Politics of capital city and the ‘no-man’s land’ concept
From historical perspectives, the British colonialists’ basic criteria for choice of capital for their colonies were administrative convenience and security for the British personnel and the contribution of the selected city to the colonial economy. They were more mindful of the efficient running of the colonial economy, rather than the overriding interest of Nigeria. “Consul […]
From historical perspectives, the British colonialists’ basic criteria for choice of capital for their colonies were administrative convenience and security for the British personnel and the contribution of the selected city to the colonial economy. They were more mindful of the efficient running of the colonial economy, rather than the overriding interest of Nigeria.
“Consul Beecroft pitched his headquarters in Fenando Po for 24 years because he was not sure of Nigeria’s reaction. It was later moved to the old Calabar where the British were sure of the loyalty of the local chiefs and their people. The Royal Niger Company on the other hand had their headquarters in Asaba and Lokoja. In the final years of 19th Century, the British took the responsibilities of the amalgamated Lagos, the Niger Coast Protectorate and all areas under the control of the Royal Niger Company. In the South two administrative units emerged; Calabar, for the Niger Coast Protectorate and Lagos, the headquarters of the Colony and Protectorate of Lagos.
“When the Northern Protectorate was created in 1900, the administrative headquarters was successively directed from Jebba, Lokoja, Zungeru and finally Kaduna, between 1900 – 1917. Due to the keen interest Luggard had in Kaduna he suggested that Lagos and Kaduna be used as two Capital Cities” (Bena 1974).
The question of position of Lagos first came up in the joint Lagos and colony conferences and also at the West Regional Conference which took place in 1949. By 1950 the majority of the members of the select committee of the legislative council recommended that subject to certain safeguards, Lagos be merged with the West, which the British accepted.
These safeguards were designed to protect the position of Lagos as Nigeria’s Capital City. By the time of the Nigerian politicians’ assembly in London for the constitutional conference, Lagos municipality was separated from the Western Region. Thus Lagos became and remained the Federal Capital until 1967, when as a result of emergency Lagos State was created, and hence assumed an additional role of State Capital.
Accordingly, as described, “Capital City represents an arena for frontal collision between dissimilar heritages and value systems; a melting pot of culture; a dominant focus of cultural transmission and dissemination as well as a hot bed of political fermentation” (Bena 1974).
The politicians from the three regional blocks since 1950s, argued on the basis of economy and politics, that, since Lagos was developed with public fund, it is unfair to hand it over to one region. This resulted to making of the Federal Capital Territory independent of any political unit, otherwise referred to as the “no man’s land”.
Three major factors were responsible for the escalation of the debate for the reconsideration of the status of Lagos as the Nation’s Capital. The first factor was the political, as already presented. However it was the second and third which were the environmental and physical factors that produced the last straw that broke the camel’s back.
In later years, Lagos was described as the “Problem Capital”. Due to physical and environmental problems largely caused by the population increase beyond the physical capacity of the city. That argument was supported in the National Development Plan. It also noted that the increase in population resulted to serious overcrowding in slum areas. While physically, its 621.2 square kilometer land size is considered grossly inadequate for use as a Federal Capital alone, and posed serious impediment to its transformation into modern capital city.
“In addition two international agencies; the United Nations and Ford Foundation supported these assertions, when in 1970 they reported that, in metropolitan Lagos; chaotic traffic conditions became endemic, demand on water system outstrip its maximum capacity, interrupted power supply became chronic, as industrial and domestic demand far exceed capacity utilization, as a result of which factories were compelled to bore their own wells and standby generators” (Bena 74).
In 1965 Lagos had a concentration of about 32 percent of the country’s total manufacturing plants and in 1970 it had an estimated annual population increase of 11 percent. Lagos as the Capital of Nigeria is the largest sea-port, the largest employment center, the capital of Lagos State and the largest commercial and financial capital. All of these were interfering with the normal efficiency of government. As deduced from such research, continuous heavy investments in Lagos were not in the country’s best interest.
“Experts have predicted that the cost of maintaining the city and constructing adequate drainage and modern infrastructure that would make for a healthy environment would soon have outstripped the cost of building a brand new capital, without any consequential improvement in the almost unbearable living conditions obtaining in the city” (Musa 1982).
In such situations the Military Government of Late Murtala Mohammed was obligated to constitute a panel, headed by Justice T. A. Aguda, and mandated to revisit the status of Lagos as the Federal Capital City, and to recommend a suitable alternative, if found otherwise, with the view to addressing both the political and environmental factors that generated the debate, in other words, to recommend the “No man’s land”.
The implementation in Abuja is now history. But, not without casualties, depending on other interpretations, or, misconceptions of the term, “No man’s land”.