The Menace of Colonialism and the Imperative of Koinonia as a Model for Living in a Nigerian Context

Abstract

Introduction

The situation of Nigeria, with its festering conflicts, can best be understood as part of the general problem caused by colonialism. Careful analysis reveals that, in Nigeria, the political circumstances which propagate conflict have been prevalent since colonial times (Pogoson, 2002, 41). The geographical entity now known as Nigeria, like many other colonised nations of the world, has experienced, and is still experiencing the bitter pills of colonialism administered by Great Britain. The Nigerian entity, an artificial creation made up of people of diverse ethnicity, cultures, languages, norms and expectations was established in 1914 by the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates (Lalude and Omitola, 2001, 25–39). Although Nigeria attained independence on 1st October 1960, the negative legacy of colonialism still endures till today. Fundamental problems in the Nigerian polity are attributed to colonialism and the forced amalgamation of the constituting regions – Yoruba in the west, Hausa/Fulani in the north, and Igbo in the east, which created the Nigerian entity (Abdulrahman, 2004, 291–326; Adefulu, 2001, 8–24). However the most poignant of the colonial legacies which threatens the corporate existence of Nigeria is the enduring mutual distrust and ethno-phobia created among the various ethnic groups in Nigeria. It is hoped that a strategic deployment of koinonia will help to mitigate the sad reality that colonialism has brought on the nation.

If koinonia, or fellowship, is understood only in terms of the (vertical) relationship between God and the church, on one hand, and the (horizontal) relationship among Christians within the church, on the other, it will not be able to stand up to a decolonisation critique which the world needs today and which this paper proposes. In the context of crisis occasioned by colonialism which the world and Nigeria face today, koinonia would best underpin or strengthen our ways of understanding and living as members of the same community only if the peaceful coexistence of humans is taken into account. Koinonia is therefore important in a decolonisation critique as it has opened up a variety of ways by which people can coexist together in a peaceful environment.

Statement of the Problem and Methodology

Many years ago, European powerful states dominated the world, with a view to conquering more territories for themselves, and in the competition for the conquest of Nigeria, the British, and French, German, Portuguese and others were at loggerheads. Significantly, the colonial experience that Africa had (and by extension Nigeria), was different from what the Americas, Asia and Europe experienced. Although Western scholars have argued that colonialism brought development and progress to Africa, many African scholars in recent times have argued and repudiated such claims and continuously query the objectives and intent of the colonial enterprise. As claimed by Ake, the colonial experience in Africa was unusually statist and what was obtainable was the redistribution of land, the determination of how to produce what and by who, the deployment of forced labour, the imposition of taxes and finally, the systematic breaking of traditional authority, as well as social relations of productions resulting in proletariat categorisation of the society (Ake, 1982, 12).

Africa’s colonialism, including Nigeria, bifurcates or separates into two camps. On the one hand, there are those who see colonialism as having had a negative impact on the development of Nigeria. This is evident in the establishment of class system, denigration of the traditional system, the demonising of the religious system, and other evils that came with it. On the other hand, some contend that the invasion by the colonial powers paved way for modernisation, civilisation, social transformation, and hence, development of Africa. Scholars have conducted studies on colonialism from these perspectives (e.g. Umaru, 2019, 11). However, many such studies (e.g. Rodney, 1973, passim; Utuk, 1975, 1–3, 97–99; Settles, 1996, 1–12; Adeyeri and Adejuwon, 2012, 1–16; Imhonopi, Urim and Iruonagbe, 2013, 107–122) have failed to properly and intentionally underscore the menace of colonialism and the imperative of koinonia as a living model that could mitigate the effects of colonialism. Hence, the rationale for proposing such a theme here.

The approach of this study is descriptive. We present in a narrative style opinions advanced in the scholarly literature on colonialism and koinonia. The data collected comes from secondary sources, which include journals, textbooks, working papers and allied documents on colonialism and koinonia.

Conceptual Clarifications

Colonialism

Pining down colonialism in a conclusive, commonly accepted definition, has been a challenging, elusive endeavour. This is due to the fluidity of the concept, for colonialism means different things to different people. Hobson, one of the earliest contributors to the study of colonialism, posits that colonialism, in its best sense, is a natural overflow of nationality; its test is the power of the colonist to transplant the civilization they represent to the new natural and social environment in which they found themselves (Hobson, 1938, 7). This means that colonialism involves nationality or racial relationship between cultures that focus on the imposition of one over the other. It is akin to a parent-offspring or superior-inferior relationship. Colonialism is not a mere transplant of a civilization to a new one but was realized through conquest and exercise of sovereignty over one political system by another. It espouses cultural superiority of the colonisers over the colonised. Under its wings, it has discriminatory tendencies against the people being colonised. In the same way, Rubin and Weinstein posit that colonialism can be understood as the conquest and exercise of sovereignty over one political system by another without integrating the subjugated system and assimilating its people (Rubin and Weinstein, 1977, 20).

Some see colonialism as an epitome of unequal socio-cultural and political relationship between nations. According to Ekeh, colonialism refers to the activities of the European colonisers in the process of conquest and rule of Africa and the reaction of those who were subjugated to European conquest and rule (Ekeh, 1983, 3). Colonialism can also be seen as a social movement, with social formations, including, as identified by Agbebaku and Aidelokhai, transformation of existing indigenous structures by transplanting new structures from Europe without their underlying cultural and social imperatives, and the emergence of new social structures due to the dialectical relation of indigenous and new structures based on colonial situations (Agbebaku and Aidelokhai, 2005, 562).

It has been argued that the developments in Europe led European states to adopt the system of colonisation of Africa and other continents. Lenin posits that in Europe, the industrial revolution led to the emergence of big business, which increasingly replaced the small business focus prior to the 19th Century. In Britain, France, Germany, and Italy the new class of industrialists were backed by powerful and strong banking interests. The competition that ensued led one business to absorb another by agreement, and larger concerns were formed to take the features of monopolies or cartels that control the production of a single industry or series of industries linked together. The competition of such monopolies in one country faces similar concerns in other countries that led to international rivalry. This was what gave rise to the struggle for raw materials and markets overseas, which led to the colonisation of other parts of the world. Lenin argued correctly that colonialism is a logical outcome of capitalism. Thus, imperialism is capitalism in a stage of development in which the dominance of monopolies and financial capital has established itself; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun; in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed (Lenin, 1975, 106).

Koinonia

Etymologically, the word koinonia is derived from the Greek root koinon, meaning ‘in common’ or ‘communal’. It is a term used in contrast to ‘private’. When translated into English, it could have multiple meanings, such as ‘communion’, ‘commonality’, ‘fellowship’, ‘mutuality’, ‘partaking’, ‘participating’, ‘reciprocity’, ‘relief’, ‘sharing’, ‘society’, ‘solidarity’, ‘togetherness’, ‘union’, and ‘unity’. Koinonia is a concept that in its religious usage has its origins in the Bible. As a Greek concept, koinonia was a current term in pre-Christian Greek literature, particularly that of Plato and Aristotle. Within the New Testament and in Christian theology, however, the term is also associated with Judaism. In that regard, it is rooted in the Jewish experience of covenant. The biblical meaning(s) and usage of the concept have shaped its theological appropriation in the church. It is understood to be ‘foundational to the church and ecclesial relationality’ (Nalwamba and Sakupapa, 2016, 76–77).

Koinonia, in its most basic sense, is a commonality of community not only with the people around us but with the whole Body of Christ, with God, and with Christ himself. It is the sharing of a common life with other believers – a life that we also share with God the Father and God the Son (John 17). Koinonia, however, is not simply engaging in social activities or sharing goals. The biblical community goes much deeper than sharing common goals, though it ultimately involves that. The biblical community is first of all the sharing of a common life in Christ It is when we grasp this truth that we are in a position to begin to understand true community (Bridges, 1985, 9). Koinonia can be broken down into four distinct elements that can be grouped in two groups. The four are: community relationship, partnership, communion, and sharing material possessions. The first two are dimensions of koinonia as sharing together, the second two refer to sharing with one another. All these parts build up and support one another, and without them true community and fellowship is rarely accomplished.

Even though the concept of koinonia has its origin in the Greek and biblical contexts, the ideals that it conveys are appropriate to the achievement of the general wellbeing of the society in today’s world. This must be one of the reasons why the Early Church emphasized that koinonia be practiced by the new believers. In a world that grapples with the troubles of colonialism, unbiased community relationship, genuine partnership, unalloyed communion with one another, and sharing of both national and personal resources would be an ideal society in which everyone would want to live.

Within the ecumenical movement, koinonia is the expression of the relationship and unity within and among churches, both locally and globally. The term entered ecumenical usage through bilateral dialogues. Within the ambits of the World Council of Churches (WCC), the notion has become a key concept for the description of the essential nature of the church and its unity since the New Delhi Assembly of 1961. Given such meanings as commonality, fellowship, mutuality, sharing, society, solidarity, togetherness, and unity, koinonia could be one of the best elixirs for addressing the negative effects of colonialism in the Nigerian context.

Effects of Colonialism on Nigeria

The geographical area now known as Nigeria became a British colony in the 19th century and there is widespread consensus among scholars such Abdulrahman (2004, 291–326) and Adefulu (2001, 8–24) contend that the consequences of colonisation on Nigeria have been unpalatable, with an avalanche of social, political, religious, and ethic crises. Abdulrahman identifies some of the negative legacies of colonialism, which include the policy of separate development that engendered unequal and uneven distribution of economic and social development in the different regions that make up Nigeria. The adoption of a dual urban policy particularly in Northern Nigeria and the creation of strangers’ quarters promoted segregation (Abdulrahman, 2004, 294).

Eteng avers that the amalgamation of 1914 and the subsequent British colonial policy of divide-and-rule in Nigeria instigated inter-ethno-religious suspicion, residential segregation and antagonism among various communal groups (Eteng, 2004, 37–81). This was a very apt platform for the issue of ethnic and communal rivalries in the nation. It is however sad and surprising to know that there are European and other British allied scholars that see this evil practice as good for the colonies (e.g. Gerhart, 1997). Gerhart argues that Lugard’s policy has contributed to the economic development of colonial territories by their European communities whilst also preserving and developing African institutions; and that the British rule was essentially benign, and in the interest of the people.

In looking at the flip side of the assertion made by Gerhart, Azeez argues that the absence of socio-economic security under the colonial regime led to a situation where indigenes had to seek other ways to support themselves in terms of livelihood. Azeez further observes that the division of Nigeria into three regions for administrative purposes by the Richard's Constitution of 1946 strengthened regional as opposed to national loyalty (Azeez, 2004, 232–233).

The divide-and-rule of the British colonialists also affected the educational setting of Nigeria. The seed of discord was sown among the various ethnic groups with the entrenchment of varying degrees of educational development in the different parts of the country. Oyeranmi posits that the northern part of Nigeria did not allow missionary education to grow as prominent as in other regions of the country (Oyeranmi, 2011, 35).

Nigeria is made of numerous ethnic groups. The major ones by population ranking include Hausa/Fulani in the north-west, 29%; Yoruba in the south-west, 21%; Igbo in the south-east, 18%; Ijaw in the south, 10%; Kanuri in the north-east, 4%; Ibibio in the south 3.5% and Tiv in the north-central, 2.5%. To these there are added many other smaller groups, numbering up to two hundred and fifty (according to the Nigeria Fact Sheet issued by the US Embassy in Nigeria in 2012). Ako-Nai argues that the colonial politics of divide-and-rule is mainly responsible for the propagation of ethnicity and ethnic rivalry in Nigeria as the British played the different ethnic groups against each other and thereby fostered ethnic differences. Consequently, when independence was gained in 1960, there were no political institutions to protect the interests of the varying ethnic groups in Nigeria, including the minority groups. The ethnic rivalry and distrust engineered by colonialism was so intense that from independence till today, Nigeria’s political discourse is strongly coloured by regional affiliations and loyalties as well as by class and ethnic cleavages (Ako-Nai, 2004, 380).

It is clear that a thorough study of the impact of colonialism on Nigeria would take much more space than that allotted here. However, even from the short survey provided, we can conlude that Nigeria emerged out of the experience of colonial rule as a satellite or dependent neo-colonial economy, with a low level of social and political integration and therefore the absence of inter-ethnic trust, national society and leadership, and an uneven development between the constituent territorial units. Moreover, the country inherited institutions and conditions which potentially made for the continuation and amplification of economic, social, political and geographic disparities and a receptive disposition towards the use of force or violence as a means of securing one’s group interests. In view of the inequality and uneven development fostered by colonialism, the salvaging of the nation should not be left in the hands of the government alone, but the Church must also put their hands on deck to see that the nation is again one in which we can live together in peace. Koinonia could be an answer to Nigeria’s conundrum.

Adopting the Koinonia Model for a peaceful coexistence in Nigeria

To combat the menace of colonialism, especially in the Nigerian context, is not a child’s play. However, to achieve this, the four (community relationship, partnership, communion, and sharing material possessions) key aspects of koinonia must be deployed and applied in all facets of life of the Nigerian people. Oswald Nkyanungi emphasised the place of koinonia in African worldview and communal living. He posits that koinonia is present in the interpersonal relationships, kinship, community, resolving of communal issues with the palaver system, sharing of meal in a bond of koinonia, and human work (Nkyanungi, 2016, 66–86).

Nigeria is known for her ethnic diversity (Elugbe, 1994, 62–75). It is a large country in which some 400 languages are spoken (cf. Osaji, 1979; Bamgbose, 2004, 18–34; Brann, 1990, 1–19). Others have suggested that the number is much higher, perhaps somewhere between 450 and 500 languages (Omodiage, 1992, 19–28; Adegbite, 2010, 8; Grimes and Grimes, 2000, 36). This diversity makes it difficult to convey the same message or ideal in all the languages in a similar way. Therefore, here I adopt ubuntu, a Bantu word that means ‘humanity’, ‘humanness’, ‘humaneness’ or ‘kindheartedness’ as an aspect of koinonia that can alleviate the effects of colonialism in Nigeria (Ramose, 1999, 49). Ubuntu also means that which gives life meaning. For that reason, a person who is aggressive and unkind to others is often referred to as a person without ubuntu. Some scholars (e.g. Shutte, 1993, 46) posit that the concept of ubuntu is ingrained in the African worldview. In the Nigerian context, the concept of ubuntu is very much applicable in regard with living together in mutual harmony, and this is an apt application of koinonia.

In talking of koinonia as community, it is good to imagine this community not just from a rural perspective, but also as urban communities. Koinonia in terms of community looks out for those factors that engender cohesion in community, such as the respect for differences in ideologies, tastes, and perspectives. Koinonia seeks the wellbeing of the other person. So, in koinonia, oppressive and segregating tendencies are eschewed. This is what koinonia does in the lives of people that live in a community.

Another aspect of koinonia is kinship, and this is very prominent in the African setting, including in Nigeria. In most of the western world, individualism is pronounced. It is a way of life that encourages family members not to have tightly knitted, united family relations. This way of life is one of the setbacks that were imported in Nigeria through colonialism. This is particularly obvious in recent times. However, the positive effect of kinship remains high in the Nigerian context. This feature of koinonia is evident during key events in the lives of the people in Nigeria, especially during ceremonies such as wedding, burial, moving into a new home, especially one built by oneself. Underscoring the importance of koinonia as enshrined in kinship, Mbiti (1969, 104) has remarked:

The deep sense of Kinship, with all it implies, has been one of the strongest forces in traditional African life….it is kinship which controls social relationships between people in a given community…indeed, this sense of kinship binds together the entire life of the ‘tribe’, and is even extended to cover animals, plants and non-living objects through the ‘totemic’ system. Almost all the concepts connected with human relationship can be understood and interpreted through the kinship system.

The above attitude acts as a foundation for a wider bond of koinonia that fosters the life of communion. It is on this basis that Njoku insists on communalism being central in African social consciousness. This is because it is a cultural model that shapes the individual’s self-vision, relationship with the ‘other’ and the entire cosmos (Njoku, 2006, 59–80). The kinship system therefore is like a vast network, stretching horizontally in every direction, to embrace everybody in any given local group. This implies that all people are related in one way or another; everybody is related to someone else. According to Mbiti, when two strangers meet in an African village, the first step is to sort out how they may be related to one another in order to refer to each other in that capacity (Mbiti, 1969, 104). The absence or eroding of this worldview and way of living is what colonialism succeeded in achieving in Nigeria, and which koinonia is out to restore.

Koinonia is also seen in the area of traditional African jurisprudence as restorative justice. Restorative justice is a key that opens the door to peace in a community. In the Nigerian context that is riddled with all manner of conflict. Koinonia, in the form of restorative justice is an imperative. In this regard, Desmond Tutu (Tutu, 1999, 51) has these to say:

I contend that there is another kind of justice, restorative justice, which was characteristic of traditional African jurisprudence. Here the central concern is not retribution or punishment but, in the spirit of Ubuntu, the healing of breaches, the redressing of imbalances, the restoration of broken relationships. This kind of justice seeks to rehabilitate both the victim and the perpetrator, who should be given the opportunity to be reintegrated into the community he or she has injured by his or her offence.

Tutu beautifully puts it in perspective – the significance of koinonia in the African, and by extension, the Nigerian context. As does Tutu, Boraine opines that restorative justice is about restoring victims, restoring offenders and restoring communities (Boraine, 2000, 69). It is clear from the foregoing that koinonia, in its broadest sense, is about collective justice, aimed at nation-building and reconciliation.

In traditional African settings, it was a common feature to see people engage in dialogical talks known as palaver. It was a process whereby various community issues were dealt with. It is interesting to note that this kind of process of resolving issues was different from the western model that involves a technical argumentative process that does not lead to communal living. The palaver form of koinonia is still very much in use in some Nigerian communities. This is, however, a mode of leadership interaction foreign to colonialism, where the British style of divide-and-rule presented the very opposite. Palaver is not only practised in the general community, but also at the family level. Bujo avers that this is an imperative for the family. He insists that the African participates in the community life in which he or she shares in a ‘common family-hood with others – those who are dead and those who are to be born’ (Bujo, 2001, 69). This kind of bond is what the colonialists destroyed through colonisation, thereby destroying the bond that held African and Nigerian societies together.

Conclusion

Colonialism, with all its ramifications, is an act and a process that brought disservice to humanity. Even though proponents of colonialism argue that it brings development and enlightenment to the colonies, opponents have demonstrated that colonialism does no good to those being colonized. Colonialism has impoverished the oppressed and left them to wallow in poverty. It destroyed traditions, culture, religion, and the communality of a people. This study has shown that nations that have gone through the process of colonialism do not have anything good to say about it. Alternatively, koinonia, as seen in the Bible, is a gift to human beings by God. It originates from the Triune God, who is communion, and whose plan is to make human beings share in this noble gift with the Holy Trinity and with one another. In this paper we have argued that God gave koinonia as a model of true companionship in the communal life of a community. It is however painful to see that the reverse of koinonia is what is more prevalent in contemporary times in some Nigerian contexts. The modern culture is being eaten up by various forms of selfish individualistic tendencies that are the resultant effects of colonialism. These range from individuals to collective systems like political and economic forms of oppression. The task of the Church in such conditions is to nurture koinonia and all its aspects, for the wellbeing of the Church and the nation.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Raphael Akhijemen Idialu

Author biography

Raphael Akhijemen Idialu, holds a doctorate in Christian Theology of the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. He specialises in Mission Studies and Old Testament Studies. At the time of this publication, he was the Rector of Methodist Theological Institute, Sagamu, Ogun State, Nigeria where he has been lecturing since 2009. He has held some positions in the Institute prior to his present position as Rector in 2020.

References

Abdulrahman

(2004) Colonialism, development paths, globalization and social inequality: The sources of social conflict in Nigeria. In: Oni

Gupta

Omoniyi

, et al. (eds) Nigeria and Globalization: Discourses on Identity Politics and Social Conflict. Lagos: CBAAC, 291–326.

Adefulu

(2001) The context of politics and governance in postcolonial Nigeria. In: Adefulu

Olaitan

(eds) Issues in Nigerian Government and Politics. Ijebu-Ode: RAD Consultancy, 8–24.

Adegbite

(2010) English Language usage, uses and misuse(s) in a non-host second language context, Nigeria. Inaugural Lecture Series 231, Ile-Ife: Obafemi Awolowo University.

Adeyeri

Adejuwon

(2012) The implications of British colonial economic policies on Nigeria’s development. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences I(2): 1–16.

Agbebaku

Aidelokhai

(2005) Colonialism and decolonization process in Africa. In: Ikelegbe

(ed) Introduction to Politics. Lagos: Imprint Services.

Ake

(1982) The Political Economy of Africa. Washington, DC: Brooking Institute.

Ako-Nai

(2004) The politics of marginalization in Nigeria: challenges of the fourth republic. In: Oni

Gupta

Omoniyi

, et al. (eds) Nigeria and Globalization: Discourses on Identity Politics and Social Conflict. Lagos: CBAAC, 371–387.

Azeez

(2004) The dynamics of ethnic politics and democratic consolidation in Nigeria: A prognosis. In: Oni

Gupta

Omoniyi

, et al. (eds) Nigeria and Globalization: Discourses on Identity Politics and Social Conflict. Lagos: CBAAC, 327–342.

Bamgbose

(2004) Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. In: Pfaffe

(ed) Making Multilingual Education a Reality for All: Operationalizing Good Intentions. Proceedings of the Joint Third International Conference of the Association for the Development of African Languages in Education, Science and Technology and the Fifth Malawian National Languages Symposium at Mangochi, Malawi, 2004. Zomba: University of Malawi.

10.

Boraine

(2000) A Country Unmasked: Inside South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Brann

CMB

(1990) The role and function of language in government language policy issues in Nigeria. Sociolinguistics I(1): 1–19.

12.

Bridges

(1985) True Fellowship: The Biblical Practice of Koinonia. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

13.

Bujo

(2001) Foundations of an African Ethic: Beyond the Universal Claims of Western Morality. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company.

14.

Ekeh

(1983) Colonialism and Social Structure. Ibadan: O.U.P.

15.

Elugbe

(1994) Minority language development in Nigeria: A situation report on rivers and bendel states. In: Fardon

Fumiss

(eds). London: Routledge, 62–75.

16.

Eteng

(2004) Ethnicity, ethno-class relations and crisis of Nigeria’s enduring “national question” and political instability. In: Oni

Gupta

Omoniyi

, et al. (eds) Nigeria and Globalization: Discourses on Identity Politics and Social Conflict. Lagos: CBAAC, 37–81.

17.

Gerhart

(1997) F.D Lugard’s “The Dual Mandate” in British Tropical Africa. Foreign Affairs, September-October.

18.

Grimes

(2000) Ethnologue, Languages of the World. Vol. 1. Dallas: SIL International.

19.

Hobson

(1938) Imperialism: A Study, 3rd edn London: The Free Press.

20.

Imhonopi

Urim

Iruonagbe

(2013) Colonialism, social structure and class formation: implication for development in Nigeria. In: A Panoply of Readings in Social Sciences. Lessons for and from Nigeria. Department of Sociology, Covenant University. Ibadan: Cardinal Prints Ibadan.

21.

Lalude

Omitola

(2001) British Colonial policy in Nigeria. In: Adefulu

Olaitan

(eds) Issues in Nigerian Government and Politics. RAD Consultancy, 25–39.

22.

Lenin

(1975) Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Peking: Foreign Language Press.

23.

Mbiti

(1969) African Religions and Philosophy. Nairobi: Heinemann Educational Books.

24.

Nalwamba

Sakupapa

(2016) Ecology and fellowship (Koinonia): A community of life. In: Ayre

Conradie

(eds) The Church in God’s Household: Protestant Perspectives on Ecclesiology and Ecology. Pietermaritzburg: Cluster Publications, 75–93.

25.

Njoku

(2006) African Communalism: from a cultural model to a culture in crisis. Bulletin of Ecumenical Theology XVIII: 59–80.

26.

Nkyanungi

(2016) The Hermeneutics of the Trinitarian koinonia as a Fundamental Component of Contemporary Christian Praxis. Master’s Thesis, Tangaza University College.

27.

Omodiage

(1992) 150 Years on English in the Nigerian school system: past, present and future. ELT Journal 46(1): 19–28.

28.

Osaji

(1979) Language Survey in Nigeria. Quebec: International Centre for Research on Bilingualism.

29.

Oyeranmi

(2011) The colonial background to the problem of ethnicity in Nigeria: 1914–1960. Journal of History and Diplomatic Studies 8 (1): 35–62.

30.

Pogoson

(2002) The international dimension of reconciliation and Re-integration. In: Osaghae

Onwudiwe

Suberu

(eds) The Nigerian Civil War and the Aftermath. Ibadan: John Archers.

31.

Ramose

(1999) African Philosophy Through Ubuntu. Harare: Mond Books.

32.

Rodney

(1973) How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Dar-Es-Salaam: London and Tanzanian Publishing House.

33.

Rubin

Weinstein

(1977) Introduction to African Politics: A Continental Approach. New York: Praegon.

34.

Settles

(1996) The Impact of Colonialism on African Economic Development. University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects, Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/182.

35.

Shutte

(1993) Philosophy for Africa. Rondebosch: UCT Press.

36.

Tutu

(1999) No Future Without Forgiveness. London and Johannesburg: Rider and Random House.

37.

Umaru

(2019) Colonialism and the development in Nigeria: effects and challenges. International Affairs and Global Strategy LXX(11): 9–20.

38.

Utuk

(1975) Britain’s Colonial Administrations and Developments, 1861–1960: An Analysis of Britain's Colonial Administrations and Developments in Nigeria. Master Thesis, Portland State University.