Social control is important in ensuring an orderly society. As society moves from simple rural state to the complex urban, one of the greatest challenges it faces is the development of a regulatory mechanism to control behaviour. Urban society requires a completely different set of regulatory mechanisms from those of rural society. This transition is never simple and smooth, nonetheless, is inevitable if anomie is to be averted. Contemporary Nigerian society has not made this transition, thus the ineffectiveness of law in society.

1. 0
The Principles of Social Control and the Efficacy of Law in Nigeria
Ikechukwu Ejekwumadu
(Paper published in Onuoha, J. I (ed.) 2013, Dialogues in Sociology, Owerri: Liu House of
Excellence)
Social control is important in ensuring an orderly society. As society moves from simple rural state to the
complex urban, one of the greatest challenges it faces is the development of a regulatory mechanism to
control behaviour. Urban society requires a completely different set of regulatory mechanisms from those
of rural society. This transition is never simple and smooth, nonetheless, is inevitable if anomie is to be
averted. Contemporary Nigerian society has not made this transition, thus the ineffectiveness of law in
society.

2. Ikechukwu Ejekwumadu
1
Introduction
Social control is important in achieving order and preserving society from chaos. Thomas Hobbes’
popular treatise, the leviathan (1985, originally published 1651) clearly paints the picture of society where
there are no restraints to behaviour through a force that transcends the individual. The state in Hobbesian
social thought is that force that owes its existence to the need for social order. Through a ‘social contract,’
individuals submit their freedom to the sovereign in exchange for protection from the chaotic and
unpredictable state of nature. In primitive states of being, guided by the unrestrained pursuit of individual
interest, human life is exposed to the vagaries of ‘might is right’. Life ordinarily becomes ‘nasty, short
and brutish’. To establish order and protect the individual from private claims, the need arose to control
behaviour and establish boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable conduct.
Durkheim (1947, originally published 1893) sort to explain the basis for social order, delineating the
different forms of solidarity found in simple and complex societies. The basis for order and social
regulation existed in the forms of solidarity that bound society together. In Durkheim’s typology, two
forms of solidarity exist – mechanical and organic. In mechanical solidarity, society is bound together by
a sense of shared values arising from homogeneity of its constituents. This form of solidarity is found in
simple societies where members are not differentiated and share long established norms, traditions,
customs and history. There is a close bond between members who know each other well enough and share
kinship ties. On the other hand, organic solidarity arises from social differentiation and mutual
interdependence. Here individuals are bound by contractual relationships and the interdependence of
specialization or division of labour.
Durkheim’s social categories are very important in understanding social order. The type of solidarity that
exists in a society determines the principles of social control. Social control is that means through which
a society regulates individual and group conduct in the pursuit of values. Social control could be formal or
informal. Formal social control relies on established institutions and rules clearly spelt out with sanctions
for their infraction. It is largely external to the individual. Informal social control operates through norms
and values which are internalized by the individual enforced by a strong sense of commitment to a
collective moral consciousness. In all societies therefore, social control is a blend of both the informal and
the formal, though to a more or less degree of each. Simple rural societies largely operate on informal
systems while urban complex societies operate on more formal mechanisms.
As society evolves from its simple homogeneous and community based organization towards a more
complex heterogeneous and urban based social organization, social control usually experiences some

3. Ikechukwu Ejekwumadu
2
degree of dislocation. This is what Durkheim recognizes as anomie, a situation where the norms of
society have broken down and behavioral expectations are unclear. This usually happens in societies in
transition, where the normative guides to conduct have been overturned by a new but unclear order. This
ambiguous state creates disorder and chaos.
Transitions from rural to urban social organization are followed by an interregnum of normative
ambiguity. Both in prescription of what constitutes acceptable behaviour and in procedures of dealing
with deviance, there is usually a disjunction between the old and the objective realities of the new social
order. Urban social evolution, especially in a rapid process, comes like a social upheaval to transitory
societies. It brings in its wake a wide normative vacuum and dislocation of institutional structures.
Societies caught in the web of change experience ambivalence between what is expected of members and
how to deal with those who do not conform to these expectations. Expectations mostly lie in the ways of
the old but individuals act within the realities of the new. This gap between expectation and behaviour,
and objective responses (sanctions) to behaviour represents the dilemma of law in contemporary Nigeria.
Law is the mechanism used in modern society to regulate behaviour and preserve social order. Law sets
out rights and responsibilities of members of society and the limits to behaviour. It embodies the values
which are upheld by society, seeks to protect them and regulate the conduct of individuals in the pursuit
of those values. It carries the force of conformity. Individuals are expected to live by its ideals either by
volition or its coercive force. Infraction of law is met with preset sanctions. Such sanctions are meant to
punish offenders, deter further infraction or towards restitution.
Law in itself does not play this role if it lacks the power of enforcement. Efficacy of law lies in its
enforcement. It has the potential for preserving social order when its force of action is fully exerted. The
mere existence of law does not ensure conformity to the rules of orderly conduct. Even where law is fully
enforced, individuals do break the law but the force of law restores order and awards punishment and
restitution where it is due.
Nigeria and inefficacy of Law
As highlighted above law has the ability to preserve or restore social order. Contemporary Nigeria is
presently experiencing a normative vacuum where behaviors that should otherwise be unacceptable are
widely tolerated and unpunished. From affairs between private individuals to issues that involve the
public interest there is widespread betrayal of public trust, infringement of individual rights, and the
general flouting of constituted rules. Much of these go on with the law remaining inactive and the people

4. Ikechukwu Ejekwumadu
3
also showing little or no outrage for what would have attracted public condemnation and demand for
justice.
The institutions of law enforcement remain complacent in the face of injustice and infraction of rules, in
many cases showing generosity to offenders. This situation raises a lot of questions: why is the Nigerian
public tolerant of unlawful and criminal behaviour? Why do the police and courts show leniency to grave
infraction of rules and abuse of rights? Why are many criminal offences not treated as so but are referred
to informal groups for “amicable settlement”?
This paper seeks to understand why the law fails to restore and preserve order in Nigerian society and
clearly set the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. It seeks to answer the
questions posed above in an attempt to explain why the law seems increasingly to lack the power of
enforcement in Nigeria.
Mechanisms of Social Control and their Correlates
In this paper, the solidarity typologies of Durkheim earlier described would be adopted to analyze social
control mechanisms that underlie different social organizations. The type of solidarity that exists in
society determines the mechanisms that give restraints to behaviour. Behaviours occur within space and
time which place limits to alternative action. In space perspective, from one society to another, the
number of possible courses of action in a given situation varies. In some societies the courses of action
are many and individuals are not so much restricted to choose ways to act in a given situation. In some
others, individuals do not enjoy such freedom. For instance, in issues of sexuality, Americans and most
Europeans have a right to express a homosexual orientation while such is repressed in most African
countries. In this case while an American can choose to be homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual or
transgendered, a Nigerian can only be heterosexual or his sexuality is considered a criminal offence.
Similarly, over time possible courses of action in a given situation varies in same society. Homosexuality
was illegal in America and most European countries until the last century. Today a homosexual
orientation is considered a fundamental human right in America.
The spectrum of choice of action changes as society changes. The form in which a society exists
determines the social control mechanisms. This brings us back to the earlier identified types of social
control – formal and informal - and Durkheim’s solidarity categories. In simple rural societies, choice is
highly limited with individuals expected to conform to a set of courses of action. In simple societies
behavior lacks anonymity, and largely yields to collective expectations. The pressure to conform not only
comes from lack of anonymity but also a strong sense of shared sentiments and values. There is, in simple

5. Ikechukwu Ejekwumadu
4
societies, a high moral content in norms which attaches itself to individual conscience. Social control
becomes something internal to the individual only requiring subtle externalities to enforce compliance.
There is a psychological aspect to social regulation in this mechanism. That is, the high content of stigma
as a repression of deviance (Blume, 2002). Stigma is the shame and loss of status that accompanies
deviant and criminal behaviour. The force of stigma is strong in simple societies because of the face-to-
face nature of social interactions.
In dealing with deviance, simple societies rely a lot on repressions placed on behaviour (Franzese, 2009).
There is a hesitation to severely punish offenders except in cases where individuals have broken taboos.
Forgiveness and social healing are important aspects of the justice system. Simple social organization
provided high conformity to norms and extreme cases of deviance are rare. One is not to be severely
punished because the victim (individual or society) shares strong bonds with the offender and offences
committed were rarely grave. As a result forgiveness and “cleansing rituals” healed the wounds done by
the offender. The “ubuntu” spirit which emphasizes forgiveness and healing is spread across African
societies. Strong kinship ties do not support the operation of a purely punitive system and the need to
reintegrate offenders into the group without much friction necessitates social healing. Ubuntu is clearly
captured by Mokgoro (1997):
“the conciliatory character of the adjudication process which aims to restore peace and harmony between
members rather than the adversarial approach which emphasizes retribution and seems repressive. The
lawsuit is viewed as a quarrel between community members and not as a conflict; the importance of
group solidarity requires restoration of peace between them”.
As society moves from the rural community to the complex urban the equation changes. Heterogeneity
and social differentiation increases among members of society and the shared bonds and sentiments
continuously decline in significance. Urbanization breeds anonymity and frees individuals from the
restrains of close social ties. Anonymity has very important consequences for behaviour and social
control: Firstly, anonymity increases choice in courses of action. Individuals choose from alternative
actions which would have been sanctioned in close communities. Secondly, anonymity obscures the
victim of deviance. In simple societies, victims are clearly visible – an individual or the ‘collective
conscience’. When the victim is easily identifiable, offenders are less inclined to commit offences.
Kinship bonds in rural societies prevented impunity because the victim is close to the perpetrator and the
feeling of guilt is fully within. Besides, outrage against grave offenses from the group is intense. Thirdly,
in the lager public space of the urban, the conscience regresses. This stems from the fact that offenders
can escape guilt as they are shielded by the impersonal urban crowd.

6. Ikechukwu Ejekwumadu
5
For the reason that the urban social setting affords different sets of behaviours, the social control
mechanism adopts a different approach. Social control in urban social organization is formal and
contractual. Social relationships are guided by contracts and laid down rules. Infractions of rules attract
defined punishments enforced through an unsentimental institutional force. From the ‘ubuntu’ emphasis
on conciliation, the law becomes more retributive. Offenders have to fully pay for their crimes with little
space for generous conciliatory approach availed offenders in simple societies. There are reasons for this
shift in social control. Firstly, the close social ties that created strong disincentives for law breaking in
simple societies disappear with urbanization. The anonymity of the urban weakens informal and internal
restraints to behaviour. The guilt, stigma and excommunication offenders faced in simple societies
weaken in the urban space so that criminal behaviour escapes with little burden if not sanctioned by an
unsentimental authority. The urban space increases the incentives for criminal behaviour. In some cases,
breaking the law in urban society accrues huge profits for offenders. As described above such profits
come with lesser moral burden. Another important factor is that the ‘collective conscience’ diminishes as
people become absorbed into larger spaces and the public responds to law breaking with greater
indifference (Eke, 1975). In this situation, disorderly and criminal conduct escapes public outrage giving
offenders a measure of comfort.
With the nature of urban life, social control works better through a mechanism that deals with offences on
a purely formal basis – retribution and restitution. This is in the Weberian sense the complete
rationalization of law (Deflem, 2008).This is in recognition of the fact that the internal and informal
restraints to behaviour can no longer ensure normative conduct. Anonymity of urban life means that the
propensity to break the law is high and the strength of the informal mechanism is weak, completely
overwhelmed by the complexity of heterogeneous urban social existence.
Understanding the Failure of Law in Nigeria
From the foregoing, it is clear that the law is a potent regulative force in complex society and the most
suitable instrument for social control in a highly fragmented and individualized existence. Why then has
the law failed to be an efficient tool of social regulation in Nigeria?
Law is inefficient in Nigeria because of the disjunction between the principles of law enforcement and the
social correlate which it regulates. The adjudication of law in Nigeria operates under the principles of
informal social control and justice whereas the society has moved from the traditional to the complex and
urbanized. Though formal structures exists in the form of the police and courts, the behavioral change that
accompanied urbanization is yet to be reflected in the way both the wider society and formal institutions

7. Ikechukwu Ejekwumadu
6
of law enforcement respond to criminal and deviant behaviour. There is thus a partial migration from the
old to the new. The formal structures in complex urban social organization has evolved in Nigeria but the
sentiments that guide justice in the traditional society still persist.
The society in generall has failed to grasp the reality of a new social order that requires a new form of
response. In traditional society, people were expected to conform, and they largely did so (given the
circumstances in traditional society explained above). Such expectations that people know what is right
and should conform still persist today. This expectation is evasive to the fact that the anonymity which
individuals lacked in traditional society exists now and that the scope of action is wide and morally vague.
There is also no such thing in contemporary society as a collective conscience to which everyone’s
sentiment is attached to. Important also is the fact that the victim of deviance is obscured or largely
invisible. On the other hand, the tendency to ‘peacefully settle’ rather than strictly sanction, reminiscent
of the traditional society, is still used to respond to crime by both institutional authorities and the wider
society. It is not uncommon for the police to transfer grave criminal offences like rape to informal groups
such as community associations or faith organizations for ‘settlement’. The hesitation to judge offences
on purely formal law is a remnant of the traditional justice system that emphasizes forgiveness and
conciliation. The problem however, is that the nature of offences and the propensity to commit them have
changed. In the contemporary social setting regulation of individual conduct cannot work without a
system that is purely based on retribution and restitution, where individuals are meant to fully pay for
their actions. It is this inability to operate on this principle that has made formal law inefficient in
contemporary Nigeria.
There are however, opinions to the contrary that traditional systems of social control and justice should be
integrated into contemporary institutions of law enforcement in Nigeria (Okafo, 2007: Onyeozili, 2005).
These arguments do not recognize the reality that traditional society in Nigeria as it was known in the past
no longer exists. It is the failure to recognize this fact that has aided the failure of formal law to take firm
roots. This also explains the reason a lot of criminal cases are not reported to the police or taken to the
courts, but attended to by family or other informal groups. In this usually conciliatory practice, offenders
escape justice and impunity becomes institutionalized. This, however, is not to say that informal
institutions have no place in contemporary enforcement of order in Nigeria. Of course they do and can
serve good purposes in civil disputes, but their usefulness in criminal offenses are limited.

8. Ikechukwu Ejekwumadu
7
Conclusion
Social change alters the nature of every society and leads to the rearrangement of the social structure and
institutions. For society to survive, it must show its dynamism by adapting to new realities occasioned by
change. As society moves from simple rural states to the complex urban, one of the greatest challenges it
faces is the development of a regulatory mechanism to guide behaviour. Urban society requires a
completely different set of regulatory mechanisms from those of rural society. This transition is never
simple and smooth nonetheless is inevitable if anomie is to be averted. Contemporary Nigerian society
has not made this transition, thus the breakdown of law in society.
Formal Law and its impersonal application hold the way forward for order in contemporary Nigeria.
There must be mechanisms to ensure that the force of law is not taken away by informal mechanisms that
have proved ineffective in the face of extensive social change. Such can be achieved through legislation.
Laws could be made that would criminalize the settlement of criminal and grave offences through
informal groups. Such offences would be strictly under the adjudication of courts.
Better education for law enforcement agencies is imperative. The institutions of law enforcement need to
be better educated on the realities of modern existence and why criminal offences have to be prosecuted
in courts and not ‘settled’ by informal groups. Success of this transition requires their cooperation and
support.

9. Ikechukwu Ejekwumadu
8
References
Blume, L. (2002) Stigma and Social Control, Economic Series, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna.
Deflem, M. (2008) Sociology of Law: Visions of a Scholarly Tradition, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press
Durkheim, E. (1947) The Division of Labour in Society, Free Press, Illinois, Glencoe
Ekeh, P. (1975) Colonialism and the Two Publics: A theoretical Statement, Comparative Studies in Society
and History, Vol. 17 (1) pp. 91 – 112.
Franzese J. R (2009) The Sociology of deviance: differences, tradition and stigma, Springfiled Illinois, Charles
C. Thomas
Mogkoro, J. Y. (1997) Ubuntu and the Law in South Africa, Paper delivered at the first Colloquium
Constitution and Law held at Potchefstroom on 31st
October 1997 [pdf]. Available at:
http://www.ajol.info/index.php/pelj/article/viewfile/43567/27090. [Accessed 22/10/2012]
Hobbes, T. (1985) Leviathan, London, Penguin
Okafo, N. (2007) Law Enforcement in Postcolonial Africa: Interfacing Indigenous and English Policing
in Nigeria, International Police Executive Symposium Working Paper No 7 [pdf]. Available at:
http://www.ipes.info/WPS/WPS%20No%207.pdf. [Accessed 22/10/2012]
Onyeozili, C. E. (2005) Obstacles to Effective Policing In Nigeria, African Journal of Criminology and
Justice Studies, Vol.1 (1) pp.32 -54