On 23 January 2025, I wrote to the UK Prime Minister in my capacity as leader of the Yoruba Party in the UK (YPUK) respectfully requesting for ‘Arbitration regarding a Treaty concluded between Britain and Yorubaland on 23 July 1888’, invoking the dispute resolution provision of Article 4 of that treaty. On 13 February 2005, I received an unsigned response, from an unnamed writer, from a so-called Nigeria Unit of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to the effect that Nigeria held some sort of veto over the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty.
On 14 February 2025, I wrote back to the Prime Minister to inform him that the Nigeria Unit’s response was not only inappropriate, but it was also insulting and patronising. I wrote that the 1888 treaty was a matter of law, not politics, and that my January letter to him was in the nature of ‘letter before action’. I reminded the Prime Minister that Nigeria was not party to the 1888 treaty, and YPUK was a political party in the UK not in Nigeria. I further reminded him that as a registered UK political party, YPUK was entitled, like other UK political parties, to demand accountability from the UK government. I made it clear to the Prime Minister that YPUK would take the matter to judicial review if necessary. I eagerly await his response to my latest letter.
To those who might not know, a matter could be brought for judicial review in the British courts only if it fell into one or more of the categories of illegality, irrationality, proportionality and legitimate expectation. The 1888 treaty fell into the category of legitimate expectation. The complaint is that the Yoruba had a legitimate expectation that a treaty they concluded with the British in 1888 forever entrenched a future legal relationship that was equitable, just and fair, but Britain since then has frustrated the legitimate expectation. Two questions emanated from this claim. First, what factors in the treaty gave rise to the legitimate expectation? Second, how did Britain frustrate the legitimate expectation? The Nigeria Desk’s response attends to neither of these questions, and merely continued with Britain’s frustration of the legitimate expectation. It is evident from the Nigeria Desk’s response that the British government had very little knowledge or understanding of the 1888 treaty.
With regards to Nigeria, once the judicial process has begun, Nigeria could apply to the court for permission as amicus curiae either to file evidence or make representations, indicating why and in what form it wished to participate. The amicus brief however is at the court’s discretion. Consent is an important factor. Nigeria must seek the consent of the Yoruba before making its application to the court. To stand a chance, Nigeria must provide the court with some information, expertise, or perspective that the Yoruba would not already have provided to the court. The court would refuse leave to intervene if Nigeria sought simply to duplicate submissions made by the British government or attempted to continue with the frustration of the legitimate expectation. No British court would entertain the continued frustration of the legitimate expectation.
It is also the case that no British court would entertain a veto intervention from the Nigerian government: 1) There is identifiable a geographical entity fulfilling the description of Yorubaland, and an ethnic group that is Yoruba-speaking therefore still able to benefit from activation of the treaty; 2) Nigeria was not party to the 1888 treaty and was not even in existence at the time the treaty was concluded and ratified; 3) The 1888 treaty cast doubt on the legitimacy of Nigeria as a country; 4) Nigeria is a country itself governed with a disputed, unratified constitution; 5) Britain making good of the legitimate expectation is a matter of law whilst the desire of Nigeria to remain as one country is a political matter that could not touch or concern the British courts; and, 6) The Alaafin, today a Nigerian public official, appointed by government, and paid a salary from the public purse, is no longer head of Yorubaland.
Alaafin Adeyemi had the legitimate vision that the treaty he negotiated with Queen Victoria on 23 July 1888 secured forever an equitable, fair and just partnership between his Yoruba-speaking peoples and the Queen’s subjects, who since then themselves have frustrated realisation of the vision. Fortunately, Alaafin Adeyemi’s vision was documented in writing, which has kept it alive in dormancy. It is our duty as heirs to the mantle of the Yoruba legacy to breathe life into the Alaafin’s legitimate vision.
The Yoruba Party in the UK (YPUK) was registered with the Electoral Commission on 13 February 2024 to provide a political voice for the UK Yoruba community. As a purely Yoruba ethnic-based political party, YPUK is heir to the mantle of the Yoruba legacy just as the state of Israel, a political entity, was ‘heirs to the 6 million’. As a UK-based political party, YPUK is entitled, like all the other UK-based political parties, to demand accountability from the British government. As a political voice, YPUK provides leadership to the Yoruba who currently are in lack of effective leadership.