Another Story: Debunking the Unilever-Nigeria Colonization Claim

Map of Nigeria showing the boundaries of 1914

Burnaboy’s hit song “Another Story” from his 2019 album “African Giant” offers a thought-provoking perspective on Nigeria’s origins. The intro claims Nigeria’s existence began with “a simple business deal” transferring control from the Royal Niger Company to the British Empire. Was colonization truly just a commercial transaction? Let’s untangle the truth behind this claim and Unilever’s alleged involvement.

We must consider the economic drive to understand European colonization in the 18th century. Rapid industrialization demanded resources beyond their borders. As imperialists tend to do, European powers sought these resources at the lowest possible cost in faraway lands.

Chartered companies were instruments used to initiate colonization. Granted a royal charter by a monarch, these entities enjoyed exclusive rights and monopolies in specific regions, playing a significant role in European colonial expansion. Here are some infamous examples:

• Dutch East India Company (VOC): Established in 1602, the VOC aimed to colonize the East Indies (modern-day Indonesia) through trade.
• British East India Company (BEIC): Founded in 1600, the BEIC played a central role in establishing British rule in India.
• Royal African Company (RAC): Chartered in 1672, the RAC monopolized English trade with West Africa and was a major player in the transatlantic slave trade.
• Royal Niger Company (RNC): Established in 1886, the RNC aimed to exploit the economic potential of the Niger River and its surrounding territories. They received a charter granting them a trade monopoly and other privileges in the area, directly facilitating the colonization of present-day Nigeria.

But why outsource colonization efforts? These chartered companies essentially functioned as extensions of empires, carrying out their goals. Here’s how they benefited the British Empire:

• Shared Risk and Investment: Chartered companies shouldered the financial risks of colonizing distant territories, allowing private investors to potentially profit while shielding the government from losses.
• Limited Resource Commitment: The British government could extend its influence without a significant initial investment in military or administrative resources. Chartered companies managed day-to-day operations, with the government retaining the option to intervene or take direct control when necessary.
• Economic Gain: Colonies rich in natural resources, trade routes, or agricultural products were prime targets for chartered companies. They efficiently exploited these resources for economic gain, minimizing direct government involvement.
• Competition with Other European Powers: During the “Scramble for Africa,” chartered companies allowed Britain to swiftly claim and exploit territories, establishing a presence and asserting control ahead of rivals.
• Adaptability: Chartered companies, more adaptable to local conditions, played a crucial role in trade, infrastructure development, and interactions with diverse communities, offering a flexibility that centralized governments often lacked.
• Global Trade Networks: Companies like the RAC and BEIC leveraged their existing trade networks, streamlining colonization by building upon established economic relationships.

The Royal Niger Company’s Brutal Legacy

Colonization was a brutal affair, and the RNC was no exception. They established oil trade monopolies by coercing local kingdoms and city-states into unfair treaties. This power imbalance resulted in highly advantageous terms for the RNC, including exclusive trade rights, control over resources, and territorial dominance.

By 1895, the RNC’s ruthless tactics had fueled deep resentment in the Lower Niger territory. This, along with other factors, culminated in the Brass Oil War (or Nembe War). The war stemmed from the struggle for control of the palm oil trade. King Koko of Nembe refused to sign a treaty with the RNC that would have ceded control, leading him to attack the company’s headquarters and capture British workers as leverage.

The British Royal Navy responded swiftly with a brutal attack on Brass, the Nembe kingdom’s capital. The town was burned to the ground, and many innocent lives were lost. King Koko was exiled and later died in exile.

Public outrage in Britain over the RNC’s brutality led to the revoking of their charter. The British government assumed direct control of the territory. Following this, the RNC sold its holdings to the British government for £865,000 (roughly £46 million today), effectively the price Britain paid for the territory that would become Nigeria.

With the transfer of control, the RNC’s influence waned. In 1929, the remnants of the RNC merged with another British trading company in West Africa, the African and Eastern Trade Corporation, to form the United African Company (UAC). The UAC focused on import-export trade across West Africa, dealing in goods like palm oil, cotton, and manufactured items.

Unilever and the Legacy of Colonization

Unilever’s connection to Nigeria’s colonization is more nuanced than Burnaboy’s song suggests. Here’s what transpired:

• 1938: Unilever acquired the United African Company (UAC), making it a subsidiary.
• 1987: Unilever fully absorbed UAC, meaning UAC ceased to exist as a separate company.

Unilever wasn’t directly involved in colonizing Nigeria. However, they inherited parts of a company (the Royal Niger Company) that had already played a significant role in facilitating colonization before losing its charter.

A Crucial Distinction:

It’s important to differentiate between Unilever and the United African Company of Nigeria (UACN). UACN is a Nigerian company that emerged from the UAC after its absorption by Unilever. UACN operates independently, involved in various sectors like manufacturing and food production. Some popular UACN brands in Nigeria include Mr Biggs, Dulux Paints, and Debonairs Pizza.

So, is Unilever responsible for colonizing Nigeria?

No. The Royal Niger Company, a separate entity acquired by Unilever much later, played a part in colonization. However, it’s important to acknowledge the complex historical context and the human cost of colonization.

The Bottom Line:

While Unilever wasn’t a direct player in Nigeria’s colonization, it inherited a legacy linked to that period through its acquisition of the UAC. Large corporations must be aware of their historical connections and strive for ethical practices moving forward.