Emancipation is an act of being set free from the control of others. In this case, the Yoruba people seek to be set free from control by Nigeria. The Yoruba seek their emancipation on the grounds that the incorporation of their territory, the Yorubaland, into Nigeria, by Britain, in the act of Amalgamation on 1 January 1914, was unlawful and should be reversed. The Yoruba cite as precedent the case of the Bakassi Peninsula (Cameroon v Nigeria), which was decided by the ICJ on 11 March 2002. The ICJ decided that the boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon was delimited by the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 and that as a result, sovereignty of the Bakassi Peninsula lay with Cameroon. As a consequence of the ICJ decision, boundaries that Britain drew in Nigeria became justiciable, and dependent on whatever treaties Britain signed at the material times.
The Yoruba case is informed by a treaty (‘the 1888 Treaty’) that the Queen of Britain signed with the Alaafin of Oyo, Head of the Yorubaland, on 23 July 1888, and which the Queen ratified on 16 June 1890. The 1888 Treaty covered the ‘four corners’ of the Yorubaland ‘embracing within its area that inhabited by all Yoruba-speaking peoples’. The treaty was intended to maintain ‘for ever, friendly relations with the subjects of Her majesty, the Queen’. The treaty was intended to develop ‘the resources of Yoruba by means of legitimate trade with the subjects of Her Majesty…’. The 1888 Treaty provides:
i. ‘peace and friendship between the subjects of Her Majesty…and of the Alaafin’ (Article 1).
ii. ‘the subjects of the Queen may always trade freely with the people of Oyo and the Yoruba-speaking countries in every article’ (Article 2).
iii. British subjects would be charged ‘tolls, duties, fees, imposts or charges’ that were customary and reasonable or as agreed between the parties (Article 3).
iv. ‘all differences or disputes shall be adjusted by [the Alaafin]’ or referred by him to arbitration (Article 4).
v. ‘no session of territory and no other Treaty or Agreement shall be made by [the Alaafin]’ other than this one (Article 7).
vi. ‘In consideration of the faithful observance of the foregoing Articles of Agreement’, the Alaafin would be paid a yearly stipend unless he committed a breach or neglect of all or one of the terms (Article 8).
Reference to ‘countries’ in Article 2 of the 1888 Treaty makes it unambiguous that the 1888 Treaty was between two states – Britain and Yorubaland - and subject to international law. Although the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) came into existence only in 1969, international conduct at the material times was identical. Britain, from its vast experience in treaty making knew, or ought to have known that:
i. Only states possessed the capacity to conclude treaties (VCLT Article 1).
ii. The Alaafin had full power to make the 1888 Treaty (VCLT Article 7).
iii. Britain consented to be bound by the terms of the 1888 Treaty by the means of
a. the signature of its representative, the Governor of the Lagos Colony, (VCLT Article 12) and
b. ratification of the treaty by the Queen on 16 June 1890 (VCLT Article 14),.
iv. The legitimate expectations of the Yoruba were that each signatory to the 1888 Treaty had an obligation,
a. to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty that they had signed and ratified (VCLT Article 18);
b. pacta sunt servanda, to be bound by the treaty terms and to perform then in good faith (VCLT Article 26); and,
c. to be bound in the entirety of the treaty unless a different interpretation was established or could be discerned (VCLT Article 29).
The mention of ‘consideration’ in Article 8 of the 1888 Treaty makes it unambiguous that the 1888 Treaty also was a contract subject to the Contract law of Britain.
i. In a letter dated 18??, the Queen made an Offer of a treaty to the Alaafin.
ii. The Alaafin accepted this offer.
iii. The quid quo pro was a monthly stipend to the Alaafin. On 16 June 1890, Britain made a payment of £35.5s to the Alaafin which made the contract life.
Breach of treaty, breach of contract
On 1 January 1914, by an act of Amalgamation, Britain committed a breach of treaty and a breach of contract when it incorporated the Yorubaland into its colony of Nigeria.
1. Britain, without cession by or permission from the Yoruba, usurped jurisdiction over the Yorubaland.
2. Britain, without consulting, informing or seeking consent of the Yoruba, subjugated the Yorubaland to the authority of others.
3. Britain, without consulting, informing or seeking consent of the Yoruba, took resources from the Yorubaland to pay for deficits it sustained administering its Northern Protectorate.
4. Britain, without consulting, informing or seeking consent of the Yoruba, denied the Yoruba of their legitimate expectations from the 1888 Treaty.
Injuries
As a result of all the aforesaid, Britain caused significant harm to the Yoruba and to Yorubaland for which the Yoruba are entitled to seek compensation as follows:
1. For the indignity of the loss of Yoruba independence and sovereignty - £1 trillion
2. For the theft of Yoruba resources and wealth - £1 trillion
3. For the loss of development and trade promised by the 1888 Treaty - £1 trillion
Jurisdictional issues
British and/or Nigerian courts have jurisdiction under the law of contract. Although Nigeria was not a state at the material times, Nigeria at independence on 1 October 1960 assumed all legal responsibilities that Britain had.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has jurisdiction under international law, but only state signatories are entitled to bring a case.
Locus standi
Being the object of the 1888 Treaty, ‘all Yoruba-speaking peoples’ originating from the Yorubaland have standing. The treaty was intended to last ‘for ever’, that is to say, beyond the lifetime of the Alaafin and the Queen, the signatories to the treaty.