This study focuses on the role of objectivity and its principle is the foundation on which the structure of historical profession stands. Most, if not all, historians wrote in the belief that their writings presented an objective picture of the world. Even when they disagreed among themselves, they believed that their accounts were more objective than those of others whom they criticized. Thus, the historical battles were fought on the grounds of objectivity. There are also debates among historians about whether they expect descriptions of past people and events, interpretations of historical subjects, and genetic explanations of historical changes to be fair and not misleading. Sometimes unfair accounts of the past are the result of historian’s bias of their preferring one account over others because it aligns with their interests. Bias is visible everywhere in history. When some historians concentrate their attention more on interpretation and analysis, giving importance to the evidence, partiality is clearly visible in their writing. Thus, to avoid bias, historical objectivity is an easy solution, although it is very difficult to adhere to the concept of objectivity in historical writing. To achieve the objectives of this study, historical research techniques are used. But to be specific, the study adopted the historical method for data collection. The data used to construct this study are from category of secondary sources. These sources are mainly published and unpublished works such as books, article in journals and seminar/workshop papers as well as internet sources. The assessment of the sources recovered involved corroboration and collaboration of the available data for the subject
Nwosu et al. (Wed,) studied this question.