In 1983, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) became existing law of Nigeria by virtue of its enactment under the provision of Section 12 (1) of Nigeria’s 1979 Constitution which provides:

‘No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly.’

The domesticating provision of the 1983 African Charter Act stipulates that the provisions of the African Charter, which are attached in a schedule to the Act, 'have force of law in Nigeria and shall be given full recognition and effect and be applied by all authorities and persons exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers…’

The African Charter technically belonged to Chapter IV (Fundamental rights) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution. The jurisdiction of Nigeria’s courts over the ACHPR nestles under Section 36 (1) of the 1999 constitution where it says:

‘In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.’

Additional court jurisdiction over the ACHPR nestles under Section 46 (1) of the 1999 Constitution where it says:

‘Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.’

There is in also the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009:

‘Section 3: The overriding objectives of these rules are as follows: (a) The Constitution, especially Chapter IV, as well as the African Charter, shall be expansively and purposely interpreted and applied, with a view to advancing and realising the rights and freedoms contained in them and affording the protection intended by them.

ORDER III – LIMITATION OF ACTION. 1. An Application for the enforcement of Fundamental Right shall not be affected by any limitation Statute whatsoever.’

Article 20 (1) of the African Charter provides as follows: 

‘All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self- determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen’.

The language of the Article 20 (1) is clear and unambiguous. The language leaves no wiggle room whatsoever. 

By ‘unquestionable’ was meant not to be disputed; could not be denied; beyond doubt; certain.

By ‘inalienable’ was meant not subject to being taken away; not capable of being violated or infringed; absolute.

In other words, ACHPR Article 20 (1), a Nigeria constitutional law, provides any group of Nigerians with an unfettered right to self-determination whether in instituting the Sharia Criminal law as the 12 Arewa States did in 2000, or in seeking ‘restructuring’ or outright independence as the Yoruba are doing today. It is self-evident from its language, that Article 20 (1) of the African Charter permits of no veto. Nigeria’s government is not authorised to veto the self-determination. Nigeria’s President is not authorised to veto it. Nigeria’s National Assembly is not authorised to veto it. 

On this question of potential State veto, UNGA Resolution 2625, the International Law of Self-determination, was equally clear and unambiguous that self-determination permits of no State veto. Resolution 2625 lists the role of the State in self-determination as follows: 

1.     ‘…to promote…realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…’

2.     ‘…to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle…’

3.     ‘…to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms…’ 

4.     ‘…to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples…of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence…’

All that ACHPR Article 20 (1) required for the actualization of self-determination is for the group desiring self-determination simply to inform and make representation to the ‘mother’ State. The Arewa States did just that in 2000 to institute Sharia Criminal law in their territories. For several years now, the Yoruba have been making representations on self-determination to the Nigeria government, but the government has turned a deaf ear. That is inconsistent with Nigeria’s government’s treatment of the Arewa people. Obasanjo who was Nigeria’s president in 2000 did not veto the Arewa peoples’ right to the self-determination. Nigeria’s National Assembly did not veto the Arewa peoples’ right to the self-determination. This was because Nigeria had no legal authority under the 1983 African Charter Act to veto self-determination for the Arewa people. The African Charter Act is till law of Nigeria and Nigeria’s government cannot interpret the self-determination rules differently for the Yoruba.

The Yoruba have very clearly communicated their claim for self-determination to Nigeria. In a survey of the Yoruba people published in a peer review article in an international journal, 94% wanted Nigeria dissolved (Suggestible consequences of militarizing self-determination movements in Nigeria. A case study of Yoruba separatist movement. OA Oluyemi: J. Humanities Soc. Sci. Studies 4(4): 249-263, 2022). Since 2021, the Yoruba have held several mega rallies in favour of self-determination in major Yoruba cities, and in cities across Europe and America. The Yoruba several times have written to the Nigerian government to confirm their wish to claim self-determination and exit Nigeria. The latest letter, dated 17 April 2024, from Professor Akintoye to President Tinubu, demanded immediate self-determination for the Yoruba Nation. The ACHPR Article 20 (1), and indeed UNGA Resolution 2625, obligated Nigeria in these circumstances to a) acknowledge the Yoruba claim to self-determination, and b) set a date for its actualisation - 1 October 2024 would be apposite.

Arewa self-determination succeeded because the Arewa political elites were all for it. By contrast, the Yoruba political elites actively thwart self-determination for the Yoruba people. Many do so because they know the lawlessness and pilfering they enjoy under the Nigeria banner would not be tolerated in the Yoruba Nation. The Yoruba political elites do not enjoy a Yoruba mandate that could enable them to veto Yoruba self-determination. The Yoruba did not vote for President Tinubu, a Yoruba political elite, in significant numbers. The Yoruba did not vote in significant numbers for Governors of the Yoruba States. The Yoruba have formed themselves into several self-determination organisations. The ACHPR Article 20 (1) does not bar any one of these organisations from claiming self-determination on behalf of the Yoruba people. In the case of Gunme & Ors v AG of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (BJ/CS/30/2002), for example, a Federal High Court, Nigeria’s superior court of first instance, permitted 12 Cameroonians to claim self-determination for themselves and the people of South Cameroon. No plebiscite was demanded.

It also is worth reminding, firstly, that the Yoruba did not consent to be incorporated in Nigeria in the act of Amalgamation of 1 January 1914. The Yoruba did not cede their territory to Britain as they made clear in the Britain-Yorubaland Treaty of 23 July 1888. The Shelborne Niger Committee in its report of 1898 stated that the Yoruba Nation was outside of the British possessions. Britain forcibly usurped the Yorubaland. What the Yoruba are seeking is reclamation of their possession. It is hardly revolutionary that the Yoruba wish to leave Nigeria, an association to which they did not consent in the first place.

Secondly, self-determination is in the Yoruba DNA. Although the Yoruba people shared a common heritage, language, religion, and tradition, the ancient Yoruba built their Nation on the concept and philosophy of self-determination. The Yoruba composed their Nation of autonomous, self-governing city states each with its own recognized territorial and socio-economic boundaries. The Yoruba aggregated the city states into dialect or regional groups, such as, Ẹgba, Ekiti, Ibadan, Ijẹbu, Ijẹsa, Ọyọ and so on. At no time in Yoruba history did the ‘aggregate’ (Akojọpọ) interfere in the affairs of its constituent city states. At no time in Yoruba history did the greater Yoruba Nation interfere in the affairs of an ‘aggregate’ or of a city state. The Yoruba instinctively believe in the idea of separate development (Idaduro) as the best and optimum route for the advancement of the whole.