The 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty matters because it is the only document in existence that established and defined the legal relationship between Britain and Yorubaland. The 1914 Amalgamation of Nigeria was a political, not a legal relationship. Colonisation of Nigeria was a political, not a legal relationship. Nigeria’s independence in 1960 was a political, not a legal relationship.
Legal relationship differs from political relationship. A legal relationship describes agreements, such as, contracts, marriage, and other binding structures like treaties. It is defined by enforceable laws or rules, commandments that prescribes or proscribes, under threat of sanctions, applied equally to all. It is focused on autonomy, duties, rights, and stability. A legal relationship must be complied with.
A political relationship on the other hand describes interactions and dynamics between different political entities, such as, governments and nations in relation to governance and power. It is defined by what interests to protect, and resources to extract and distribute. It is focused on the furtherance of own perspectives. A political relationship was complied with on the basis of ‘friend’, ‘master’ or ‘servant’, depending on which of these you were.
Justiciability of pre-colonial treaty
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2012 made a landmark ruling in the Bakassi Peninsula case(Cameroon v Nigeria) that a pre-colonial treaty was justiciable today as long as a) the treaty was ratified and b) the treaty was published. The 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty, a pre-colonial treaty, satisfied both criteria in that a) Queen Victoria ratified it on 16 June 1890 and b) the British government published its existence in London.
Cameroon in the Bakassi peninsula case used the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty as evidence of ownership of the peninsula. The 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty was about something different; the stated objectives were friendship and trade partnership. Litigation in this instance would concern whether the treaty converted those objectives into legal relationships. Fortunately, British courts provide avenue for Judicial review of this possibility, and the courts have vast experience in deciding such relationship issues. The case to litigate therefore was that Britain entered into an eternal legal relationship with the Yoruba in the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty, making promises that created legitimate expectations for the Yoruba, and then breaking those promises, unlawfully frustrating those legitimate expectations.
Pre-litigation acts
In order to stave off litigation, which everyone knows would be costly, and as a matter of good faith, because not much was known about the treaty, the Yoruba Party in the UK (YPUK) wrote several times to the British government requesting for arbitration and meeting to resolve the matter of non-implementation of the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty. Article 5 of the treaty provided for this, but the government’s response was to deny the requests. The decision to deny created an impasse that could only be resolved by litigation. So here we are.
On 8 August 2025, the Administrative Court in London issued the claim that YPUK made for Judicial Review of the frustration of the legitimate expectations that Britain induced in the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty. The court gave the claim the title of King (on the application of Yoruba Party UK) -v- Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. A decision by the court on the papers is imminent.
The remedy sought
In its application, YPUK sought a mandatory order to compel the British government to act consistent with the terms of the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty, and arrange for arbitration and a meeting as YPUK had requested.
YPUK claimed that it was entitled to complain that the British government was frustrating legitimate expectations that it had created for the Yoruba at Article 5 of the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty. Article 5 said that non-trade disputes between the parties would be settled by an arbitrator appointed by the government.
YPUK claimed that the disputes in this instance concerned legally binding promises that the British government had made to the Yoruba that it would forever treat Yorubaland as a sovereign country that merited a peace and friendship agreement, with which British subjects could trade exclusively and freely, and from which cession of territory was prohibited.
UK courts have jurisdiction
The 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty was domestic law.
1. Reference to ‘consideration’ made the contractual nature clear and unambiguous.
2. Payment to the Alaafin was made from the public purse.
3. The treaty was secondary legislation made under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act.
4. The treaty was binding as per the Lagos Protectorate Order in Council 1898.
The 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty was an indefinite pre-colonial treaty that remains in force today. The parties have not terminated it and it has not been legally ended. The treaty provisions do not conflict with current international law. There are no superseding agreements involving parties to the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty. Incorporation of Yorubaland into Nigeria in 1914 was not effected by agreement or by consent of the territories being amalgamated.
YPUK has Legal standing
Frustration in this treaty instance concerned the British government’s misconduct not the treaty itself. The frustration referred to the violation of specific commitments that Britain had addressed to individual Yoruba. Every Yoruba is entitled by law therefore to litigate on the legitimate expectations. To do so as individuals would be an enormous undertaking, wasteful of resources and of court time hence, the Yoruba Party in the UK agreed to provide representation. This case is a totally uncharted legal territory; YPUK is proud to pioneer it.
1. The Whitehouse 1984 BBC case in which it was held that a self-appointed representative had standing to act on behalf of a class of affected individuals, supports the YPUK claim of ‘sufficient interest’.
2. Members of the Yoruba Party in the UK (YPUK), a Yoruba-ethnic political party, have time and time again mandated that YPUK instituted a type of mass action on their behalf.
3. YPUK is heir to the Yoruba legacy, and entitled to claim ‘sufficient interest’ on its own merit.
End note:
The Yoruba will never give up their homeland. It is important for the world to know that the Yoruba have been saying this for more than 100 years.
1. 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.’
2. Independence negotiations – Chief Awolowo, head of the Yoruba delegation, proposed a secession clause to be included in the Nigerian constitution.
3. Since independence 1960 – Yoruba nationalist organisations continuously have campaigned for self-determination which they say was guaranteed by Article 1(2) of the UN Charter and Article 20 of the African Charter; many campaigners have been assassinated or exiled from Nigeria because of these campaigns.