Britain committed fraud, by false representation, by abuse of position, and by other foul means, in its territorial acquisition of the Yorubaland. The Alaafin, signatory and ratifier of the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty, did not cede Yorubaland to Britain in any shape or form. Not one of the Yoruba rulers at those material times consented to the amalgamation of their Yorubaland with others to form Nigeria. Britain established protectorates without consulting or notifying the Alaafin and other local Yoruba rulers.
The creation of Nigeria, and the subsequent granting of independence to it, however, could not invalidate the legal relationship established between Britain and the Yorubaland in the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty. As per Johnson v. M'lntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823):
‘Those relations which were to exist between the discoverer and the natives, were to be regulated by themselves. The rights thus acquired being exclusive, no other power could interpose between them.’
On 1 October 1960, Britain handed the Yorubaland over to Nigeria, a third party. The question arising was whether the fraud perpetrated by Britain when acquiring the Yorubaland was cured when Britain gave independence to Nigeria. The problem with that proposition is that the Yorubaland was not Nigeria. Britain did not return to the Yorubaland what it stole from the Yorubaland – sovereignty and property rights. Instead, Britain transferred what it stole from the Yorubaland to Nigeria. The procurement of Yorubaland for amalgamation by Britain was done by fraud. Britain’s ‘Yorubaland’ that was amalgamated in 1914 was the product of fraud. In law, the product of fraud remained the product of fraud, and illegally held, even if transferred from perpetrator to another.
There was a perception amongst the Europeans at those material times, and which probably carried over to this day, that they were free and unfettered to commit any crimes in Africa because they were competing with one another over the civilising of backward peoples. This is not a good enough defence against fraud, however. The fact of the matter is that the Yoruba rulers who signed treaties with Britain expected Britain to keep its promise. Britain did not keep the promises that it made to these rulers. Fraud is defined from the perspective of the victim not from the perspective of the perpetrator. The Yorubaland, fraudulently acquired, was not Britain’s to give to Nigeria at Nigeria’s independence. Britain could not legally transfer to Nigeria something fraudulently acquired, something not legally owned.
The 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty included neither transfer of sovereignty rights over territory, on the one hand, nor agreement on property rights over native land, on the other. There was no explicit transfer of sovereignty rights from the Yorubaland to Britain. There was no explicit division of sovereignty rights between the parties to the treaty, that is, between Britain and the Yorubaland. There was an apparent lack of form in the relationship, a position that might be labelled ‘indeterminate’, which presumably provided cover for Britain to interfere with the sovereignty rights of the Yorubaland and to exert control over the internal affairs of the Yorubaland. It is to be noted however that even in the Lagos Colony, property rights to land still could only be acquired if compensation was paid to the natives (see the Apapa Land Case).
Shorn of sovereignty and property rights, what Britain had over the Yorubaland therefore was in the nature of an ‘adverse possession’. Adverse possession means possession without legal entitlement or the owner’s consent. It enabled a person who did not have legal title to land to become the owner, simply by being in possession of the land for long enough to ‘oust’ the true owner. However, adverse possession did not lead to ownership per se; it resulted only in immunity to ejectment by the running of a ‘limitation’ period. It is self-evident that adverse possession ended when the adverse possessor left the land, for example, when it granted independence to a colony. Being strictly a ‘personal’ thing, adverse possession by definition could not be transferred from one person to another. On 1 October 1960, when divesting itself of its adverse possession of the Yorubaland, Britain could not legally transfer the ‘adverse possession’ to Nigeria.
On 1 October 1960, Britain made the Yorubaland prisoner of Nigeria, and Nigeria has used force to keep the Yorubaland prisoner ever since.
Lagos Weekly Record (February 1919):
‘Let us hope that with the departure of Sir Frederick the Nigerian system the product of his exuberant imagination will be consigned to the limbo of oblivion where embedded in the historical strata of British imperial colonization it will exist as the fossilated remains of an administrative experimental failure.’
Chief Obafemi Awolowo (1/5/45):
‘The Yorubas, Hausas and Ibos have nothing in common. The only common factor to all of them is British overlordship. The veneer of western learning and civilisation and the common interest in demanding political freedom have tended to make it appear that there is some unity…’.
Time (20 September 1963):
‘Headless Opposition. With the convictions of Awolowo and Enahoro, the opposition Action Group is virtually decapitated. But the party still enjoys the loyal backing of Western Nigeria's predominant, advanced Yoruba tribe. The clannish Yorubas will almost certainly reorganize to challenge the North and East once more. At week's end many a Nigerian was wondering how long his country's delicate balance of regional rivalries, which has been the key to Africa's most admired democracy, could last.
Unperturbed, Sir Abubakar, a Moslem from the North, went ahead with plans to convert Nigeria on Oct. 1 from a British dominion to a republic within the British Commonwealth. Sir Abubakar will remain the real boss. The changeover will merely install a ceremonial President as head of state to replace Queen Elizabeth, who is now sovereign.’
Chief Akintola, the premier of the Yoruba Western Region, was assassinated in the military coup d’état of 15 January 1966. Thereafter, several other prominent Yoruba leaders have been assassinated in what has been dubbed a ‘harvest of assassinations’, including MKO Abiola (7 July 1998) and Chief Bola Ige (23 October 2001). In 2021, the Nigerian government openly attempted to assassinate Chief Sunday Igboho who had been campaigning for Yoruba self-determination.