Letter to Abubakar Malami SAN, Minister of Justice and Attorney General

XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
United Kingdom
(XXXX@outlook.com)
 
26 July 2021
 
Mr Abubakar Malami SAN
Minister of Justice and Attorney General
Federal Ministry of Justice
Shehu Shagari Way
Central District Maitama
Abuja
Nigeria
 
Dear Mr Malami
I should be most grateful if you would be kind enough immediately to make a pronouncement assuring the Yoruba, and indeed all Nigerians, that for the following constitutional and legal reasons, the government is not empowered to, and would not, wage war against the Yoruba in the event that the Yoruba declared the Oduduwa Republic.
 
One, there is no contract between Nigeria and the Yoruba that necessitates enforcement by war or indeed by any other means.
As you know, the Yoruba have never agreed to union or signed a treaty of union with Nigeria. Indeed, Yorubaland was illegitimately amalgamated with the British Protectorates in 1914 for the reasons, as Lugard himself conceded, that the British had no jurisdiction over Yorubaland at the time of the amalgamation. It is an error in law, to amalgamate that which you did not own.
 
Two, the phrase ‘indivisible and indissoluble’ as used in the 1999 constitution provides no justification for war.
The preamble to the constitution which says: ‘Having firmly and solemnly resolve, to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation…’, is not law. It is a resolution as it clearly states; an assertion of opinion, indicative of ideals and values. It is not enforceable in law or by war.

As you know also, the whole of Chapter I Part I of the Constitution describes Nigeria in its physical form. Section 2(1) which says: ‘Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’, simply gives information about Nigeria. That is all. It is not enforceable in law or by war.
 
Three, the constitution of Nigeria entitles the Yoruba to withdraw their sovereignty without any penalty.
Section 14(2)(a) of the constitution declares that: ‘…sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority…’. As you know, ownership of sovereignty is unconditional, and absolute. This constitutional provision entitles the Yoruba to withdraw from Nigeria the sovereignty that was inherent to them. The Yoruba have the right to withdraw that which they owned at any time that they so wished.
 
The people as holder of the sovereignty possess power and authority; that is, the right to command and the right to be obeyed. Sovereignty here is not just a matter of authority, but of supreme authority. Indeed, the people’s authority being absolute extends to all matters within the realm as Section 14(2)(c) clearly says: ‘the participation by the people in their government shall be ensured…’.
 
Four, the President has no constitutional authority to deploy the armed forces to attack Yorubaland in the event that the Yoruba declared Oduduwa Republic.
As you are no doubt aware, the constitution and the judgment in Buhari v Obasanjo [2005] 2 NWLR (Pt 910) very clearly spelt out the circumstances under which the armed forces could lawfully be deployed internally within Nigeria.
 
Section 217(2) of the constitution says: ‘The Federation shall, subject to an Act of the National Assembly made in that behalf, equip and maintain the armed forces as may be considered adequate and effective for the purpose of - (c) suppressing insurrection and acting in aid of civil authorities to restore order when called upon to do so by the President, but subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly’.
 
Declaring Yorubaland as Oduduwa Republic is neither an insurrection nor a civil disorder. A declaration would simply be asserting the right of the Yoruba to self-determination as permitted by Nigeria’s law. Self-determination is permitted by an act of the National Assembly: The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Chapter A9 of 1983. Igboho’s agitation for self-determination for the Yoruba is not an insurrection. Agitation is the situation where people openly protest or argue to achieve a particular end. Igboho was doing exactly that, nothing more.
 
As you also know, there is no provision in the constitution for the President unilaterally to deploy the armed forces to wage war against the Yoruba without reference to the National Assembly. Section 218(1) says: ‘The powers of the President as the Commissioner-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation shall include power to determine the operational use of the armed forces of the Federation’. But that power is qualified by both Section 217(2)(c) and Section 218(4) which says: ‘The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the regulation of-(a) the powers exercisable by the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation’.

The Yoruba have a legitimate and inalienable right to their own homeland, Oduduwa Republic. This is a right that the UN and the AU charters guarantee. Nigeria is signatory to those charters. And as you know, President Buhari himself in speeches to the UN in 2015 and 2017 publicly accepted the principle of self-determination. What the president asserted was good for the Palestinians he should assert as good for the Yoruba as well. Unlike the Palestinians, the Yoruba choose only peaceful means.
 
Respectfully yours
 
 
 

Chief (Dr) Olusola Oni
MBBS, MSc, MD, LLM, GDL, FRCSEd, FWACS, FMCS, FRCSEng
For and on Behalf of Yoruba Descendants