Indirect Rule was the system of colonial administration adopted by the British, especially by Lord Lugard in Nigeria, under which the colony was governed through the existing traditional rulers and native institutions rather than directly by British officials. The traditional rulers (emirs, obas and chiefs) retained their thrones and continued to rule their people, but they did so under the supervision, guidance and control of British Residents and District Officers. Native Authorities, Native Courts and Native Treasuries were established to carry out local administration, collect taxes and maintain order in accordance with colonial policy.
(b) Reasons the policy was criticised
It preserved and strengthened autocratic, undemocratic traditional rulers instead of developing modern democratic institutions.
It excluded the educated elite from the administration, breeding resentment among the emerging nationalists.
It froze society by making chiefs agents of colonial rule, so they often became unpopular tax collectors and lost the confidence of their people.
It worked poorly in areas without strong centralised chieftaincies (the East and parts of the West), where warrant chiefs had to be imposed artificially.
It slowed political, social and educational development because Britain governed cheaply through others rather than investing in the people.
It divided the country by treating each area differently and hindered the growth of a common national outlook.
Indirect Rule was the system of colonial administration adopted by the British, especially by Lord Lugard in Nigeria, under which the colony was governed through the existing traditional rulers and native institutions rather than directly by British officials. The traditional rulers (emirs, obas and chiefs) retained their thrones and continued to rule their people, but they did so under the supervision, guidance and control of British Residents and District Officers. Native Authorities, Native Courts and Native Treasuries were established to carry out local administration, collect taxes and maintain order in accordance with colonial policy.
(b) Reasons the policy was criticised
It preserved and strengthened autocratic, undemocratic traditional rulers instead of developing modern democratic institutions.
It excluded the educated elite from the administration, breeding resentment among the emerging nationalists.
It froze society by making chiefs agents of colonial rule, so they often became unpopular tax collectors and lost the confidence of their people.
It worked poorly in areas without strong centralised chieftaincies (the East and parts of the West), where warrant chiefs had to be imposed artificially.
It slowed political, social and educational development because Britain governed cheaply through others rather than investing in the people.
It divided the country by treating each area differently and hindered the growth of a common national outlook.