¡Descarga Participatory Budgeting and Community Development in Epe, Nigeria y más Esquemas y mapas conceptuales en PDF de Sociología Jurídica solo en Docsity!
to participate. All members therefore, are afforded equal opportunity to speak on issues at the meetings. By the same token, no member is allowed to monopolize the meeting by speaking out of the allotted opportunity given to him/her. Also, participants are expected to have a good sense of understanding of the issues at stake for discussion. This is in view of the fact that the level of understanding of all members may not be adequate. Considerations are to be given to such people by explaining to them painstakingly the issues at hand. This will ensure that all shades of opinion are accommodated and that those with low level of understanding are not marginalized or left out of proceedings at meetings.
A sound language, reasoning and dialogue must be ensured and the language of communication at the meeting must be jointly and unanimously adopted by all members. Furthermore, such language must be the one that members can easily relate with, reason with, and facilitate easy exchange of ideas, opinions, thoughts and perceptions through. This provides room for more robust deliberation at meetings. The theory of deliberative democracy is quite different from traditional democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not mere voting, is the primary source of a law's legitimacy. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule. When practiced by small groups, it is possible for decision making to be both fully participatory and deliberative. But for large political entities, the democratic reform dilemma makes it difficult for any system of decision making based on political equality to involve both deliberation and inclusive participation. With mass participation, deliberation becomes so unwieldy that it becomes difficult for each participant to contribute substantially to the discussion.
Fishkin (2011) argues that random sampling to get a small but representative sample of the general population can mitigate the dilemma, but notes that the resulting decision making group is not open to mass participation. But a variant proposed in a better democracy, in essence, a direct, participative democracy in which deliberation and political equality are combined with a much wider participation is better. Participatory democracy has been sharply criticized in the sense that. Gaventa & Cornwall (2001) have also condemned participatory democracy for the following reasons:
Inclusiveness vs exclusiveness: Participatory democracy is supposedly a mechanism for deepening democracy, particularly among the ordinary citizens, but in most cases these
ordinary citizens have been marginalized in one form or the other through influence and resources; hence they have been systemically excluded from the schemes. Moreover, when this exclusion is carried out it is often seen by the perpetrators as a form of apathy and inefficacy from the excluded citizens. Hence, this constitutes a major blow to the realization of the goals of participatory democracy.
Expertise vs Experience: Experts are often needed in participatory democracy, particularly in participatory budgeting, in order to offer expert advice on issues of interest to the citizens. However, a good number of these do not possess the required experience, but only base their submissions on the claim that such submissions are objective, thus throwing away the vital agent of experience, which is also important as far as participatory democracy is concerned.
Minority vs Majority: It is a known maxim in democracy that majority carries the votes and minorities have their say. However, this position, as argued by Gaventa & Cornwall (2001), negates the very essence of participatory democracy and participatory budgeting, which is meant to actually cater for the minority, while not pretending not to see the majority. Therefore, the unnecessary emphasis on majority rule in participatory democracy is not a welcome idea.
Monitoring for quality and accountability: For effectiveness and efficiency in any participatory democratic scheme, there has to be continuous monitoring for quality assurance, transparency and accountability. These cardinal principles are today missing in most of these schemes. There are no adequate reporting and monitoring of the programs by the officials, particularly from the national/central government. In most of the participatory democracy programmes, there are always organizational and institutional problems particularly from the middle level stakeholders. This is because they are not always part of the decision making process from the higher level of stakeholders, hence they always pose organizational and institutional difficulties to the programmes.
Leighninger (2012: 25-26), writing on most deliberative civic engagement (DCE), only addresses a single issue over a short period of time. Moreover, most of the successes are always one-off and are not always sustainable over a long period of time. According to Fishkin (1991:133), a well acclaimed failure of most theories of deliberative democracy is that they do not address the problems of voting.
In combination, those values will guide the discussion towards generalizable interests to the agreement of all participants and they will produce legitimate outcomes. In other words, the process of public discussion can be guaranteed to have reasonable outcomes only to the extent that it realizes the conditions of ideal discourse: the more equal and impartial, the more open that process is and the less participants are coerced and ready to be guided by the force of the better argument, the more likely truly generalizable interests will be accepted by all persons relevantly affected. From the foregoing, it is instructive that deliberative democracy without the adoption of the core values of procedures such as equality, openness and impartiality will not lead to a constructive agreement of participants and also endurable, strong, and legitimate outcomes. In the observation of Mouffe (1999), this is what most deliberative efforts suffer from.
Furthermore, Mouffe (1999) also criticizes deliberative democracy from the Wittgenstein's point of view to undermine Habermas's conception of procedure and also challenge the very idea of a neutral or rational dialogue. According to Wittgenstein, for there to be consensus on opinions there has to be consensus on the language to be used and this, as he points out, implies consensus in form of life. In essence, procedure only exists as a complex ensemble of practices. Those practices constitute specific forms of individuality and identity that make possible the allegiance to the procedures. It is because they are inscribed in shared forms of life and agreements in judgments that procedures can be accepted and followed, insisting that they cannot be seen as rules that are created on the basis of principles and then applied to specific cases. Rules for Wittgenstein are always abridgments of practices; they are inseparable of specific forms of life. Therefore, distinctions between "procedural" and "substantial" or between "moral" and "ethical" that are central to the Habermasian approach cannot be maintained and one must acknowledge that procedures always involve substantial ethical commitments.
Following Wittgenstein's lead also suggests a very different way of understanding communication and the creation of consensus’’.
The view being expressed by Habermas is basically on the need to follow to the letter the issue of procedural operationalization of deliberative democracy. However, the basic issues of language and communication which are germane to consensus building as envisaged by Mouffe and Wittgenstein are equally part of the major setbacks of deliberative democracy.
To Mouffe (1999:745-748), another way of revealing the inadequacy of the Habermasian approach to deliberative democracy is by “problematizing the very possibility of the notion of the ideal speech situation conceived as the asymptotic ideal of intersubjective communication free of constraints, where the participants arrive at consensus by means of rational argumentation”. In essence, the failure in assuming that there will always be an ideal speech situation, free communication, leading to consensus by the participants is also a minus for deliberative democracy; this because the foregoing is perceived to be the ideal situation, which is quite different from the reality on the field of play.
Indeed, the impediments to the free and unconstrained public deliberation of all on matters of common concerns are a conceptual impossibility, because without those so-called impediments, no communication or deliberation could ever take place. We therefore, have to conclude that the very conditions of possibility of deliberation constitute at the same time the conditions of impossibility of the ideal speech situation. There is absolutely no justification for attributing a special privilege in this respect to a so-called "moral point of view" governed by impartiality and where an impartial assessment of what is in the general interest could be reached (Mouffe 1999). Lafont (2015:40- 43 ) has criticized empirical research on deliberative democracy for over reliance on”mini-publics” such as citizen juries, consensus conferences, deliberative polls, and so on”, noting that these institutional proposals are mostly concerned with increasing the quality of face-to-face deliberation at the detriment of the increasing mass participation in political deliberation or citizen engagement in local politics.
In contrast, proposals that focus on macro deliberative processes in the broad public sphere are more concerned with the inclusion of citizens in deliberation about general political issues, and much less with increasing the quality of face-to-face deliberation or the
Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on, and so on) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives. Depending on the particular system in use, it might entail passing executive decisions, the use of sortation, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials and conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy (Brudge 2001). Most countries that are representative democracies allow for three forms of political action that provide limited direct democracy: referendum (plebiscite), initiative and recall. Referendums can include the ability to hold a binding vote on whether a given law should be rejected. This effectively grants the populace which holds suffrage a veto on a law adopted by the elected legislature (one nation to use this system is Switzerland) (Gauja 2010).
Initiatives, usually put forward by members of the general public often compel the consideration of laws (usually in a subsequent referendum) without the consent of the elected representatives, or even against their expressed wish or opposition. Recalls give the public the power to remove elected officials from office before the end of their term, although this is very rare in modern democracies (Castoriadis 2013). Castoriadis (2013) argues that direct democracy is opposed to a strong central authority, because the decision making power can only reside at one level with the people themselves or with the central authority.
“Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variant of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy. All modern western-model democracies are types of representative democracies; for example, the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and Germany is a parliamentary republic” (Gauja 201 0 ). “It is an element of both the parliamentary system and presidential system of government that is typically used in lower chambers such as the House of Commons, United Kingdoms (UK) or Bundestag (Germany), and is generally curtailed by constitutional constraints such as an upper chamber. It has been described by some political theorists as Polyarchy” (Cohen & Sabel 1997:313- 315 ).
In a representative democracy, certain people constitute the eligible voters based on their age or other qualifications. Eligible voters then elect representatives to serve as government officials, such as members of a chamber, senate or parliament. These officials typically are elected by voters in a certain area, such as a region of a country. An elected official represents the citizens of his or her area and tacitly agrees to serve their interests. Often, a representative must balance competing interests in his or her jurisdiction and will try to satisfy the greatest number of his or her constituents. To help serve the needs of their constituency, representatives who serve in the national government typically maintain regional offices so that their voters can communicate with them. Individual voters often contact their representatives to encourage them to vote a certain way on a bill or to push through a specific piece of legislation. Some of these measures might be voted on directly by the citizens, in the form of propositions on the ballot. In addition, many representative democracies also permit referendums, a piece of legislation that is proposed directly by the people. If citizens can get enough signatures on a referendum to indicate a certain level of public interest, it could be placed on the ballot during an election (Krugman 2012).
In some situations, a bicameral legislature may have an upper house that is not directly elected, such as the Canadian Senate, which was pivoted on the British House of Lords. Theorists, such as Burke (2012:97-101), believe that “part of the duty of a representative is not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but also to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters”. “It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure, or from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion” (Burke 2012:97-101).
in the world of utopia as these values cannot really be measured empirically or sustained over a long period of time.
The links could be identified between participatory budgeting and deliberative theory of democracy. The two paradigms are interested in the vulnerable members of the public being practically involved in the decision making process, by creating institutionalized channels and mediums for citizens participation and engagement such as the Community Development Association (CDA), the budget delegates, town hall meetings and so on, in order to represent the interest of the vulnerable members of the public. This institutionalized medium represents the non-elected citizens in the running of the Government, to bridge the gaps between the rich and the poor, and further reduce the level of Poverty and inequality, through deliberate redistribution of resources in favour of the vulnerable groups in the society.
More transparency in governance, both participatory budgeting and deliberative theory are also interested in more transparency in government by ensuring that citizens are given the space and the opportunity to be part of the decision making process, particularly as it concerns the budget allocation procedures. This is a means of reducing the secrecy and bureaucratic bottlenecks that are predominant in most public establishments and institutions, particularly in public finance and replacing them with the transparent popular participation of the ordinary citizens. More authentic public opinion and public will, the two models also serve to enhance more citizens’ participation in view of the fact that more authentic public opinion and public will are guaranteed. The citizens are given the opportunity to decide what is best for them at any point in time. The credibility and integrity of the public opinions are guaranteed as they are coming from the less privileged members of the public. Not only that, these opinions are also coming or emanating from the rural people who represent a good number of the non-elected citizens in the society. These opinions often represent the voices of the people, devoid of the usual government mouth piece or opinion. It is the raw data needed for proper planning and development.
The inclusiveness of all strata of the society in governance, participatory budgeting and deliberative theory are also interested in bringing together all strata of the society such as the
civil society organizations, the human right groups, the labor unions, the traditional rulers, the academics, the religious groups, the student associations, the community based organization and others. The conglomeration of all these groups is to ensure that there exists the needed partnership among them, to have a more robust inclusiveness and thorough deliberation and to also ensure that the vital grassroots democracy is strengthened and more citizens are empowered. It is to also establish the fact that all the strata are important stakeholders in the society and are all equal partners in development, particularly at the grassroots level.
The creation of an egalitarian society, an egalitarian society is a veritable tool for any democratic arrangement that seeks to improve the quality and quantity of lives of its members. This is the essence of both the participatory budgeting and deliberative theory. This is ensured by bringing together the government and the governed, reducing to the barest minimum the dominant over-centralized nature of the government over the governed, the civil society organizations and other stakeholders in the society (Sintomer, Herzberg & Rocke 2008; Aragon & Sanchez 2008 & Santos 1998).
5. Conclusion
The preceding chapter was specifically based on the Nigerian dimension to public participation, it also touched on the United Nations Development Programs (UNDP) indicators on urban governance in relation to Nigeria, the assessment of the gains and challenges of participatory budgeting in Nigeria since Inception in 2002, the origin and conception of Community Development Associations in Nigeria, Community Development Associations and Participatory Budgeting in Epe Local Government, possibilities and critiques of Community Development Associations in the participatory budgeting process in Epe Local Government, some Similarities between the Participatory Budgeting Processes in Epe Local Government and Porto Alegre, brief history of Local Government administration in Nigeria, need/justification for creation of Local Governments in Nigeria and the Problems of Participation and Involvement in Local Governments in Nigeria.
Furthermore, the chapter also provided sufficient details on the theoretical framework of the thesis, with focus on the theory of Participatory Democracy, with particular interest on the theory of Deliberative Democracy such as expoused by the Fishkin. The chapter concluded with a look on the linkages between Participatory Budgeting and Deliberative Theory. Consequently, the focus of the next chapter shall be on the area of study-Nigeria/Epe Local Government and the research methodology.
between etnhically based constituencies (Idoko, Agenyi & Emmanuel 2015). Nigeria is made up of multiplicity of ethnic groups, such as the Hausa/Fulani, Kanuri, Busa, Bariba, Borgana, Nupe, Gwari, Biron, Bura, Longuda, Margri, Bata, Kajab, Angas, Jukun, Mumuye, Chamba, Bassa, Tiv, Igala, Idoma, Igbira, Yoruba, Edo, Itsekiri, Igbo, Urhobo, Efik, Ibibio and Ijaw. It should be noted however that the three most dominant ethnic groups are the Hausa/ Fulani, the Yoruba and the Igbo. These dominant ethnic groups make up 48% of Nigeria’s population. The Hausa/Fulani are predominantly Muslims and occupys the North-Western and good parts of the North Central Nigeria. The Hausa were the exclusive indigenous inhabitants of the areas mentioned above until the influx of the Fulani in the seventeenth century. The Hausa people speak the Hausa language, while the Fulani speaks Fulfude (Azide 2000). The Hausa language is the second most widely spoken language in Africa, next to Swahili. The language is most spoken in West African countries and beyond (Buah 1974). The Yoruba people inhabit the South-Western part of Nigeria. The Yoruba share one cultural identity, and are said to be descended from one common ancestor, known as Oduduwa. Ile- Ife, is regarded as the ancestral home of the Yoruba people. The city and the Ooni of Ile-Ife occupy a special place in the political, social and religious life of the Yoruba people. Yet the Yoruba people practise Islam, Christianity and traditional religion. The Yoruba language is spoken in Benin Republic, Republic of Togo, Trinidad and Tobbago (Azide 2000). The Igbo people occupy the South-Eastern part of Nigeria. The Igbo do not have a generally accepted tradition of origin. The Igbo do not have a king or a centralized political system, unlike the Hausa/Fulani and the Yoruba people. It is basically a traditional republican system (Buah 1974).
According to Eluwa et al., (2011), in terms of natural resources, Nigeria is endowed with huge deposit of resources such as crude oil, tin, columbite, gold, coal, limestone, lead, zinc, iron, iron ore, granite, salt, cocoa, cotton, palm produce, groundnut, and timber. Nigeria is also acclaimed as one of best weather friendly nations, as it has two seasons: the wet/rainy season and the dry season. The wet/rainy season starts in April and ends in October. The country always witnesses a very short dry season in August, which is followed by a long dry season often referred to as “Hamattan period” in Nigeria: this lasts from November to March, bringing along with it dust,
hazy weather and extreme cold. Vegetation wise, the Northern part of the country is endowed with little vegetation, lots of sand also refer to as Savanna vegetation, while the South is endowed with thick forest; also referred to as rainfall vegetation.
Nigeria has two major rivers, River Niger and River Benue, which serve as a means of transportation. Some other rivers are Osun Rivers in Osun State, Cross Rivers and River Kaduna. These rivers and lakes serve as sources of fish farming, games and festivals, like the Argungun fishing festival which attracts foreigners and serves as a tourism destination; the lakes and rivers also serve as a source of electricity generation for the country, such as the Kainji Dam. Lakes in Nigeria include; Lake Chad, Kainji Lake and Oguta Lake, most of which serve as tourism and holiday resorts. Nigeria has both Urban settlements, such as Abuja, Lagos, Kano, Port Harcourt, Kaduna and Calabar and rural settlements in the hinterland parts of the country (Eluwa et al., 2011 ).
Accoding to the CIA World Fact (2015) Nigeria’s main sources of export are petrol and petroleum products which account for 95% of the country’s foreign earnings. Other major export products include cocoa and rubber (2012 est). Export partners include; India 15.4%, Brazil 10.2%, Neitherland 8.5%, Spain 8.5%, South Africa 5.5%, France 5.4%, Germany 4.1%, and Japan 4.4% (2014).
According to Oyediran et al., (2002) the struggle for, and the allotting of Africa by the European countries led to the Berlin Conference of 1884, where the African continent was shared up among interested Colonialist European nations. Indeed much of the West African countries came under either British or French rule, each of which established a system of administration for their colonies. Before 1900, Nigeria was ruled by the Royal Niger Company and the British Colonial office. Much of Southern Nigeria was under the control of the Royal Niger Company, while the Colony of Lagos was ruled directly by the Colonial office and other parts including the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria. 1900 marked the assumption of political influence by the Britain over her four West African territories such as the Gambia, Sierra- Leone, Nigeria and Gold Coast (Ghana), and established the indirect rule as a system of government. The indirect rule was a system of governance, whereby the British colonial masters adapted the existing political structures and institutions of the various African people, to suit their purpose (Oyediran et al., 2002).
Physical Map of Nigeria
Below is the map of Nigeria that also showcases other African countries that share a common boundary with Nigeria, such as Cameroon, Benin Republic, Niger Republic and the Republic of Chad.
Map of Nigeria with the 36 states (and Abuja) decorated in outstanding colours. Abuja is the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) of Nigeria.
Map courtesy of www.theodora.com/maps (2013) used with permission.
Figure 7
The constant violence, particularly as witnessed in public participation, in Nigeria can be attributed to the history and processes inherent in state formation during the colonial and the post colonial era (Egwu 2001). The colonial state, which was in every respect the foundation upon which the post-colonial state was built, played a significant role in the process of ethnic identity formation and the political use to which such identity can be described.
Therefore, the present Nigerian state is inherently in crises, mostly associated with corruption, and violence-generating mechanism, which is against the rule of fairness in public participation. Egwu (2001) lamented that the development of democratic order was not actually the concern of the colonial masters. Following the amalgamation of Nigeria in 1914 by Lord Lugard, a constitution was adopted for the newly created political entity. Provisions were made for the establishment of the executive and consultative organ called the Nigerian Council. Unfortunately, this Council never had the opportunity to exercise their legislative or executive powers. Therefore, following the lapses in the constitution, it was abolished, and a seemingly more reliable and a more authentic one was constituted.
In 1922, the Clifford Constitution was put in place; it was this constitution that introduced for the very first time, the principle of elections in the legislative chamber. But, the Nigerian nationalists later attacked it because Nigerians who served on the Council were mere spectators. These attacks led to the abolition of the constitution. The Richard Constitution came into effect in 1946. This constitution divided the country into region, with each regions built around different major ethnic groups. It was this constitution which built a pattern of political rivalry between the regions. Ironically, each of these dominant groups had their own history, tradition, customs, values and languages distinct from one another (Oyediran et al., 2002).
The general conference in Ibadan of 1950, gave birth to the Macpherson Constitution of 1951, the constitution gave more powers to the regional Houses of Assembly to make laws and advise on issues concerning their people. Further agitations led to the collapse of the Macpherson Constitution and the entrenchment of the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954, which formally established federalism in Nigeria and introduced direct election into the federal and regional legislative houses in Nigeria (Adegbola 2012).
Nigeria was granted independence on October 1st, 1960, with the promulgation into law of the Independence Constitution of 1960. 1963 witnessed the coming into force of the Republican
while the other is the upper house. The lower house or chamber is often made up of members directly elected on the basis of universal, equal and secret suffrage while the upper house consists of more experienced men and women, some of whom are sometimes appointed to the house. In Nigeria, both houses consist of elected members.
Independent judiciary, the judiciary is the third arm of government that is responsible for the interpretation of laws, and the trial of cases involving individual citizens, organizations, and the state. It ensures obedience to the law, and gives judgments as appropriate in respect of any cases brought before it.The judiciary is made up of magistrates, judges and chief judges, who preside over such courts as the customary, magistrate and high courts, as well as appeal and supreme courts. They also preside over tribunals, and administrative courts. The independence of the judiciary essentially refers to the insulation of the judiciary from the control of the executive, the legislature and any other body. This means that judges should have full powers to try cases brought before them without fear or favour.
“A written constitution is the body of basic laws, principles, conventions, rules and regulations which govern the country. It specifies the limits of, as well as relationship between, various organs and agencies of government. It specifies the basic duties and rights of the country’s leaders and citizens. It is superior to all its other laws. The powers and functions of the three main organs of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, as well as those agencies such as the armed forces and the police, are clearly defined” (Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999).
4. Epe Local Government: history, geographical location and structures
Epe is a town that derived its name from certain black ants called “Epe” which infested the forest along the Lagoon name “Oko Epe” (Meaning Epe Farm or Epe Forest). The pre- history indicated that the town was subordinate to Ijebu-Ode under the jurisdiction of the “Awujale of Ijebu” (that is, the Paramount Ruler of Ijebu-Land).
Epe town and port, Lagos State, southwestern Nigeria; it lies on the north bank of the coastal Lagos Lagoon and has road connections to Ijebu-Ode and Ikorodu. A traditional settlement of the Ijebu people (a subgroup of the Yoruba), it was established by the mid-18th century as the chief port (slaves, cloth, agricultural produce) for Ijebu-Ode (17 miles [27 km] north- northwest), the capital of the Ijebu kingdom.
It later served as the refuge for the forces of Kosoko, the Yoruba king ousted from Lagos ( miles [68 km] west-southwest) by the British in 1851. In 1892, Epe was the embarkation point for the military expedition sent by Sir Gilbert Carter, the Governor of Lagos, to defeat the Awujale (the Ijebu political and spiritual ruler) at Ijebu-Ode (Falola & Avoseh 1995).
According to Oyeweso (1996), Epe is one of the major towns in Lagos State, Nigeria. It is located on the northern shore of Lagos lagoon, about 32 kilometers south of Ijebu – Ode and about 77 kilometers away from Lagos Island via Maroko. Odomola, South by the Lagoon, East and West by small settlements of Iraye Oke and Temu bound it in the North respectively. The Northern part of the town is mountainous, with about 250km of fertile land; while the Southern part lies within the mangrove swamp forest. The area is well drained, fertile and suitable for agriculture. The forest provides the raw materials for a veritable boat – building industry.
The Lagoon water also serves as source of transportation linking the town with the Kingdom of Lagos. Epe is located geographically in a fertile rainfall belt and the easy means of transportation by the Lagoon affordeds the opportunity for agriculture, fishing, hunting and boat building industry which attracted people from immediate hinter land and from both the Western and Eastern Lagoon area of South Western Nigeria. The town was-and is still-a household name in the boat building industry. The boats are sold to fishermen who engage in deep-sea fishing and transportation business in ijebu-Ode (Falola & Avoseh 1995).
Political Map of Epe Local Government, showing its boundaries
Figure 8
Although, Epe came under British rule between 1862 and 1863, it was not until 1892 that the town was finally annexed. From 1892 onwards, Epe was administered in the tradition of a
