In the lay man’s language, abeyance is the state in law ‘of being without’, or ‘of waiting for’. The international law principle of Sovereignty in Abeyance described situations where a territory’s sovereignty had been put in the state of expectancy; where manifestations of sovereignty had been suspended by other realities. Sovereignty in Abeyance hithertofore had been invoked in the following situations:

a.     Foreign occupation

b.     UN Mandate/Trusteeship

c.     Interim administratorship

Sovereignty in Abeyance has been invoked as international law in conditions of foreign occupation. Germany in the Second World War occupied several countries in Europe and North Africa. Countries like Czechoslovakia were forced to surrender whilst others like Poland were conquered in battle before their occupation. By the act of occupation, these countries lost governmental authority that they previously had over their own territories. Their sovereignty was only in abeyance, however, because sovereignty was restored after German occupation was ended. The legal personality of the occupied State was not annulled, its sovereign rights were merely suspended. Under modern international law, foreign occupation did not result in the extinction of the State.

Sovereignty in Abeyance has been invoked as international law in the conditions of UN Mandate and Trusteeship. Mandate refers to a UN authorised international mission, such as peacekeeping operations. The UN Trusteeship system was established to supervise the administration of a trust territory as it transitioned from colony to sovereign State. According to Judge McNair, in the South West Africa (Namibia) case, ‘Sovereignty over a Mandated Territory’ was in abeyance until the inhabitants of the territory obtained recognition as an independent State. The Trustee was ‘not in the position of the normal complete owner’. As with the illegal foreign occupation scenario, Sovereignty in Abeyance here operated as a temporary legal status with the expectation of the final endpoint of independence.

Sovereignty in Abeyance has been invoked as international law in the conditions of interim (UN) administratorship of a Non-Self-Governing Territory. In the East Timor case, following armed conflicts and a successful independence referendum, Indonesia and Portugal transferred authority over East Timor to the UN. The UN accepted the invitation, and in 1999 set up the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) under UNSC Resolution 1272. UNTAET was ‘endowed with the overall responsibility for the administration of East Timor and…empowered to exercise all legislative and executive authority…’. Sovereignty thus passed to the UN, but the UN did not own it. Sovereignty was suspended to revert back to East Timor at independence on 20 May 2002. East Timor had been a Portuguese colony until 1975 and an Indonesian annexation from 1976 to 1999.

 Sovereignty in Abeyance operated in all these examples as application of international law to a temporary abnormal legal situation. Sovereignty in Abeyance also must, by its definition, therefore, be invokable as international law in the conditions of usurpation; the taking of sovereignty by force. Colonialism was usurpation. Colonialism was the subjugation of one State by another, the colonialist forcing its own cultural, economic, language, religious and political practices on the colonised people. Colonialism was an act of economic and political domination of a State and its peoples. The colonialist had the power to forcibly exploit the human and economic resources of the colonised country. In the context of Africa, usurpation ended when the colonialist relinquished control by the granting of independence. In other words, the sovereignty of the colonised State had not been annulled by the colonialism rather, it had only been suspended and put in abeyance.

In the 1900s, Britain colonised and usurped the Yorubaland, a previously sovereign State. On 1 October 1960, Britain de-colonised the Yorubaland, which meant, in effect, that the sovereignty of the Yorubaland had only been put in abeyance until that time in the future (ie 1960) when British colonialism ended. However, rather than returning the usurped sovereignty to the Yorubaland, Britain transferred authority to Nigeria, its surrogate State. At independence, Nigeria assumed all rights and obligations that previously belonged to Britain so that in effect, the status of the sovereignty of the Yorubaland had remained the same, that is, in abeyance to this day. A claim by the Yorubaland for the return of its sovereignty thus was within the realm of international law.

In the instances of foreign occupation, Mandate/Trusteeship and administratorship, the UN was the authority that enforced the international law on Sovereignty in Abeyance. There is no other international body with the clout and power to do so. The UN has an obligation to apply the same standards to the situation of usurpation of the Yorubaland. It is to the UN that we Yoruba people now appeal to refer the matter for ICJ opinion.