a consensus what they desire of Nigerian
State. John Locke posits that a valid social
contract needs the justification of members of the
society. That is why the Nigerian State needs to
fulfill this condition to assuage the public
concerns across the country concerning the 1914
Amalgamation. When the original contract is
faulty, surviving generations need to correct it by
renegotiating it. It is therefore suggested that a
Sovereign National Conference be convened to
facilitate an appropriate social contract between
the people and the Nigerian State.
Nigeria needs to learn from the UK which on
September 17, 2014 allowed a plebiscite to decide
whether Scotland should cede from UK or not. At
the end of the exercise 55% which represented
2,001,926 votes, victoriously voted against
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
secession to defeat the 44% which represented
1,617,989 votes that supported the secession, in
effect, Scotland was returned in the UK Union in
a democratic manner (Obayuwana, 2014 & OniOrisan, 2014). This gesture in the UK is unlike
the military posture adopted in Nigeria to keep
Nigeria together by force. A plebiscite should
also be conducted in Nigeria if it becomes
necessary to put to rest the incessant crisis and
demand for secession from different factions of
the country.
References
Adeleye, A. (2012, May 18). Amalgamation of
1914: Was it not a Mistake? Retrieved from
Vanguard News Paper: htt:p//www.africa.com
Afigbo, A. E. (2001). The Eastern Provinces
Under Colonial Rule . In O.Ikimi, Historical
Society of Nigeria: Groundwork of Nigerian
History (Ed) (pp. 410-428). Ibadan: Heineman
Educational Books .
Akindele, R. A. (2005). Nigeria's Foreign Policy
in the Global, Diplomatic and Democratic Market
Place 1999-2003. In A. Gana, & Y. Omelle,
Democratic Rebirth in Nigeria Volume 1 (Eds)
(pp. 219-237). Abuja-Nigeria: African Center for
Democratic Governace
Akinjide, R. (2000, July 10). The Amalgamation
of Nigeria was a Fraud. Retrieved from Ijaw
nation:
http://www.united
ijaw.com/amalgamation.htm
Albert, I. (2004). Oputa Commission and IntraOgoni Reconciliatory Process. In A. Agbaje, L.
Diamond, & E. Onwudiwe, Nigeria's Stuggle for
Democracy and Good Governace (Eds). Ibadan:
Ibadan University Press.
Albert, I. Q. (1994). Problems of Democratic
Governance in Nigeria: Past in the Present.
Democracy Popular Precedents Practice Culture
(pp. 1-34). Johannesburg: University of
Witwatersrand.
2355
2016
Alemlka, E. E. (2003). Federalism and the Politics
in Nigeria. In T. Gana, & S. Egwu, Federalism in
Africa:
The
Imperative
of
Democratic
Development Volume 2 (Eds) (pp. 139-161).
Eritrea: African World Press.
Alubo, O. (2008). Nigeria: Ethnic Conflics and
Citizenship Crisis in the Central Region. Ibadan:
University of Ibadan Printing Press.
Baba, A. (2012, June 11). NIGERIA: 1914-2014.
Retrieved from Daily Trust Newspaper:
http://www.allafricon.com/view/publisher/editoria
l Bello, A. (1962). My Life: An Autobiography.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Britannica, E. (2014). Social Contract Theory.
Retrieved from Encyclopaedia Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/ebchecked/topic/5509
94/socialcontract Burdin, J. A. (2009, December
20). Blood Oil in the Niger Special Report 229.
Retrieved from United States Institute for Peace:
http://www.usip.org
Campbell, J. (2011). Nigeria: Dancing on the
Brink. United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefied
Publishers.
Chimee, I. N. (2009). Ideological Flux, Ethnicity
and Corruption: Correlates in Explaining
Leadership Failure of Nigeria's Founding Fathers.
In T. Edoh, & T. Wuam, Democracy, Leadership
and Accountability in Post-Colonial Africa:
Challenges and Possibilities (Eds) (pp. 499-520).
Ibadan: Aboki Publishers.
Coleman, S. J. (1986). NIGERIA: Background to
Nationalism. Benin City-Nigeria: Wistrom
Publication.
Crowder, M. (1980). The Story of Nigeria.
London & Bostown: Faber and Faber
Publications.
Dare, L. (2003). Federalist Deconcentration and
Group Rights in Canada: Some Lessons for
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
Nigeria . In A. Gana, & S. Egwu, Federalism in
Africaa: Framing the National Question Volume
One (Eds) (pp. 89-113). Asmara-Eretrea: African
World Press Inc.
2016
Ellis, E. (2006). Citizenship and Property Right: A
New Look at Social Contract Theory. Journal of
Politics, 544-555.
Dienstage, F. J. (1996). Between History and
Nature: Social Contract Theory in Locke and the
Founders . Journal of Politics Vol. 58 No. 4 , 9851009.
Fabiya, M. (2014, May 15). Rethinkin the
Amalgamation of Nigeria. Retrieved from Sahara
Reporters:
http://www.saharareporters.com/rethinkingamalgamation-malcolm
Dorward, D. C. (2014, July 12). Government
Publication Relating to Nigeria 1862-1960.
Retrieved from Microform Academic Publication
Uk: http://www.microform.co.uk/guides/R96937
Freeman, S. (1990). Reason and Agreement in
Social Contract Views. Journal of Philosopy and
Public Affairs Vol 19 No 2, 122-157.
Dudley, B. (1982). An Introduction to Nigerian
Government and Politics . London: The
Macmillan Press.
Dunfee, W. T., Smith, C., & Ross, W. (1999).
Social Contract and Marketing Ethics. Journal of
marketing Volume 63 Number 3, 14-32.
Dunning, W. (1905). The Political Philosophy of
John Locke. Political Science Quarterly Vol 20
No 2, 223-245.
Edike, T. (2014, July 24). PDP Wades into Enugu
Impeachment Saga. Retrieved from Vanguard
Newspaper:
http://www.vanguardngr.com/PDP
Wades into Enugu Impeachment Saga
Egwu, S. (2005). The Legislature in the Fourth
Republic. In A. Gana, & Y. Omelle, Democatic
Rebirth in Nigeria Volume One 1999-2003 (Eds)
(pp. 21-40). Abuja-Nigeria: African Center for
Democratic Governance.
Ekanem, A. E. (2014). Niger Delta Crisis and
Nigeria's External Relation. Postgraduate School,
Benue State Univerity Makurdi : Unpublished
Ph.D Thesis.
Elaigwu, J. (2011). Topical Issues in Nigeria's
Political Development. Jos: Aha Publishing
House.
2356
Freeman, S. (2007). Justice and Social Contract:
Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Friendman, T. (2005). The Country we Have Got.
New York: The New York Times, 6 January.
Gana, A. (2003). Federalism and the national
Question in Nigeria. In A. Gana, & Y. Omelle,
Democratic Rebirth in Nigeria:Framing the
National Question Volume One 1999-2003 (Eds)
(pp. 15-45). Asmara-Eretrea: African World Press
Inc.
Garner, B. A., & Jackson, T. (2009). Black's Law
Dictionary. USA: Thomas Reuters Business.
Gauthier, D. (1977). The Social Contract as
Ideology. Philosopy and Public Affairs Vol 6 No
2, 130-164.
Gherghe, A. C. (2011). John Locke and Freedom
as the Founding Principle of the State .
International Journal of Arts and Sciences Vol.4
No. 13, 155-160.
Grant, W. R. (1988). Locke's Political
Anthropology and Lockean Individualism.
Journal of Politics Vol.50 No1 , 42-63.
Hampton, J. (1980). Contracts and Choices: Does
Rawls Have a Social Contract Theory? Journal of
Philosopy, 315-338.
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
Ikelegbe, A. (2005). The Political Economy of
Conflict in the Oil Rich Niger Delta of Nigeria.
Nordc Journal of African Studies, 208-232.
Kahin, G. (1964). Malaysia and Indonesia. Pacific
Affairs Vol.37 No.3, 253-270.
Keeley, M. (1995). Continuing the Social Contract
Tradition. Business Ethics Quarterly Vol.5 No.2 ,
241-255.
Kinnan, C. J., Gordon, D. B., DeLong, M. D.,
Jaquish, D. W., & McAllum, R. S. (2011). Nigeria
in Context: Defining failure. In C.Kinnan,
D.Gordon, M. DeLong, D.Jaquish, & R.
McAllum, Failed State 2030: Nigeria-A Case
Study (Eds) (pp. 9-19). Marxwell: A Publication
of Air University, Marxwell Air Force Base.
Kramnick, J. B. (2005). Locke, Haywood and
Consent . Essays in Honour of Ronald Paulson
ELH Vol 72 No 2, 453-470.
Laslett, P. (2003). Cambridge Texts in the History
of Political Thought-Locke: Two Treatises of
Government . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lind, M. (2007, June 16). A Citizen-Based Social
Contract . Retrieved from New American
Foundation: http://www.newamerica.net
Locke, J. (1690). Two Treatises of Government.
USA: Creatspace Independence.
Margaret, G. (1999). Reconsidering Actual
Contract: Theory of Political Obligation . Ethics
Vol. 109 No 2, 236-260.
Mattie, S. (2005). Prerogative and the Rule of
Law in John Locke and Lincoln Presidency. The
Review of Politics Vol.. 67 No.1, 77-112.
Means, P. G. (1963). Malaysia-New Federation in
South East Asia . Pacific Affairs Vol.36 No.2,
138-159.
2357
2016
Nbete, A. D. (2012). The Social Contract Theory:
A Model for Reconstucting a True Nigerian
Nation-State. Internationl Journal of Humanities
ans Social Science Volume 2 Number 15, 267-278.
Nnoli, O. (2011). The Stuggle for Democracy in
Nigeria. Enugu-Nigeria: Snaap Publishers.
Nwobu, C. L. (2014, July 10). How Yakubu
Gowon Caused the Nigerian Biafra War.
Retrieved
from
247
Ureports:
http://www.247ureports.com
Obayuwana, O. (2014, September 17). Scotland
Knows fate over Independence Bide. Retrieved
from
The
Guardian
Nigeriamasterweb:
http://www.nigeriamasterweb.com/Scotland
Knows fate over Independence Bide
Obe, A. (2004). Citizenship, Individual Rights and
the Nigerian Constitution. In A.Agbaje,
L.Diamond, & E.Onwudiwe, Nigeria's Struggle
for Democracy and good Governance (pp. 63-82).
Ibadan: Ibadan University Press.
Obe, E. (2014, October 25). Delta: New Council
Chairmen Inaugurated, APC Kicks. Retrieved
from
The
Punch
Newspaper:
http://www.punch.com/Delta:
New
Council
Chairmen Inaugurated, APC Kicks
Obi, C. (2010). Structural Transition Space of
Identity: Right and Power in Niger Delta. Journal
of Globalization Volume 6 Number 1.
Obikeze, O. S., & Emeka, O. (2003). Government
and Politics of Nigeria: The Struggle for Power in
An African State. Onitsha-Nigeria: Book Point
publishers.
Ojo, E. (2004). The Military and Political
Transition. In A. Ogbaje, L. Diamond, & E.
Onwundiwe, Nigera's Struggle for Democracy
and Good Governace (Eds). Ibadan: Ibadan
University Press.
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15
cite as: The Effects Of The Discrepancy Between John Locke’s Social Contract Theory Of The
State And The 1914 Amalgamation In Nigeria;Vol.3|Issue 06|Pg:2342-2358
Olali, S. T. (2011). Olusegun Obasanjo: The
Personality and Philosopy of a President. In T.
Wuam, S. Olali, & J. Obilikwu, Obasanjo second
Era (Eds) (pp. 34-59). Makurdi: Aboki Publishers.
Omoleke, I. (2009). Democracy, Rule of Law and
Accountability in African States: A Critical
Analysis. In T.Edoh, & T.Wuam, Democracy,
Leadership and Accountability in Post-Colonial
Africa: Challenges and Possibilities (Eds) (pp. 78103). Makurdi: Aboki Publishers.
Oni-Orisan, I. (2014, September 17). Scotland
Decide.
Retrieved
from
Daily
Times
Nigerianmasterweb:
http://wwwnigeriamasterweb.com/Scotland
Decide Onoyume, J., & Igata, F. (2015). Police
Arraigns 20 Pro Biafra Supporters for treason.
Nigeria: The Vanguard Newspaper Online .
Onuoha, F., & Ebe, M. (2012, July 13). 1914 and
Nigeria's Existential Crisis: A Historical
Perspective. Retrieved from Nigerian Village:
http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles
Onwudiwe, E. (2004). Geographical Zones and
the Consolidation of Democracy. In A. Agbaje, L.
Diamond, & E. Onwudiwe, Nigeria's Struggle for
Democracy and Good Governance (pp. 267-276).
Ibadan: Ibadan University Press.
Osuntokun, J. (1979). The Historical Background
of Nigerian Federalism. In B.Akinyemi, D.Cole,
& W.Ofonagoro, Readings on Federalism (Eds)
(pp. 91-108). Lagos: A Publication of Nigerian
Institute of National Affairs.
Reid, L. (2011). Medical Profeesionalism and the
Social Contract. Perspectives in Biology and
Medcine, 455-469.
Suberu, R. (2005). Conflict and Accommondation
in the Nigerian Federation 1999-2003 . In A.
Gana, & Y. Omelle, Democratic Rebirth in
Nigeria Volume One1999-2003 (Eds) (pp. 219-
2358
237). Abuja-Nigera: African
Democractic Governance .
2016
Centre
for
Takaya, J. B. (2001). The Structure of Conflicts in
Nigerian Federalism. In J.Elaigwu, & A.Akindele,
Foundations of Nigerian Federalism 1960-1995
(2nd Edition) (Eds) (pp. 71-86). Jos-Nigeria: A
Publication of the Institute of Governance and
Social Research (IGRS).
Tamuno, T. N. (2001). British Colonial
Administration in Nigeria. In O.Ikim, Historical
Society of Nigeria: Groundwork of Nigerian
History (Ed) (pp. 393-409). Ibadan: Heineman
Educational Books.
Uzodinma, E. (2014, Jun 5). Biafra Zionist
Federation Attempts to Seize Enugu Radio
Station, Kills Police Officer. Retrieved from Daily
Post:
http://www.dailypost.ng/Biafra-ZionistFederation-Attempts-to-Seize-Enugu-RadioStation- Kills- Police-Officer
Uzoigwe, G. N. (1996). Evolution of the Nigeria
State 1900-1914. In I.Elaiggwu, & N.Uzoigwe,
Foundations of Nigerian Federalism 1900-1960
(Eds) (pp. 1-38). Jos-Nigeri: A Publication of the
Institute of Governance and Social Rresearch .
Vande, P. T. (2013). Constitutional Amendment
and Tenure Elongation in Nigeria: Implications
for the Legislature. In P. Ukase, P. Afaha, & T.
Laraba, Studies on the Nigerian Legislature 19992011 Volume One (Eds) (pp. 338-355). Ibadan:
Vast Publishers.
Ward, L. (2005). Locke on Executive Power and
Liberal Constitutionalism. Canadian Journal of
Political Science Vol 38 No 3, 719-744.
Yakubu, J. A. (2005). The Rule of Law Underthe
Obasanjo Presidency 1999-2003. In A. Gana, &
Y. Omelle, Democractic Rebirth in Nigeria
Volume One 1999-2003 (Eds) (pp. 71-87). AbujaNigeria: African Center for Democratic
Governance.
DOI: 10.18535/ijsshi/v3i6.15