Katsumoto:

You do have a lot of patience and you took the time to explain the salient points. However, Obiagu has a problem with comprehension and that problem is further compounded by bigotry and colo-mentality.

[size=16pt]He is using ‘acquired’ like some natives sold land to the British.[/size] What seems to be flying above his head is the fact that the British Crown was merging territory within the geographical boundaries of Nigeria and the differences between the terms used was contingent upon whether the crown was ‘adding’ conquered land, as he put it or amalgamating chartered territory which had been held by British companies. To further expose the blatant stupidity and ignorance of that position, the British were amalgamating, adding, and/or merging native land without the natives being aware of it. As at 1900, the British were still putting down resistance everywhere in Nigeria.

Soon Obiagu will tell us that some in Alaigbo invited the British to go to ‘Nigeria’ and create the protectorate of Southern Nigeria while others in the Lagos Colony were ‘begging’ to be added to the Southern Protectorate.

Yes the British government paid for or acquired the area Physics was talking about. It was a purchased territory and remains acquisition not amalgamation.

PhysicsMHD: Obiagu, I am not trying to be dishonest here and I don't think I am being dishonest. Maybe from your perspective it looks that way, but that is not my intention.

I explained to you that the Niger Coast Protectorate was rather limited in extent, something which it doesn't seem you were aware of before (although maybe you were) and also explained that the Royal Niger Company surrendered its rights and charter to "the Crown" in exchange for compensation in 1899, instead of their territory merely being automatically "acquired" by the Niger Coast Protectorate. The British Government then decided to merge the two (NCP and RNC territory) and rename that area. I also gave at least 2 sources which referred to the merger as an amalgamation.

Here is another British source which describes the merger as an amalgamation:

"The transfer took place on the 1st of January 1900, from which date the company, which dropped the name of "royal," became a purely trading corporation. The southern portion of the territories was amalgamated with the Niger Coast Protectorate, the whole district taking the name of the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria, while the northern portion, extending from a line drawn slightly above 7° N to the frontier of the French possessions on the north and including the confluence of the Niger and the Benue at Lokoja, was proclaimed a protectorate under the name of Northern Nigeria." - The Encyclopædia Britannica, Volume 19, 1911.

If it wasn't an amalgamation, maybe the editors of the Historical Dictionary of the British Empire should contact you to get approval of the words they decide to use when describing what happened back then. Maybe they don't have a good grasp of their own language.

From your argument, we can talk about amalgamation of Opobo, amalgamation of Edoland, Igboland, Efikland, Hausaland, etc after all they were all added to the British colonial empire.
That defeats your argument. My point remains that none British government territories were either acquired or bought for expansion or conquered for expansion as well. Those territories were none British territories hence were not amalgamated but acquired.

When 2 or more independent British government territories with separate administration and government were merge, it is amalgamation. No one should ever talk about 1914 amalgamation again if 1906 will not be discoursed. We can use your literal definition of amalgamation and go back to Warri, Lagos, Calabar and Opobo "amalgamation" and we will end up with nothing.

Obiagu1:

From your argument, we can talk about amalgamation of Opobo, amalgamation of Edoland, Igboland, Efikland, Hausaland, etc after all they were all added to the British colonial empire.
That defeats your argument. My point remains that none British government territories were either acquired or bought for expansion or conquered for expansion as well. Those territories were none British territories hence were not amalgamated but acquired.

When 2 or more independent British government territories with separate administration and government were merge, it is amalgamation. No one should ever talk about 1914 amalgamation again if 1906 will not be discoursed. We can use your literal definition of amalgamation and go back to Warri, Lagos, Calabar and Opobo "amalgamation" and we will end up with nothing.

Lmao.... Obiagu, you are crafty. Playing with words to squeeze in and out of dead end positions. Did I hear you say all these lands were added to the "British Colonial Empire"?

There is a document I will bring to you shortly. With a slight difference this document is a replica of similar documents of treaties with the coastal Kings. It is sealed on the honor of the Crown monarch, who in that time happened to be Queen Victoria.

The Royal Niger Company was also on commission and in service to the seal of the monarch. All its territories were domain under the sovereingty of the Crown.

So whether you were acquired, purchased, rented, amalgamated, merged, coupled, fabricated......it is immaterial to the goal and intent of the British Empire to pool all resources into one managable bucket of administrative control.

Why does it mattrr to you who was purchased and who was a free man.....we were all shackled and dispossessed.

I have some revelations to bring to you. I dont know what you are reading but you are a stark illiterate when it comes to the history of the foundings. First i will share this document and allow you time to soak it in. Go to the Edo website ....matter of fact, hold on!

I want you to visit this link and read the article. I will bring you the Lagos treaty and they you can visit waado website online and read about other coastal treaties....Benin expedition, the Itsekiri treaty, the Opobo treaty.

We will talk after you are sober.


http://www.mpil.de/ww/en/pub/research/details/publications/institute/wcd.cfm?fuseaction_wcd=aktdat&aktdat=217000000400.cfm

Go to this thread and the second or third post is the copy of Lagos treaty. Read it as a background into the max plank legal opinion. You also have links on other treaties.

Cover these documents for thorough understanding. ....and it will become clear to you why of all the people who were parties in the creation of this nation, whether before or after 1906, the Igboman is on the bottom rung of the list of those qualified to question legitimacy of Yoruba in Nigeria.


https://www.nairaland.com/1062509/nigeria-good-bad-beautiful-ugly

Also,

http://www.waado.org/urhobohistory/nigerdelta/colonialtreaties/ItsekiriTreaties/EditorsIntroduction.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Expedition_of_1897


Also a timeline summary

http://woyingi./nigerian-history/

Negro_Ntns: Go to this thread and the second or third post is the copy of Lagos treaty. Read it as a background into the max plank legal opinion. You also have links on other treaties.

Cover these documents for thorough understanding. ....and it will become clear to you why of all the people who were parties in the creation of this nation, whether before or after 1906, the Igboman is on the bottom rung of the list of those qualified to question legitimacy of Yoruba in Nigeria.


https://www.nairaland.com/1062509/nigeria-good-bad-beautiful-ugly

Also,

http://www.waado.org/urhobohistory/nigerdelta/colonialtreaties/ItsekiriTreaties/EditorsIntroduction.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Expedition_of_1897


Also a timeline summary

http://woyingi./nigerian-history/

^^^
Sorry but you're out of your depth

....code word for you have no counter point.

you are a DIY fictional historian just like you know.........

Obiagu1:

^^^
Sorry but you're out of your depth

kunlekunle: you are a DIY fictional historian just like you know.........

Like Yorubas redrawing 1900 map to claim they are Nigerians.








Map of Nigeria in 1900

www.nairaland.com/attachments/789954_480317_4359667628276_1152914446_n_jpgb7f450f3191b1c2360cb674fc5f97a67




[size=16pt]Yoruba redrawn map of Nigeria in 1900[/size]

[img]http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/westafrica/nigeria1900.gif[/img]

Obiagu,

Do me a favor and define Nigeria. What is Nigeria?

Negro_Ntns: Obiagu,

Do me a favor and define Nigeria. What is Nigeria?

Nigeria entered official records or became official in 1900 when 2 Nigerias were created viz: Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria.
Any one not in these 2 territories in 1900 is not a Nigerian. In Nigerian term, any one from these 2 territories is an indigenous Nigerian.

Further territories were added and some left. Added territories are Yorubaland, Northern Cameroun (Adamawa) and Southern Cameroun but Southern Camerounians left.
Anyone from these added territories is not an "original" Nigerian.

Obiagu1:

Nigeria entered official records or became official in 1900 when 2 Nigerias were created viz: Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria.
Any one not in these 2 territories in 1900 is not a Nigerian. In Nigerian term, any one from these 2 territories is an indigenous Nigerian.

Further territories were added and some left. Added territories are Yorubaland, Northern Cameroun (Adamawa) and Southern Cameroun but Southern Camerounians left.
Anyone from these added territories is not an "original" Nigerian.

So then help me understand futther, what is Southern Nigeria?

Negro_Ntns:

So then help me understand futther, what is Southern Nigeria?

Southern Nigeria is as shown in the map below. Anyone not in the area in blue is not a Southern Nigerian.



www.nairaland.com/attachments/799572_Countries_in_Nigeria_1900_pngae5a5c9931b6bc3903a8e6d3854bdde5

Obiagu1:


Southern Nigeria is as shown in the map below. Anyone not in the area in blue is not a Southern Nigerian.



www.nairaland.com/attachments/799572_Countries_in_Nigeria_1900_pngae5a5c9931b6bc3903a8e6d3854bdde5

Thank you Obiagu.

So how did Southern Nigeria come about?

Obiagu1:


Southern Nigeria is as shown in the map below. Anyone not in the area in blue is not a Southern Nigerian.



www.nairaland.com/attachments/799572_Countries_in_Nigeria_1900_pngae5a5c9931b6bc3903a8e6d3854bdde5

you need to worry more about the people that changed your destiny and how you can take control of it.

I wonder why you guys are arguing with each other. As far as I'm concerned Obiagu, Negro and Kats are all saying the same thing: that Nigeria's amalgamation was a mistake. This is because the 1906 amalgamation preceded the 1914 amalgamation. So if that of 1906 was a mistake, it invariably means that 1914 amalgamation was also a mistake.

I'm touched by the intellectuality being displayed here. However it pains my heart to see such intellectuality being used to tear us apart. Imagine how great our country would be if the likes of Kats, Obiagu and Negro can join heads together.

Obinoscopy: I wonder why you guys are arguing with each other. As far as I'm concerned Obiagu, Negro and Kats are all saying the same thing: that Nigeria's amalgamation was a mistake. This is because the 1906 amalgamation preceded the 1914 amalgamation. So if that of 1906 was a mistake, it invariably means that 1914 amalgamation was also a mistake.

I'm touched by the intellectuality being displayed here. However it pains my heart to see such intellectuality being used to tear us apart. Imagine how great our country would be if the likes of Kats, Obiagu and Negro can join heads together.

The boldfaced is exactly the point. 1906 amalgamation was a complete mistake which some people have failed to acknowledge but keep yapping about 1914 amalgamation.

Funnily enough, Yorubas will turn around and say Igbos claim other people when in fact they are the ones trying to force themselves into where they are not part of.
Igboland has always been part of southern Nigeria in whatever name that was used prior to 1900. So how can one claim other people when they've never been separate from one another?

Until Yorubas realise they are not Nigerians and respect themselves, nothing will work between the 2 groups.

Dede1:



Some people still fall into the erroneous assumption that USA is diverse society.

Please, keep your madness and backwards tribalism to yourself, old illiterate monkey.

How the hell did you even get into this country?

Obinoscopy: I wonder why you guys are arguing with each other. As far as I'm concerned Obiagu, Negro and Kats are all saying the same thing: that Nigeria's amalgamation was a mistake. This is because the 1906 amalgamation preceded the 1914 amalgamation. So if that of 1906 was a mistake, it invariably means that 1914 amalgamation was also a mistake.

I'm touched by the intellectuality being displayed here. However it pains my heart to see such intellectuality being used to tear us apart. Imagine how great our country would be if the likes of Kats, Obiagu and Negro can join heads together.

What, what. noooo, Obiagu is talking shyyt. the dude read some fantasy written and posted on internet by people like dede and he believes he has the knowledge about 1906. Anyway, he is going to end up exposing stuffs that need to be left hidden and out of public knowledge. I warned him to stop but he is not listening.

ODUA_NEGRO:


What, what. noooo, Obiagu is talking shyyt. the dude read some fantasy written and posted on internet by people like dede and he believes he has the knowledge about 1906. Anyway, he is going to end up exposing stuffs that need to be left hidden and out of public knowledge. I warned him to stop but he is not listening.

Are you saddened that Obiagu1 is exposing stuff that the Yoruba want hidden and out of public knowledge that they are not Nigerians?
Years of this misinformation, calculated brainwashing, and information hoarding on issues surrounding 1906 amalgamation is going to end.

Yoruba should know where they belong and follow the Bakassi route.

The coastal tribes are already anti-Igbo and since emergence of Gej, first as vp and now as president, Ijaws have found a new political strength to stand independently. In a show of that independence they have recently declared themselves the fourth largest tribe, not waiting for any official figure or declaration.

I am ready to produce documents going as far back as 1884 and onward to 1914 that will reveal the scheme of the Southern protectorate. Evryo other people was under some sort of treaty except igboland. Every other land was either a colony or a protectorate before 1906.

.......keep running mouth about who is Nigerian and who is not.....I will champion a cause here that will totally put your third majority status in jeopardy.

It is really disappointing that KATS took the side of against in this debate and yet could not deliver a knock out blow due to the way in which he was too economical about facts.
How could the person defending the amalgamation manage to almost demolished KATS when it is clear that even a law student could have delivered without sweating, or is it a case of KATS deliberately refusing to expose the diabolical forced marriage called nigeria?

Haba KATS, are you really not hiding something?

Noiseless2: It is really disappointing that KATS took the side of against in this debate and yet could not deliver a knock out blow due to the way in which he was too economical about facts.
How could the person defending the amalgamation manage to almost demolished KATS when it is clear that even a law student could have delivered without sweating, or is it a case of KATS deliberately refusing to expose the diabolical forced marriage called nigeria?

Haba KATS, are you really not hiding something?

Truth is too discomforting to him. I don't pay a heed to his posts, they are completely worthless to me.

Noiseless2: It is really disappointing that KATS took the side of against in this debate and yet could not deliver a knock out blow due to the way in which he was too economical about facts.
How could the person defending the amalgamation manage to almost demolished KATS when it is clear that even a law student could have delivered without sweating, or is it a case of KATS deliberately refusing to expose the diabolical forced marriage called nigeria?

Haba KATS, are you really not hiding something?

Noiseless why all the hatred na? Even forced marriages end up being a success, its all about understanding

Obiagu1:
From your argument, we can talk about amalgamation of Opobo, amalgamation of Edoland, Igboland, Efikland, Hausaland, etc after all they were all added to the British colonial empire.
That defeats your argument. My point remains that none British government territories were either acquired or bought for expansion or conquered for expansion as well. Those territories were none British territories hence were not amalgamated but acquired.

When 2 or more independent British government territories with separate administration and government were merge, it is amalgamation. No one should ever talk about 1914 amalgamation again if 1906 will not be discoursed. We can use your literal definition of amalgamation and go back to Warri, Lagos, Calabar and Opobo "amalgamation" and we will end up with nothing.

1. Well, I don't see how it "defeats my argument." What I said was that the territories were not "acquired" by the Niger Coast Protectorate and were never part of the Niger Coast Protectorate - and in fact they weren't - but were amalgamated with it to form a new protectorate. The other territories were acquired by the British government (when it obtained control of the Royal Niger Company's rights in 1899) which merged them with the NCP to create a new protectorate (Southern Nigeria), which included the other in-between territories that had not been conquered or incorporated in anything British by any treaty with the RNC or NCP. As an example of my point, do you actually think Idah was ever part of the Niger Coast Protectorate? Can you honestly make the claim "Idah was acquired by the Niger Coast Protectorate at some point" knowing how incorrect that is and knowing that the NCP did not stretch very far inland while it existed? That claim (about Idah) is basically one of the claims you're necessarily making by holding to your position about all these territories merely being "acquired" by the NCP. I think I'm basically repeating myself, but hopefully this example should show you what the problem is with saying that the Niger Coast Protectorate acquired territories that there is no record of it actually acquiring while it existed.

For example, can you tell me which of the districts of the Niger Coast Protectorate that were acknowledged as existing in the official annual colonial report for the Niger Coast Protectorate for 1898-1899 that R. Moor sent to the consulate general in Old Calabar would have contained Idah or Onitsha or any of the lands immediately around those places? Was it Old Calabar, Opobo, Bonny, New Calabar, Brass, Benin and Sapele, or Warri? Which of these districts would have contained those other huge stretches of land in the interior? Or did Moor, the commissioner and consul-general of the Niger Coast Protectorate in 1899, not know what the Niger Coast Protectorate actually entailed when he submitted the annual colonial report?

Apart from the fact that you are basically saying that all 9 of the history professors that edited the Historical Dictionary of the British Empire were wrong (it's their "argument" as well, not just mine), you have yet to show how places like Idah or Onitsha were actually acquired by the Niger Coast Protectorate while it existed.

2. Also, the 1898 Niger Committee decided in 1898 that all of the territories that we have been talking about were going to be amalgamated anyway to form one larger colony (Nigeria). As I said, they were all working together - the governor of Lagos (Egerton) was simultaneously the high commissioner of the protectorate of Southern Nigeria, for example. It's just that they decided the order in which the territories should be amalgamated and decided that it could not happen immediately but would have to happen over a longer period of time because they did not yet have the administrative capability (citing health issues and communication/transportation issues) to handle a fully amalgamated colony at the time. So they delayed, and of course, they decided over time to carry out the mergers in a different manner than the "Maritime Province" and "Sudan Province" arrangement that they first proposed. But that the mergers were going to happen was already decided upon by 1898.


3. We can discuss whether it was a historical mistake to add Opobo, Edoland, Igboland, Hausaland, Efikland, or any other land to any other people's land or to any protectorate regardless of whether we use the term amalgamation or not. Anyone can debate on whether certain acquisitions, annexations or amalgamations were historically disastrous for the groups being added and/or for the groups to which they were added. The reason the 1914 amalgamation gets so much attention (and was controversial even back then) is because the cultural and religious divide between the North and South was considered to be much greater than the divide between those different groups in the south or those different groups in the north. Nothing is stopping anybody from starting a topic on the problems caused by or the "historical mistake" of adding Edoland, Yorubaland, Igboland, etc. to any other lands. These are reasonable and valid topics of discussion just as the consequences and significance of the British adding the north to south is a reasonable topic of discussion. But there would never be as much controversy about any other additions or amalgamations as there would be about the 1914 amalgamation because the northern-southern cultural/religious divide is and was considered greater than any other.

^^^

Obiagu1:


Good. I have provided the complete map of the 3 amalgamated Protectorates. It is left for you to provide the map with complete boundaries of your so called "amalgamated" territories lets see where every territory belongs. When the crown amalgamate territories, there are maps to show where and where that were amalgamated.

Until then, you so "amalgamations" still remains acquisition.

Your problem is that you want to call every expansion made by the British "amalgamation" (after all merger of 2 or more lands is amalgamation) irrespective of whether that territory was in the crown's hand prior to such expansion.
You have refused to draw a line between the two.

You went back to NCP, why didn't you go back to Yorubaland? Does it not apply to your "amalgamation" theory?

This is why I said you are dishonest. You left 1914 amalgamation debate to rage on but when I brought up 1906, here he comes, trying to derail my point, talking about bits and pieces. And for your information, 1914 did not create any more controversy than 1906 after all, we had nothing in common with Yorubas and we lost our capital too.
Are you aware that the amalgamation could have been North and South, then Lagos? If it had happened that way, we won't be talking about this. Nigerians will be talking about sending Lagos (Yorubas) packing.

Again, to help us understand NCP and RN, it seems you're an authority in that, provide us with complete map of the two showing which territory belongs to where? (This is an aside to 1906 amalgamation).

Obiagu1: Your problem is that you want to call every expansion made by the British "amalgamation" (after all merger of 2 or more lands is amalgamation) irrespective of whether that territory was in the crown's hand prior to such expansion.
You have refused to draw a line between the two.

You went back to NCP, why didn't you go back to Yorubaland? Does it not apply to your "amalgamation" theory?

This is why I said you are dishonest. You left 1914 amalgamation debate to rage on but when I brought up 1906, here he comes, trying to derail my point, talking about bits and pieces. And for your information, 1914 did not create any more controversy than 1906 after all, we had nothing in common with Yorubas and we lost our capital too.
Are you aware that the amalgamation could have been North and South, then Lagos? If it had happened that way, we won't be talking about this. Nigerians will be talking about sending Lagos (Yorubas) packing.

Again, to help us understand NCP and RN, it seems you're an authority in that, provide us with complete map of the two showing which territory belongs to where? (This is an aside to 1906 amalgamation).

You can do it now by launching an appropriate query to the designated body at the United Nations. Afterall, you have been able to prove your case here, why not go a step further by lodging a appeal for the removal of Western Nigeria (or Lagos Protectorate) from the country. I'd love that to happen actually...

Tony Spike:

You can do it now by launching an appropriate query to the designated body at the United Nations. Afterall, you have been able to prove your case here, why not go a step further by lodging a appeal for the removal of Western Nigeria (or Lagos Protectorate) from the country. I'd love that to happen actually...

It's a step at a time, we will get there. People have to be aware of the fact that Yorubas are not Nigerians before such call will make meaning to them.
As for now, Nigerian educational system has done its best to suppress issues surrounding 1906 amalgamation but only talks about 1914 amalgamation. They don't want, using ODUA_NEGRO's words, exposing stuff that need to be left hidden and out of public knowledge.

Obiagu1: Your problem is that you want to call every expansion made by the British "amalgamation" (after all merger of 2 or more lands is amalgamation) irrespective of whether that territory was in the crown's hand prior to such expansion.
You have refused to draw a line between the two.

I didn't call every expansion made by the British an amalgamation, but I don't see why it matters. Amalgamation is just another word for a merger. There were actual "acquisitions" of the NCP - such as forcibly adding Benin to the NCP that I didn't and haven't called an amalgamation, but I can call it that this one time if you think it'll prove your point that I actually am calling every addition an amalgamation. By the way, I don't see what your point is about whether a territory was or was not in the "crown's hand" prior to a merger. The British delineated the territory they were claiming for their empire in some cases before actually placing that territory under direct British control through force. For example, until the Ishan territories expedition of 1901, the Ishan areas were not under British control and had signed no treaties giving the British administrative rights or political rights over them. However, they were included in the protectorate of Southern Nigeria that was drawn up in 1900 even before they were invaded and colonized. So the British had (in their scheme) merged their land with NCP and (former) RNC land even before actually subjugating them.

Anyway, I have shown you multiple other publications that refer to the 1900 merger as an amalgamation, so why are you trying to make this about me and what lines I choose to draw or not draw between things? It's not even about me. At this point, you're arguing against history professors and specialists on British imperialism/colonialism who devote some of their careers to studying this stuff.

You went back to NCP, why didn't you go back to Yorubaland? Does it not apply to your "amalgamation" theory?

Well, the difference there is that the territories I was talking about simply were not acquired by the NCP as those places in Yorubaland were acquired by the Lagos colony. That's the point - you seemed not to grasp before what the NCP did or did not actually acquire or what its extent was. You actually seemed to believe (and for whatever reason, still seem to believe) that the NCP just acquired all of those huge stretches of territory despite there being no evidence that it did.

This is why I said you are dishonest. You left 1914 amalgamation debate to rage on but when I brought up 1906, here he comes, trying to derail my point, talking about bits and pieces.

How am I dishonest to leave the 1914 debate to "rage" when I said that 1) I believe it is/was more controversial and 2) when I said that the debate over the impact of other amalgamations, annexations, etc. is legitimate and could be discussed as well. In fact, I believe we discussed some of the pros and cons of one of those other amalgamations on a previous thread. Nothing is stopping anyone from discussing it.

Are you aware that the amalgamation could have been North and South, then Lagos? If it had happened that way, we won't be talking about this. Nigerians will be talking about sending Lagos (Yorubas) packing.

Are you aware that the original plan for the "Maritime Province" of Nigeria at the 1898 Niger Committee involved the Lagos colony being merged with the Niger Coast Protectorate first to form the Maritime Province of Nigeria? This "Maritime Province" plan was put aside in favor of the sequence of mergers that eventually was carried out. So, while the scenario you wrote above is a hypothetical one from somewhere in your imagination, the prospect of Lagos being merged with the NCP first was a real possibility that was at least considered by the people who actually eventually carried out the amalgamations. But as I have explained to you (since you were not aware), it was already decided that all of what is today Nigeria would be one unit in 1898, so the order of the mergers does not matter much.

Again, to help us understand NCP and RN, it seems you're an authority in that, provide us with complete map of the two showing which territory belongs to where? (This is an aside to 1906 amalgamation).

Do some actual digging in the archives on this if it's so important to you. I gave you a reference to an actual document which you can find and look up yourself - the 1898-1899 colonial report for the Niger Coast Protectorate from Ralph Moor, the consul-general and commissioner of the Niger Coast Protectorate, that he submitted to the consulate general in Old Calabar. That document confirms that the Niger Coast Protectorate up to the last year of its existence was as I said it was above, including only those districts. Unless you want to pretend those districts extend to places they couldn't have actually extended to, then I don't see what confusion you have about what the extent of the NCP was.

If you need a map so badly, then find one. I'm not going to go digging through university or institutional libraries for old British maps to scan and upload to the internet just to explain to you something so simple (that the NCP was a considerably smaller territory not in any way corresponding to the whole of the protectorate of Southern Nigeria) that you should have already understood by now, having had it confirmed already from multiple published sources from scholars.

PhysicsQED/MHD/PHD/BSC is sure a patient guy.

I don't do hate i rather say things the way they are, of which i'm sure that makes one nigeria hypocrites discomfort.

Obinoscopy:

Noiseless why all the hatred na? Even forced marriages end up being a success, its all about understanding