What if Nigeria Was Never Amalgamated in 1914?

In 1914, a British colonial officer named Lord Frederick Lugard signed off on one of the most consequential decisions in West African history: the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates of Nigeria. 

With one stroke, dozens of distinct kingdoms, cultures, and communities were forced under a single name: Nigeria. But what if that never happened?

A different map — A different future?

Without amalgamation, it’s likely we’d be looking at two or more independent nations today, perhaps a Northern Islamic republic with ties to the Sahel region, and a Southern state rooted in Atlantic trade, Christianity, and coastal cultures.

The Northern and Southern regions weren’t just different, they were governed separately, had different colonial policies, religions, languages, and economic systems. 

The North had indirect rule through emirs; the South had missionary education and Western institutions. The two barely interacted.

Forcing them into one political unit was like merging fire and water, and hoping for harmony.

Political power would be more balanced

Post-independence politics in Nigeria has always revolved around ethnic balancing, zoning, and “national character.” Without amalgamation, political power wouldn’t be a zero-sum game between regions, because there wouldn’t be one central government to fight over.

Instead, each region might have developed its own leadership, economic strategy, and national identity without interference or forced compromise.

Is it a less ethnic tension or just different conflicts?

Amalgamation didn’t create Nigeria’s ethnic groups, but it certainly forced them into uncomfortable proximity. The Biafran War, recurring religious violence, and regional distrust can all be traced, in part, to the struggle of incompatible political visions.

Without amalgamation, there may have been less ethnic tension at the national level, but that doesn’t mean peace. Smaller nations might have fought internally over their own identities, or even clashed with neighbors over borders, trade, or ideology.

Economic development might have been more 

The colonial economy was built to extract, not to develop. But after amalgamation, resources from the South (especially palm oil and later, crude oil) often went to fund the colonial administration in the North.

Without amalgamation, Southern Nigeria might have kept more control of its wealth, and the North could have developed along its own priorities perhaps investing more in agriculture, trade with North Africa, or Islamic education, instead of depending on federal allocation.

Would Nigeria Still Be a Giant?

Today, Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country and one of its largest economies. But it’s also deeply divided, fragile, and governed by compromise.

Without amalgamation, we might have had three strong regional nations instead of one struggling federation. Would they have formed an ECOWAS-style alliance? A West African superpower bloc? Or become bitter rivals?

Amalgamation wasn’t negotiated by Nigerians. It was decided in London. It wasn’t about nation-building, it was about administrative convenience and cost-saving.

Over a century later, we’re still trying to build a sense of unity across ethnic, religious, and cultural lines that were never meant to be fused so abruptly.

So, what if Nigeria was never amalgamated? Maybe we wouldn’t be better. Maybe we wouldn’t be worse. But we would certainly be different, and possibly, more self-defined.