BBNaija star and entrepreneur Kiddwaya has sparked controversy over Nigeria’s colonial history after arguing that the country would have been more developed if Britain had remained in control for another 10 to 15 years.
Kiddwaya, whose real name is Terseer Waya, made the comment in a post on X, arguing that Nigeria would have benefited from a longer period of British colonial administration.
Key Highlights
Kiddwaya says Nigeria may have been more developed if Britain had remained for another 10 to 15 years.
The BBNaija star’s comment has reignited debate over British colonial rule in Nigeria.
Nigeria gained independence from Britain on October 1, 1960.
His argument raises questions about colonialism, infrastructure, institutions and self-government.
Kiddwaya has not publicly explained the specific development gains he believes an extended colonial period would have delivered.
The comment has reopened debate over Nigeria’s colonial legacy and post-independence development.
The remark is striking because it suggests that Britain’s departure may have deprived Nigeria of an additional period of development under colonial administration.
In essence, Kiddwaya’s argument suggests that Nigeria could have benefited from another decade or more of British rule before Nigerians assumed full control of the country’s political and economic affairs.
That position raises a fundamental question: if another 10 to 15 years of British rule would have made Nigeria “a lot more developed”, what exactly was Britain expected to accomplish during those additional years that Nigerians could not have pursued after independence?
Nigeria’s Independence From Britain
Nigeria became independent on October 1, 1960, after decades of British colonial administration.
The transition followed years of nationalist agitation and demands by Nigerians for greater political representation, self-government and independence.
Kiddwaya’s position therefore presents a different interpretation of that historical transition.
Rather than seeing independence as the point at which Nigeria gained the opportunity to determine its own political and economic direction, his statement suggests that the country might have benefited from postponing the end of British control.
There is a legitimate historical debate over the institutions, infrastructure, legal structures and administrative systems inherited by Nigeria from British colonial rule.
However, arguing that Britain should have remained longer goes beyond acknowledging those legacies. It raises the broader question of whether continued foreign rule should have been preferred to Nigerian self-government.
## What Did British Colonial Rule Leave Behind?
Kiddwaya’s reference to Nigeria being “a lot more developed” also raises questions about what development meant within the colonial system.
British colonial administration contributed to the development of roads, railways, schools, administrative institutions and legal structures in parts of Nigeria. At the same time, colonial policies were shaped by Britain’s political and economic interests.
The relationship between colonial infrastructure and broader national development remains an important subject of historical debate.
Consequently, the assumption that a longer period of colonial rule would automatically have produced greater development is not straightforward.
Development depends on several factors, including the quality of institutions, economic policy, human capital, political stability and the ability of a country to determine and implement its own priorities.
## Kiddwaya’s Claim And Nigeria’s Nationalist Struggle
The comment also raises questions about the Nigerians who spent years demanding greater political representation and independence.
Read also:
- BBNaija S11: Abi Threatens to Quit Show, Says Housemates Are Ganging Up Against Her
- NIS Warns Nigerians, Foreigners Against Using Unauthorised Passport, Visa Agents
- Nollywood Mourns As Yoruba Nollywood Actress Tope Osoba Dies At 40
For many nationalist leaders and movements, the objective was not to extend British colonial administration but to bring it to an end and establish Nigerian self-government.
The debate surrounding Kiddwaya’s statement, therefore, goes beyond whether Britain constructed roads, schools or administrative structures during the colonial period.
It centres on whether those contributions are sufficient to support the argument that Nigeria would have been better off under continued British control.
By his statement, Kiddwaya appears to believe that an extended period of British rule could have produced greater development.
However, he has not publicly provided detailed evidence explaining which specific sectors he believes would have benefited from another 10 to 15 years of British rule.
He has also not explained why those potential gains could not have been achieved by Nigerians after independence.
For now, Kiddwaya’s colonialism claim has reopened a longstanding and sensitive debate about British rule, Nigeria’s independence and the country’s development trajectory after 1960.
