tsephanyah:
because the British had several Prison work
camps that engaged in prison plantations and other public
works.

LoveMachine:
Can I get a source? Not being argumentative but I enjoy doing further research on interesting topics. This is definitely a lightning rod topic that I want to jump into with both feet.

APCHaram:
Prisons existed in the Sokoto Caliphate before the British conquest, but little attention has been devoted to examining pre-colonial imprisonment. Nevertheless, it is clear from extant sources that the inmates in Sokoto Caliphate prisons could be classified into three major groups: war prisoners, freeborn people imprisoned for political or other crimes, and slaves.Generally, most inmates could be ransomed, executed, enslaved or exchanged. Although many of those enslaved (from all three groups of prisoners) were used as domestic servants, others were sent to ribats (frontier fortresses) where they served as soldiers and/or in other roles such as plantation labourers, builders, concubines and weavers.

There is evidence that convicts based within Sokoto Caliphate prisons (including those war prisoners who were yet to be ransomed, executed, enslaved or exchanged) often worked under close supervision on state fields “the entire day before returning to their cells”. Inmates, like many Sokoto Caliphate slaves, frequently experienced physical cruelty and starvation.24 Even though slave owners mostly punished their own slaves outside the prison, there is evidence that the slaves within Sokoto Caliphate prisons were often sent there by private estate owners or administrators of state holdings.

In the Kano area, the major prison to which recalcitrant slaves were banished was Gidan Ma’ajin Watari. Situated less than a kilometre northeast of the Emir’s palace in Kano city, it was owned by the state and managed by the state official called Ma’ajin Watari. Masters sent defiant slaves, including those whom they did not want to sell or otherwise dispose of, to this prison for reform or, as Yusuf Yunusa puts it, “to be punished and preached to”. On a slave’s arrival at the prison, the master was expected to declare the specific offence the slave had committed and the type of punishment to be meted out. Thereafter, the erring slave was admitted to the facility through two doors, being severely beaten in the process.

The conditions at Gidan Ma’ajin Watari were terrible, as an early colonial record indicates:
A small doorway 2 ft. 6 in. by 18 in. gives access into it; the interior is divided by a thick mud wall (with a smaller hole in it) into two compartments, each 17 ft. by 7 ft. and 11 ft. high. This wall was pierced with holes at its base, through which the legs of those sentenced to death were thrust up to the thigh, and they were left to be trodden on by the mass of other prisoners till they died of thirst and starvation. The place is entirely air-tight and unventilated, except for one small doorway or rather hole in the wall through which you creep. The total space inside is 2,618 cu. ft., and at the time we took Kano [1903] 135 human beings were confined here each night, being let out during the day to cook their food, etc., in a small adjoining area. Recently as many as 200 have been interned at one time. As the superficial ground area was only 238 square feet, there was not, of course, even standing room. Victims were crushed to death every night — their corpses were hauled out each morning.

While in prison, a slave was usually subjected to torture by fellow inmates as well as by guards. Masters could occasionally pay a visit to the prison to determine whether or not their slaves should be released. During such visits, the masters often presented their slaves with cowries or food, while the slaves, in turn, would plead for forgiveness. Ultimately, it was the master who decided how many days the slave would spend in the facility.

Whether or not it was standard practice for masters in all parts of the Sokoto Caliphate to send slaves to various state prisons for reform, three facts are clear from the pre-colonial era. First, a prison system existed prior to British conquest in pre-colonial Muslim Nigeria. Second, convicts were sometimes made to work on state fields. Third, for all the physical punishment of convicts, the notion of rehabilitation appears to have been part of the ethos of both the caliphal state and the caliphal slaveholders.

http://www.openbookpublishers.com/htmlreader/978-1-78374-062-8/10.Salau.xhtml

APCLyingBastard:
[size=18pt] The end of slaving and the colonial re-adjustment [/size]

The embarrassing reality was that slavery in Nigeria underwent a ‘slow death’, to use the opportune term of Hogendorn and
Lovejoy (1993). Although Lugard’s pronouncements in the early post-conquest period seemed to suggest it would no longer be tolerated, it was evidently difficult to simply halt the process in northern Nigeria in view of how deeply it was embedded (Ubah 1991).

Moreover, and this is part of the ambiguity of the colonial attitude, it was necessary to keep traditional rulers on board as part of a longer term strategy to counter real or imagined radicalism. Klein (1998) records similar problematic attitudes in the Francophone regions of
West Africa. Even relative liberals such as Temple (1918) argued that the system of domestic slavery should not be summarily dismantled.

Slaves whose original ethnic identity had been abolished were still working within the Hausa system in the first quarter of the twentieth century (Figure 10). A decree finally abolishing slavery was only promulgated in 1936, although by this time, almost all those former slaves who
maintained an ethnic identity had left for their home area (Olusanya 1966).

At the same time, colonial policy promoted the use of Hausa and Islamic courts, which had the contrary effect of cementing the power of the former slavers . Indirect rule kept the Muslim rulers of outlying settlements such as Keffi and Ibi in place. Indirect rule also maintained these islands of Hausa dominance through the colonial era and preserved their authority through a court system controlled by Muslim qadis
even in rather marginal Islamic areas. Fulɓe pastoralists could count on the incursions of their cattle into fields of crops being subject to only minor penalties in the courts when they were opposed to non-Muslims. It also became advantageous for local rulers to either convert to Islam or adopt its outward form.

Turaki (1993:99) observes;

It can hardly be doubted that the practice of placing large numbers of pagans under Fulani District Heads and supporting the authority of these by the powers of government when and where necessary, led to an extension of Islam. … The pagan headman tended to start wearing Muslim dress especially when they were called to meetings at the District Headquarters and this donning of the garb of the Muslim often proved the first step to Islam. and their final subjugation [my words]

Dino Melaye dresses in Huasa Fulani attire
[img]http://1.bp..com/-g8a3TRqFy3s/Vo0yiKB1XcI/AAAAAAAAkqQ/D5n5O56bNuU/s640/IMG-20160104-WA0019-787736.jpg[/img]

This in turn has had a direct impact on issues such as the boundaries of post-colonial Nigerian states. The original Kaduna state, for example, was a long narrow strip that stretched from Katsina on the northern border down through Zaria. Kaduna included many of the communities in Southern Zaria that were subjugated by Zazzau in the slave-raiding era. Even when the Katsina Emirate became a separate state, the remaining rump of Kaduna State persisted with this awkward conjunction, binding together resentful minority communities, generally oriented towards Christianity, with their former antagonists from further north. Historically this has often been the source of conflict and this state of affairs is likely to continue.

tsephanyah:
because the British had several Prison work
camps that engaged in prison plantations and other public
works.

kingzizzy:
British rule was highly resisted in the south, examples being the Akasa war fought by the Ijaw and the Ekumeku war fought by the Igbos. But British rule was widely accepted in the North with little or no resistance. The British always knew that their best allies where the subservient north rather than the stubborn South so they tried to demarcate the North from the south so that the more exposed and educated south would not influence the North. It was just unfortunate that the economic wealth of Nigeria was in the South so the British tried to balance this by giving political power to the north. To this day, the northerners still believe that political power is their exclusive preserve and they can't stand not being without it while the south has remained ever stubborn to its right to self determination just as they were to the British. The The fallout from the struggle for political power is what has landed Nigeria where it currently is.

My perspective on this as an Igbo man is that the British did us a great disservice by bringing us together. The British knew we were different, they knew we would all fight for political power, but they still brought us together for selfish interests.

The good thing is that the process of decolonisation of the 1914 amalgamation has started. The average Nigerian now talks about, IPOB,MASSOB,Referendum like it is nothing. 20 years ago, just mentioning any of these words could get you shot or thrown into prison on treason charges. Decolonisation will continue until the indigenous people of west Africa that Lord Lugard forced together at gunpoint and bastardised with the name 'Nigerians' finally come together in a referendum and decide their political fate.

Aluta Continua!

hurricaneChris:
OP have have you asked Lalasticlala and Seun? they could have different answers.

APCHaram:


You have not contributed one single grain of value to this thread.

If you are short of an argument to oppose my views kindly invoke your fellow janajwiids of higher IQs

realjoker:
ibos with their victim mentality. British did you disservice by lumping you together with other nigerians? Realy, or did you a favour by bringing you together? Tell us the history of the ibos pre-colonization, because the ibos of today live as loose entities before the coming of the whites, so the group that should be claiming that the british did them disservice should be the fulanis, the binis, the yorubas, the idomas, the ijaws, the calabas, the tivs, the igalas who have built empires and have been living as a nation before the coming of the whitemen and not the ibos that where brought together by the same whitemen.

kingzizzy:


Igbos are not empire builders, we never have been. We are a loose confederation of autonomous clans united by language,customs and beliefs. We had no central point of government and we want to return to that because that is our way of life. Had Igbo land not been touched by the British or outside forces there probably would have come a time, by an organic process, where the Igbo elites would have come together and formed a nominal Government with an extremely weak center while the Igbo clans retained a high degree of autonomy becoming the federating units. A true confedertion so to say. The egalitarian nature of the Igbos makes it highly likely that they will fight outside ( and inside) forces who try to impose any authority on them. They fought the British and later fought Nigeria for this reason. The British did us no favours, they actually ruined our way of life.

realjoker:
and you want to ruin your life more by adding those whn dont believe in your ideology in your phantom country, why trying to repeat the crime you acuse the british of by lumping SS minorities in your pipe dream country they are all proud of being an empire builders. I repeat again the british did you a very big favour by bringng you together (i know your egoistic trait will not make you admit it,) if not for the whitemen you would have been living like some dudes lives today somewhere in taraba state. And i salute ur double standard, ibos are not empire builder indeed,keep on wallowing in your deluded minds.

realjoker:
ibos with their victim mentality. British did you disservice by lumping you together with other nigerians? Realy, or did you a favour by bringing you together? Tell us the history of the ibos pre-colonization, because the ibos of today live as loose entities before the coming of the whites, so the group that should be claiming that the british did them disservice should be the fulanis, the binis, the yorubas, the idomas, the ijaws, the calabas, the tivs, the igalas who have built empires and have been living as a nation before the coming of the whitemen and not the ibos that where brought together by the same whitemen.

realjoker:
and you want to ruin your life more by adding those whn dont believe in your ideology in your phantom country, why trying to repeat the crime you acuse the british of by lumping SS minorities in your pipe dream country they are all proud of being an empire builders. I repeat again the british did you a very big favour by bringng you together (i know your egoistic trait will not make you admit it,) if not for the whitemen you would have been living like some dudes lives today somewhere in taraba state. And i salute ur double standard, ibos are not empire builder indeed,keep on wallowing in your deluded minds.

hurricaneChris:
This picture should give an insight to getting the answers you seek.

Am very sure, this never happened in Southern parts as at the time it was being done in North.





In the picture was Mr. Bellingham traveling in Northern Nigeria, being carried by his Slaves.

Source: Auckland Weekly News