Over the past 3 months or so, in twice weekly broadcasts on the Omoboriowo Media, I have constructed a Road Map that I believed would get us Yoruba out of Nigeria without shedding a single drop of Yoruba blood. I have published our discussions in over 20 articles on Facebook and Twitter (aka: X) for people to access.

I have proposed that our Oba, the traditional political authority of the Yoruba Nation, immediately should come together to establish a Conference of Oba, as they had done previously in 1931, to make the Declaration of Emancipation of the Yoruba Nation as well as to appoint a Sole Administrator to manage the transition from Nigeria to the Yoruba State. I understand various groups are already taking up the idea.

I have proposed that our Oloye (chiefs), the traditional legislative authority of the Yoruba Nation, immediately should do their duty and empower and encourage the Oba to create the Conference of Oba and make the Emancipation announcement, and I suggested that that should be the focus of Igboho’s rather than him getting involved in the endeavour to drive the Fulani out of the Yoruba forests. With emancipation, the Fulani would be gone.

I have proposed court action to argue that the act of Amalgamation on 1 January 1914 was null and void on the grounds that Britain committed Breach of Undertaking that Britain made on 23 July 1888 when Britain concluded a non-cession treaty of friendship and preferential trade with the Yorubaland, and Britain ratified that treaty on 16 June 1890. Britain committed the Breach of Undertaking to deprive the Yoruba of the fruits of a legitimate Treaty,

I have proposed court action to argue that the 1999 Fulani Constitution was null and void on the grounds that Decree No 4 of 5 May 1999 by which the military-led government of General Abdulsalami Abubakar promulgated it was Breach of Agreement that Eastern, Northern and Western Regions of Nigeria made to be co-owners of a tri-communal country which they put in writing in the 1960 and 1963 Constitutions. 

I have proposed court action to argue that the Order in Council promulgated by the means of prerogative powers of the King of Britain on 22 November 1890 was null and void on the grounds that the King committed  Breach of Privilege in contravention of the Bill of Rights and of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890 when the King in the said Order extended his governance of the Nigeria Colony to include the territories of the Yoruba people over which he had no jurisdiction. Britain committed the Breach of Privilege to deprive the Yoruba Homeland of its independence and sovereignty.

I have proposed application to the UN firstly to seek enforcement of Article 39 of the UN Charter on the grounds that the Yorubaland and its peoples were being daily ravaged, wantonly and unhindered, by Fulani terrorists, and secondly to seek admission for the Yoruba Homeland to membership of the UN in accordance with Article 4 of the UN Charter on the grounds that the Yoruba Homeland fulfilled all the criteria of a State.

The aforesaid are my intellectual contributions to the quest for an independent Yoruba State. The next step is to explore practical steps that would take us down the road. There are two realities to confront first.

1.    The Yoruba self-determination movement has no effective or visionary leaders, only talkers.

Like a broken record, the same chatter, the same people, for the last 2 or more decades. These people have no clue what to do, and when shown what was possible, they are not gifted enough or skilled enough to appreciate it. We Yoruba must now accept that we have no leaders. We cannot move an inch forward with these so-called Yoruba leaders.

In 2002, for example, IlanaUK instituted court cases at Ado Ekiti and Oshogbo to halt the gubernatorial elections pending  in Ekiti and Osun States. The so-called Yoruba leaders sat on their hands, self-absorbed, and effectively killed the initiative. 

When Igboho was released from detention in the Benin Republic, the so-called Yoruba leaders saw only photo opportunity. This was a huge event; an event to take advantage of and exploit internationally and politically. Our Yoruba leaders did nothing meaningful with the opportunity.

2.    The Yoruba self-determination groups are not legal personalities, which means they could not sue. 

Legal personalities are companies, political parties, organisations and such like that were registered with the state. Registration is the only access to the courts. The cases that I suggest can only be brought by individuals. With the 2022 Ekiti/Osun election court cases, we at IlanaUK persuaded individual voters to act as Plaintiffs. IlanaUK promised to instruct and pay the lawyer to bring the cases to court, which we did.

Where am I going with all this? 

The law created Nigeria. I believe that the same law could uncreate Nigeria. 

The court cases that I have outlined above, if the courts accepted jurisdiction, have advantages. First, the matter of the Emancipation of the Yoruba State would be a dispute between Yorubaland and Britain, the creator of Nigeria, and not a fight between Yorubaland and Nigeria. Second, the legality or otherwise of the very existence of Nigeria as a State would be settled once and for all. Third, the matter of the Emancipation of the Yoruba State would be resolved by a neutral third party. Fourth, the unsavoury behaviour of the British in Yorubaland which hitherto has been concealed, including the assassination of the Alaafin in 1895, would finally be exposed.

Even the Breach of Agreement case against the 1999 Constitution could be litigated in London. Britain brokered the agreement which made three regions – East, North and West – the co-owners of Nigeria, and on that basis Britain granted independence to Nigeria. Britain thus owed a Duty of Care to all Nigerians. By its acquiescence or tacit acceptance of the 1966 coup, Britain failed in that duty to the Yoruba peoples of Western Nigeria. That failure could be justiciable.

The court cases could, and should, be brought by an individual or a group of individuals (mass action). 

These potential court cases are of fundamental importance. They must be pursued. They could be brought in the UK cheaply in the small claims track to minimise court costs – court fees: £1,000; barrister’s fees: £10,000 for a one-day high court hearing for a claim under £10,000. 

There would be no need to engage a solicitor in addition to the barrister if like me, the Plaintiff is willing to do the research and make available copies of the relevant documents, and there are not that many documents needed. Normally, the Plaintiff paid the cost of the other side if he lost but here the Plaintiff at the outset would ask the court to forgo liability because the case was of public interest. A small claim track normally takes between 6 weeks and 6 months, if the case is disputed and goes to a hearing – the court decides any way.

Potential jurisdictional problem

My understanding is that civil cases in the UK have a time limit of 6 years; but for personal injury, the time starts when you became aware that you have been injured. As an example, I became aware of the 1888 Treaty in 2021 as a potential source of injury. I wrote a letter before action to Boris Johnson on the matter on 21 June 2021. I also wrote about it to Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak and the Justice Secretary. Theoretically therefore June 2027 would be the limitation date for me to bring a civil case against the UK government.