Ambiguities of Colonial Law: the Case of Muhammadu Aminu, Former Political Agent and Chief Alkali of Kano

Abstract

Colonial law in Africa involved European moral and legal codes representing some rules of western law, as well as elements of African customary law. However, the colonial situation embodying political and economic domination necessarily negated the ideal practice of the rule of law. Nevertheless, the need arose to introduce some aspects of western law and codes of administration, including salary and benefits schemes for African employees of the colonial government, and legal entitlements such as court trials for accused government employees. These considerations were deemed necessary, if at least to propitiate metropolitan critics of the colonial establishment. Also some rule of law was required for the organization of the colonial economy, including regulation of productive systems and commercial relations. As well, the need for indigenous support necessitated dabbling in indigenous customary conventions. In Muslim polities such as Kano in northern Nigeria, customary conventions included Islamic law.On the establishment of colonial rule in Kano, judicial administration was organized on three principal institutions, involving the resident's provincial court, the judicial council (emir's court), and the chief alkali's court in Kano City with corresponding district alkali courts. The resident's provincial court had jurisdiction over colonial civil servants, including African employees such as soldiers, police constables, clerks and political agents. Also, the provincial court was responsible for enforcing the abolition of the slave trade in the region. The judicial council, classified as “Grade A” court, was composed of the emir, thewaziri(chief legal counselor), the chiefalkaliof Kano (chief judge), theimam(the religious leader of Kano mosque), thema'aji(treasurer), and general assistants including some notable scholars of Kano city. The council adopted thesha'ria(Muslim law) and local Hausa custom, and its jurisdiction extended over “matters of violence, questions of taxation and administration, and cases involving property rights, whether over land, livestock, trade goods, or slaves.” On the issue of capital sentencing, the judicial council required the approval of the resident. The council was also prohibited from authorizing punishments involving torture, mutilation, or decapitation.