From the Yoruba Descendants to the Secretary General of the United Nations
1. Application
We the Yoruba Descendants respectfully submit this application for admission of the Oduduwa Republic to the membership of the United Nations. We base our application on the Yoruba people’s territorial, historic, cultural and legal rights guaranteed in international law and order. We should be most grateful if your Excellency would be gracious enough to convey this application to the Security Council pursuant to rule 58 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council and to the General Assembly rule 134 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly.
2. Declaration
We the Yoruba Descendants solemnly declare that the Yoruba are a peace-loving people who accept the obligations contained in the Charter of the United Nations and solemnly undertake to fulfil them in the Oduduwa Republic.
3. Letter
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
United Kingdom
(xxxxxx@outlook.com)
Our ref: Yorexit - UN3
14 April 2021
Mr Antonio Gutteres
The Secretary General
The United Nations
New York
NY10017
Your Excellency,
We respectfully request that you append this second addendum to our original application dated 1 March 2021. In that application, we made the case for self-determination for the Yoruba people of Nigeria based on their rights as enshrined in the UN Charter.
In the addendum dated 17 March 2021, we made the case for self-determination for the Yoruba people of Nigeria on the basis that Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, under which the present government operates, is illegal and null and void.
In this second addendum, we make the case for self-determination for the Yoruba people of Nigeria based on rights enshrined in the law of Nigeria.
Self-determination has been an unquestionable and inalienable right in Nigeria since 1983. The 1999 Constitution that Nigeria currently operates did not alter that fact.
The Organisation of Africa Unity, of which Nigeria is a member, adopted the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on 28 June 1981. Article 20 (1) of the Charter says: ‘All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen’.
Nigeria made the treaty into domestic law in 1983 in accordance with Section 12 (1) of the 1979 Constitution which says: ‘No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly. Section 12 (1) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution replicates word for word Section 12 (1) of the 1979 Constitution.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Chapter A9 (Chapter 10 Law of the Federation of Nigeria 1990) was enacted on 17 March 1983 ‘to enable effect to be given in the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights made in Banjul on the 19th day of January, 1981 and for purposes connected therewith’. The Charter was incorporated in its full and unaltered state.
The 1983 Act provides that: ‘As from the commencement of this Act, the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights which are set out in the Schedule to this Act shall, subject as thereunder provided, have force of law in Nigeria and shall be given full recognition and effect and be applied by all authorities and persons exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers in Nigeria.’ This Act demonstrated Nigeria’s commitment to be bound by the letter and spirit of the Charter.
The 1999 Constitution did not change the ratified and domesticated status of the African Charter. Indeed, the African Charter remains the only comprehensive human rights treaty ratified and domesticated by Nigeria. Chapter IV of the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria contains provisions which guarantee a number of overlapping rights as the African Charter. Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution does the same.
The 1999 Constitution is silent on self-determination except for the African Charter for two reasons. First, the framers of the constitution were satisfied, on account of their experience with the relevant caselaw, that the Charter’s provisions were sufficient. Second, the framers had not envisaged, on account of lessons from the Biafra War of 1967 to 1970, that there could be a time in the future when groups might seek to avail themselves of self-determination rights.
Two landmark cases confirm that Nigerian law provides the right to self-determination via the African Charter, namely, Abacha v Fawehinmi, a Supreme Court case, and Ogwuche v Federal Republic of Nigeria, an ECOWAS Court case.
In the Abacha case, Fawehinmi, following his arrest and detention, brought an action for the enforcement of his fundamental rights under the African Charter. Fawehinmi asked the Court to determine firstly whether the African Charter was applicable Nigerian law and secondly, whether a treaty incorporated into domestic law prevailed over conflicting statutes.
In regard to the former, the Supreme Court held as follows: ‘By Cap. 10 the African Charter is now part of the laws of Nigeria and like all other laws the Courts must uphold it. The Charter gives to citizens of member states of the Organisation of African Unity rights and obligations, which rights and obligations are to be enforced by our Courts…’
In regard to the latter, the Supreme Court held as follows: ‘No doubt Cap. 10 is a statue with international flavour. Being so, therefore, I would think that if there is a conflict between it and another statue, its provisions will prevail over those of that other statue for the reason that it is presumed that the legislature does not intend to breach an international obligation.’
Nigeria’s courts have generally determined that Nigeria was duty bound to discharge its international obligations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various UN human rights declarations, for example, seemingly have no force of law in Nigeria because they have not been incorporated into domestic law yet, the courts have determined that Nigeria nevertheless must discharge the obligations. The Supreme Court in Reinsurance Corp v Fantaye [1986] 1NWLR (Pt 14) 113 held that Nigerian courts must give effect to binding treaties whilst the Court of Appeal in Oshevire v British Caledonia [1990] 7NWLR (Pt 163) 489 held that any domestic legislation conflicting with an international convention was void.
In Ogwuche v Nigeria, following threats of withdrawal of broadcasting licenses, the Plaintiffs applied to the ECOWAS Court for the enforcement of their rights to freedom of speech and free press under the African Charter. The Court first had to determine whether the issues raised were justiciable under the 1999 Constitution.
In regard to the matter of jurisdiction, the ECOWAS Court, invoking Article 9 (4) of the 2005 Protocol, was ‘satisfied that the Subject matter of the cause being on Human Rights violation, is sufficient to activate its Jurisdiction’, regardless of the 1999 Constitution.
In regard to the matter of the freedom of speech, the ECOWAS Court invoked Article 9 of the African Charter as the primary authority to find ‘that the freedom of speech of the Plaintiffs has been violated...’.
In other words, as far as international law is concerned, Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution could not oust the enforcement of the African Charter.
It has been claimed that Article 20 (1) of the African Charter is in conflict with Section 2 (1) of the 1999 constitution that says: ‘Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state’. Indivisibility or indissolubility of Nigeria is not sacrosanct, however. First, self-determination is governed by international law and by various Charters, all of which provide for self-determination. Second, Nigeria’s territorial boundaries are justiciable. The International Court of Justice in the Nigeria v Cameroon case excised the Bakassi Peninsula from Nigeria (ICJ Reports 2002; 303-346). On the basis of this legal precedent, two groups within Nigeria have standing to reclaim their territory from Nigeria; namely, those who did not sign a treaty with Britain and their territories were simply annexed and those who signed a treaty with Britain, but the word ‘Nigeria’ did not appear in the treaty.
It has been claimed also that the African Charter is in conflict with Section 1 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and with Section 1 (3), which provides that in the event of any inconsistency between the constitution and any other law, the constitution shall prevail. However, the 1983 Act is a constitutional clause by virtue of it being enacted under Section 12 (1) of the constitution. According to the Supreme Court in the Abacha case, the African Charter is a quasi-entrenched clause being protected as it is from implied repeal. It can only be repealed by the express intervention of the legislature.
Section 12 (1) is a very important section in the 1999 Constitution. It is a ‘power clause’ because of its inclusion at Chapter 1, Part II, Powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The question of constitutional superiority does not arise at all in this instance because the African Charter is part of the Constitution. As enacted, all authorities and persons exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers in Nigeria have an obligation to give full recognition and effect to the African Charter. The plenitude of the Nigerian Government cannot do anything at all inconsistent with the Charter.
The 1983 Act is the constitutional right to self-determination in Nigeria. Therefore, any measures taken by the Nigerian government to prevent any group from opting out of Nigeria would be unlawful. Any measures taken by the Nigerian government to apprehend or punish anyone agitating for self-determination would be unlawful. Any measures taken by the Nigerian government to force any group to remain part of the country would be unlawful.
Any group in Nigeria seeking self-determination is protected by Chapter VII of the UN Charter which prohibits the use of force against a non-member. Such a group is availed of the General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) which permits the Security Council to intervene to ensure effective protection for a non-member.
Please find attached the documents dated 1 March 2021 and 17 March 2021 for ease of reference.
Yours faithfully
Chief (Dr) Olusola Oni
MBBS, MSc, MD, LLM, GDL, FRCSEd, FWACS, FMCS, FRCSEng
(Baasegun Alabe of Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State, Nigeria)
For and on Behalf of Yoruba Descendants