Lecture notes: Baasegun (Dr) Olusola Oni, Leader of the Yoruba Party in the UK
The 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty is as much a Governor Moloney legacy as it is a Queen Victoria legacy. One of the last acts performed by Moloney as governor, before he left Lagos in 1890, was to deliver the ratification of the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty. Britain breaking its promises to the Yoruba coincided with Moloney’s departure. His successors had no compunction in not adhering to Britain’s promises.
Even though Britain made promises that the Yoruba could reasonably expect to continue, the Yoruba have not received the expected benefits. Expectations, reasonably induced by Britain’s promises, did not result in the outcome that the Yoruba were led to believe they would receive from the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty. The legitimate expectations were not fulfilled. Britain denied the Yoruba the expected benefits of its promises.
Britain broke 4 general types of promises
1. Specific assurances – Britain broke its promise not to appropriate a single yard of Yorubaland or interfere with its governance structure (letter of request dated 23 May 1888 and Article 7 of the treaty).
2. Specific commitments – Britain broke its promise to treat Yorubaland as a favoured nation with friendship (Article 1), free trade (Article 3) and tariffs (Article 4).
3. Contractual commitments – Britain broke its promise to use a system of dispute resolution (Article 5) and a quid quo pro, paying the Alaafin a yearly stipend (Article 8).
4. Good faith – Britain broke its promise of eternity of obligations, indefinitely binding, continuing in perpetuity, and recurring with no provision for escape, termination or withdrawal.
Britain used acts of frustration to break its promises
Frustration here refers to the British government disregarding or ignoring clear and unambiguous promises that it made to the Yoruba in the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty. By disregarding its promises, Britain prevented the treaty from progressing, and as a result denied the Yoruba access to the legitimate expectations that they were owed. Britain followed a different and unfair path from the treaty knowing that the Yoruba had no power to stop it. This was abuse of power.
Frustration of legitimate expectations is not the same as breach of treaty, and is not considered as a breach of treaty in itself. A breach is a violation of the terms of a treaty. It is a concept in public law between states, where states were bound by the agreement they have signed. Treaty law is a body of international law and rules governing how treaties were formed, interpreted, operated or terminated. Frustration of legitimate expectations by contrast is the reneging on a clear promise by a public authority. Frustration is about whether a public body acted legally, properly or rationally.
Specific acts of the frustration done by Britain
1. Frustration by Change of personal – implementation of the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty, a novel treaty, required the skills of diplomats at the top. The British government took a different path and employed soldiers who ignored treaties and used superiority of arms to overrule local rulers, who they considered inconvenient obstacles to British economic and strategic ambitions. The change in the calibre of personnel created what may be called a Hawk-Dove effect on the ground.
2. Frustration by non-engagement – (re: Article 5, the dispute resolution clause) – The government did not respond appropriately to enquiries dated 23 January 2025, 14 February 2025 and 17 March 2025, seeking arbitration and a meeting. The government did not respond at all to a letter dated 28 June 2021 enquiring whether the Crown fulfilled its side of the bargain and whether the 1914 amalgamation violated the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty.
3. Frustration by appropriating Yoruba territory – (re: Article 7, the non-sessions clause) – On 22 November 1913, King George V, knowing from the 1898 Selbourne Committee Report that Yorubaland was not under the jurisdiction of the British Crown, nevertheless annexed Yorubaland by way of the Colony of Nigeria Order in Council. On 1 January 1914, Lugard, knowing that Queen Victoria had decreed that the Yoruba treaties were binding, nevertheless usurped sovereignty and included Yorubaland in his amalgamation of Nigeria without obtaining the consent of the Yoruba.
4. Frustration by assassination of the Alaafin – (re: Article 8, the contractual commitment clause) – The British government made the first payment to the Alaafin on 16 June 1890 but for rejecting British presence in his domain, on 21 November 1895, Captain Bower, the British resident at Ibadan, attacked and killed the Alaafin (the King of Oyo) and many of his followers, burnt down their quarters and left the country in a distracted state. Although Bower might have been acting on a frolic of his own, the British government subsequently acquiesced to his unlawful act.
Legitimate expectations owed to the Yoruba cannot be defeated
Once the Yoruba establish that they were entitled to the legitimate expectations, the onus (burden of proof) shifted to the British government to justify why it should be allowed to frustrate it. To this end, the government might seek to assert two things in its defence.
a. Overriding public interest – In the context of the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty, public interest meant the interest of the Yoruba to who Britain owed the legitimate expectations. The British government cannot rely on the public interest justification in this instance however because the Yoruba derived no benefits but only harm from the frustration. Inflicting harm is not in the public interest.
b. Proportionality – Friendship and trade partnership were the two primary objectives of the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty. The British government cannot rely on the proportionality justification in this instance however because their acts of frustration were detrimental to the objectives. Inflicting detriment is not in the public interest.