Through unknown Nigeria

by John R. Raphael

Whilst at Bukuru I spent two mornings in the Court held by the Resident, Mr S. E. M. Stobart—he has the rank of Assistant Resident—and what was seen will perhaps give an idea of one portion of the excellent work performed by the British political officers in these all but unknown areas of Northern Nigeria.

The first case was that of an elderly Pagan who complained that a young wife of his had gone to the house of “another man,” who struck him when he went to interview and claim the lady. Mr Stobart sent one of his native staff to make enquiries. The report put a fresh complexion on the story. True the girl was living in the house of “another man” and he had assaulted the veteran Benedick; but the girl was his daughter and she had sought refuge from the ill-usage of her husband. Mr Stobart told the complainant that when he was satisfied the young woman would be properly treated she would be ordered to return; not until.

The next suit dealt with a plot of farming land near Bukuru. Each of the two men claimed it. As tribal convention tinged with a dozen local considerations would be a determining factor guiding a conclusion, the Resident had referred the question to the sub-chiefs of the respective wards in which the men lived. Previous to the advent of the British, if a fight had not been desired the issue would be tried by ordeal. At the direction of a Chief, poison would be prepared by a medicine man for both parties, which they would swallow, and the one who survived or better resisted the effect of the draught would be adjudged the award.

Trial by ordeal is now strictly prohibited, but until the Pagan people have developed more intelligent methods a substitute remains unbanned. This consists of each party to a dispute providing a fowl, which is given poison. The owner of the surviving bird secures the verdict. It is a process not encouraged by the British Residents, who strive to make the leading men decide matters on their merits.

The two sub-chiefs had come to say they could not agree—no doubt because neither was willing to give decree against a person in his own section of the village—and they thought trial by fowls would be the best way of reaching a satisfactory conclusion. Mr Stobart pointed out that when he had to solve a difficult case he did not call for two fowls and that sub-chiefs of such intelligence should be able to rely on their own brains. He would not sanction the use of fowls. They must themselves judge and bring adjudication to him within three days. They promised to have another try.

A young Pagan presented himself to the Resident and stated he had been twice sold into slavery. His story was that whilst working on his farm he was seized by a Hausa, taken several days’ journey and disposed of for two horses. The vendor explained to his victim that he had to do it owing to severe need and told the sufferer that if he escaped—giving a scheme by which he might—and came to the captor he would see that the captive got home safely with at least part recompense for what he would have endured. The unsophisticated Pagan did escape and came back, whereupon he was again made prisoner and sold for three horses. A second time he escaped, and having learnt wisdom he went to the Resident of his district, who sent for the accused Hausa and committed him for trial by a higher Court. If found guilty he would forfeit the five horses to the injured party and be liable to five years’ imprisonment.

Although slave-raiding on the scale practised a few years ago is now impossible, kidnapping and slave-dealing is by no means stamped out. One plan is by various pretexts to induce individuals or a family to journey to some place near the French or the German frontier and sell them over either border, where apparently the crime is not regarded nearly so seriously as by the British authorities.

There had been a party of Hausas who caught young fellows, sent them by go-betweens along routes off the main track to confederates north of Sokoto, by whom the captives were sold over the French boundary. When the English authorities first learnt part of the scheme they kept quite quiet until the whole plan and those engaged in it were known. Then, suddenly, descents were made simultaneously at both ends and all the principals and their subordinates arrested. Evidence was overwhelming. The main offenders are serving five years’ hard labour.

A slave case of a different character came before Mr Stobart whilst I was at Bukuru. In this instance it was a Pagan who was charged with having in his house, prisoner, a boy, son of a Fulani. The lad had been in charge of a herd of travelling cattle which instead of keeping together and on the move whilst going through cultivated ground had been allowed to stray among the Pagan’s accha crops. To his remonstrances the youngster answered defiantly. The farmer marched the boy off and informed his father that the child would not be given up until compensation for the damage was forthcoming. The Fulani went to Mr Stobart, who sent his police for all the parties and, having heard what they had to say, delivered judgment, in effect, as follows: The Pagan had done serious wrong by interfering with the “liberty of the subject.” Technically he had made the boy a slave and therefore was liable to severe punishment, especially as he should have known that redress was always exacted for damaged crops. However, taking into consideration the provocation, for every day he had held the lad prisoner he must go to prison for 4, making 16 in all. On the other hand, the Fulani was responsible for not taking care that his cattle were controlled in a way that would prevent them damaging the crops of the Pagan and therefore the order was for him to pay all the compensation claimed.

A case which arose from a similar cause was that of a Pagan having speared a Fulani in the leg. Only a flesh wound had been inflicted. The Fulani’s bullocks, passing the farm of the Pagan, had eaten his growing guinea-corn. The sentence of the Resident was that although the Pagan suffered a grievance he had no right to take the remedy into his own hands and would accordingly be fined eight spears—all he possessed—whilst the Fulani, who should have precluded his animals straying off the path, must requite the complete damage specified.