Draft:Evolution of African justice system

• Comment: This is not encyclopaedic. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Pre-Colonial legal system in Africa: How laws worked in the Benin Kingdom before colonial rule.

The Benin Kingdom was a strong and important state in West Africa from the 1100s to the 1800s. It's also one of the African kingdoms that European writers talked about the most during that time.. Modern legal history, at least from a Western point of view, began in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Benin’s oral traditions are a trusted source of knowledge. They reflect the people’s identity, what they know, and help keep their shared history alive. Even though some people have strongly criticised oral history, it's still seen as reliable and trustworthy. Early researchers like Joseph Egharevba and R.E. Bradbury used oral traditions a lot in their work on Benin history

The Benin Kingdom was the first place in Black Africa that European explorers visited. According to Victor Osaro Edo and Idahosa Osagie Ojo, it’s important to note that Portuguese missionaries came in the late 1400s and early 1500s. In 1538, they baptized some of the Oba’s chiefs and his son. Even earlier, in 1516, they built a church in the capital and taught the king’s oldest son and two top chiefs how to read. The first Catholic churches in what is now Nigeria were built by the Portuguese in the Benin Kingdom during the 1500s.

The Portuguese also introduced firearms to the Benin Kingdom in the 1500s. The Benin Kingdom also sent ambassadors to Portugal during this time. In the 1800s, the British didn’t see African kingdoms as equal partners in international relations. This was because of the racist, Eurocentric beliefs common in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Many Western scholars and colonial officials thought Africans weren’t “civilized,” so they didn’t consider African kingdoms part of international law. Because of this, Africa was left out of the main development of international law at the time. Elias also pointed out that African rulers were called “kings” before signing treaties, but after that, they were often treated like “chiefs” instead. This meant they were seen as having the power to make agreements but then became subjects under the new rulers. So, when the Benin Kingdom signed the treaty with the British on March 26, 1892, it marked the start of losing their independence. By 1897, when the British invaded, Benin’s sovereignty was completely gone. Benin lost its political independence and sovereignty in 1897, which also led to the breakdown of its traditional system of government. Before colonization, Benin’s political system included the Oba (the king), the Enogie (village heads), and the Ekhaevben (chiefs or title holders) in different ranks The Oba was in charge of the whole kingdom, but at the district and village levels, he got help from the Enigie (village heads) and the titled chiefs. Each of them had specific roles and responsibilities Hence, the officials in Benin’s political system were people who held titles called “egie.” The main groups of title holders who helped run Benin were the Uzama n’ihinron (the seven Uzama), the Eghaevbo n’Ogbe (palace chiefs), and the Eghaevbo n’Ore (town chiefs)

In pre-colonial Benin, the Oba was both the head of state and the head of government. He held the kingdom’s judicial, legislative, and executive powers. But Girshick and Thornton say that a civil war in the 1600s changed the Oba’s powers quite a bit.

They say that before 1640, the Oba ruled Benin directly, with help from officials the royal family appointed. but the civil war that followed caused conflict between different parts of the government and even between the kings themselves. As a result, Benin shifted from being ruled by just the Oba to being governed more collectively.

Even though the Benin Kingdom had a centralized system with the Oba at the top, there were still checks and balances in place to limit his power.

The idea of using checks and balances to limit a ruler’s power wasn’t unique to pre-colonial Benin. According to Edo, many other pre-colonial kingdoms in what is now Nigeria also had democratic features built into their political and administrative systems, even if some people think otherwise.

Also, despite the ethnocentric belief that pre-colonial Africa had no real system of governance, that idea isn’t true. African societies have always had their own systems of governance, shaped by their traditions and beliefs. That’s why the most important political and ceremonial roles in the Benin Kingdom were tied to chiefly titles, called egie. There were many of these titles, arranged in a detailed system of ranks and levels.

There are seven Uzama, and they’re known as the oldest and highest-ranking group of chiefs in the Benin Kingdom. While they do have political roles, their main job is to install or crown a new Oba. One of them, the Ezomo, also leads wars on behalf of the Oba. So, the Uzama played, and still play a key role in the political leadership of the Benin Kingdom.

Shared Responsibility in Traditional Law.

Both individual and group responsibility exist in many legal systems, including Western law and African traditional law. For example, in English law, a legal person can be an individual or a company.

In African indigenous law, like the Yoruba legal system, the group’s legal identity often matters more than the individual’s

Pre-colonial Benin was no different. Collective responsibility was a key part of its legal system.The Benin Kingdom had some unique features in its laws that helped promote justice and keep peace. One of these was recognizing group responsibility, especially when holding someone accountable in a case or dispute. In pre-colonial Benin, and even today, the idea of legal personality is very broad. The law made the extended family and close friends responsible together. This helped keep peace and good relationships among everyone in the community. Because people depended on each other so much and shared a lot, it was hard to treat someone as just an individual. So, if someone did something wrong, their family and close friends were held responsible too, acting like their guarantors. There’s a Benin saying that shows this well: “ekhue mu oyi vbe no mueo etioen,” which means, “the thief is not as ashamed as his relatives.”

In Benin, not just the person who did something wrong, but their family, friends, whole households, and even their property, whether living or not, shared in the guilt and punishment. This makes sense because if one person was “polluted” or seen as carrying a wrong, that pollution was also linked to everyone connected to them, including people, animals, and things they owned. Since society wasn’t focused just on individuals but was tightly connected, it wouldn’t make sense to punish only one person and ignore those closely linked to them. The laws in Benin connected people’s legal responsibilities with those of their relatives and associates. This meant collective responsibility and interdependence were part of the system. It was common for disputes to involve not just the people directly involved but also their families or relatives. So, if someone in a family was involved in a scandal, other family members could also face punishment or shame. In the Benin Kingdom, the justice system could even take a person’s goat or other livestock to please the gods for the wrongs done by their relatives or to pay fines set by the authorities. It was common for a law-abiding person to make up for the crimes of a close relative if that relative didn’t have the money to pay, especially if they lived in the same household. Holding people responsible for the wrongdoings of their close family wasn’t unique to the Benin people. Many groups across pre-colonial Africa did this. Adewoye points out that families usually took collective responsibility for how their members behaved, both in civil and criminal cases. In many pre-colonial African societies, if someone committed murder, their close relatives could also be punished, unless the killer or another family member paid compensation or offered the right sacrifices

A British colonial officer once described how things worked in Southern Nigeria before British rule. He said that most crimes weren’t punished just on the person who did it, but on their whole family.

In Benin, even if the person who committed the offense had died, their close relatives could still be held responsible. The family justice system, the Oba’s courts, and other traditional authorities could punish an heir for a crime committed by a parent—even if it was only discovered after the parent’s death.

Idahosa Idemudia gives a good example with adultery: if someone committed adultery and then died, their family was still expected to carry out the proper rituals to make things right. The same applied if a man disrespected the elders, the gods, or a sacred place and died because of it his eldest son had to atone for that wrongdoing. Even though the laws in the Benin Kingdom weren’t written down, people knew them well, and they were often strictly followed.

Because the law emphasized collective responsibility, everyone was expected to help bring wrongdoers to justice. Ignoring someone who clearly disrupted the peace was seen as morally wrong. In fact, anyone who protected or hid a criminal could also be held responsible. If not punished, that person could become a serious problem for the whole community

For serious crimes like theft, libel, or assault—especially if done in public—anyone who witnessed it was required to raise the alarm and help catch the offender so they could be taken to court. Elias points out that, besides the general rule that everyone in the community had a duty to help catch criminals, many African societies, especially those with strong governments, organized administration, and military strength, had special public officials who acted like police. These officials were responsible for bringing stubborn or uncooperative offenders before the king or chief, even by force if necessary. In civil cases, it was up to the family to make sure that any member involved in a dispute showed up at the village court. If that person ran away or couldn’t be found, the rest of the family, including extended relatives, might be held responsible for paying any fines or compensation. Once everyone involved in the case was present, the court would begin by asking questions. Each party—and any witnesses—would be examined and cross-examined. The judges or those leading the discussion could also ask questions to clear up confusion and make sure everyone stayed focused on the important parts of the case. The way the Benin people handled disputes is best captured by a local proverb: Ya ru egbe ghe ẹ re a ya bu ohiẹn nẹ Ẹdo, which means “put yourself in the shoes of those involved.” In other words, fairness and empathy were key when settling cases.

Before British rule, the Benin justice system also recognized a practice called Iyoha. This was an economic arrangement where debtors could offer their children or close relatives as a pledge or guarantee to repay what they owed. According to Philip Igbafe, if someone couldn’t pay a fine, the authorities would seize his livestock or even animals belonging to his family. If there were no animals to take and the person still didn’t pay, he would be taken to Benin City and locked up in the Oba’s prison. While in prison, he had to work for the Oba for a set period as a form of repayment.

Jacob Egharevba supports this view, saying that if people were fighting or arguing, anyone nearby could say, "A wua ne Ere," which means "quarrelling is forbidden for Ogiso Ere." Just by saying that, the fight would usually stop, and peace would be restored right away.

Laws against taking the Law into Your Own Hands.

Benin law also gave room for the accused to escape rough or mob justice. If someone was being accused, they could retreat and claim protection. This helped calm things down and gave time for the case to be heard properly by elders or the council. There are specific phrases people used to ask for this protection. Some include; "ile gbina Aro Osa" which means, I seek protection in the sacred shine of Aruosa, "Ile gbinedion" which means, "I seek protection in the court of the ancestors". Furthermore, Elias states that in precolonial Africa, “if an offence committed by an accused person was so grievous as to excite the crowd or the injured party into instant retaliation,” the offender might escape summary justice by seeking safety in a sacred shrine, king's palace, Enogie’s residence, or with any nearby authority “pending the hearing of the case against him.

Elias explained that in many African societies, once someone, whether guilty or not, ran to a place of sanctuary, even if it was just a simple thatched shelter, no one was allowed to lay a hand on them. The moment they reached that safe space, they were protected from immediate punishment.

In pre-colonial Benin, once a supposed offender sought refuge with a higher authority such as the Enogie’s palace, the Oguedion shrine, or the homes of senior Edion council members, they were to be left in peace. The community understood that the matter was now in the hands of a respected authority who would handle it fairly and according to custom.

If an enraged pursuer defied this custom and struck the person while under such protection, it was legally and symbolically interpreted as an attack on the authority itself. This not only escalated the offense but also brought shame and possible punishment to the aggressor. This system of legal sanctuary helped curb mob justice, gave tempers time to cool, and ensured that even accused persons had access to due process under indigenous law.^[45] However, the situation was diffrent when if the suspect or criminal was apprehended or caught by the injured party before reaching a recognize sanctuary. In such cases, the protective privilages of sactuary do not apply. The law allowed the aggrieved individuals to exact justice or apprehend the offender without being in violation of communal norms. This distinction was crucial in Benin’s legal tradition. It underscored both the value of sanctuary and the urgency for the accused to seek it quickly. If they failed to do so in time, the justice system tolerated immediate intervention, even if it involved physical restraint or punishment by the offended party. This exception illustrates how the Benin justice system tried to balance emotional responses with procedural fairness. Sanctuary was respected, but only when reached in time.