Baasegun at Scheduled meeting of the Yoruba Party in the UK (YPUK) – 14 January 2025
There is a Bible story in which David, a small man, defeated Goliath, a giant. David achieved this feat by using an instrument that was the most appropriate for the occasion. Liberating Yorubaland from Nigeria is a gargantuan task. The Yoruba Party in the U.K. (YPUK) has access to instruments that have the potential to liberate Yorubaland.
Politics provides the first potential instrument for UPUK to use to liberate Yorubaland. YPUK was formed in February 2024 to give political voice to the UK Yoruba community, which numbers in the thousands. This Yoruba political voice if properly harnessed could determine the outcome of elections in certain constituencies particularly in London. Every YPUK member can contest local and national elections in England, Scotland and Wales, and we must. Just one YPUK MP, just one YPUK local councillor could provide the UK Yoruba community with a megaphone. Being a political party in itself gives YPUK direct access to major UK political parties that could be exploited to seek collaboration, cooperation or support. There would always be opportunities that YPUK could use to get access to the UK press, government, and even to King Charles, members just have to be vigilant.
Action plan:
1. YPUK has written to leaders of UK’s major political seeking collaboration.
2. YPUK is preparing a letter of dispute with the UK over the 1888 treaty.
3. YPUK is ready to sponsor candidates for this year’s May local council elections.
The law provides a second potential instrument for YPUK to use to liberate Yorubaland. Yorubaland was incorporated into Nigeria in the act of Amalgamation on 1 January 1914. Whether or not this 1914 act was lawful is a question of law that has neither been asked nor answered. As a matter of undisputed fact, Yorubaland did not consent to be incorporated into Nigeria unlike Ireland, Scotland and Wales whose respective parliaments consented to merge with England to form the ‘Great Britain’.
There are two legal instruments that are relevant to the incorporation of Yorubaland into Nigeria; first, an 1888 non-cession treaty between Britain and Yorubaland (the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty) and second, a 1913 Colony of Nigeria Order in Council (the 1913 Order). Both these legal instruments are justiciable and available to argue in a court of law.
YPUK could bring a claim in the High Court in London for judicial review. The time limit of 3 months is an obstacle, however. But the court has powers to extend time in particular if this was a matter of interest to the British public, history, and international law.
YPUK could bring a claim in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The constitution of the court is an obstacle, however. The ICJ is an organ of the UN. The court has jurisdiction only over countries that are signatories. YPUK is not a UN member State. But this obstacle could be surmounted if YPUK could get a UN member State to act as surrogate.
YPUK could bring a claim at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), an intergovernmental organisation that organises international arbitrations. The PCA has arbitrated questions of sovereignty. The PCA is not part of the UN system. The requirement that the parties agree to the arbitration (Article 1) could be an obstacle since the decision of the arbitrator is binding on the parties. The PCA may be directly accessible compared to the ICJ.
The consequences of YPUK winning in court would be most profound indeed. If the court ruled that the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty was a) fact and b) legally enforceable, the British government would be forcedimmediately to recognise Yorubaland as a State since only States could conclude and ratify treaties under international law. Also, the British government would be forced to negotiate logistics of implementing individual terms in the treaty with YPUK as victor.
If the court ruled that the 1913 Order had no legal standing, the British parliament would be forced immediatelyto bring the Order before parliament for annulment. The British government would be forced to announce that Yorubaland was a State that it unlawfully incorporated into Nigeria in the act of Amalgamation of 1 January 1914. The likelihood following that announcement is that other established States automatically would recognise Yorubaland as a State. This was exactly what happened following Germany’s early recognition of Croatia and Slovenia on Christmas eve 1991.
Action plan:
1. YPUK has offered two research grant of £1,000 each to Cardiff law school to research these legal matters.
2. YPUK is preparing an application for judicial review of the 1914 Amalgamation. If the court allowed the claim to go forward, YPUK could be assured of a successful outcome. The court would only take up a case if it were capable of succeeding.
3. YPUK will be making contact with the Permanent court in respect of the 1888 Treaty.
The international convention on statehood provides a third potential instrument available for YPUK to use to liberate Yorubaland. The convention may be conveniently classified under 3 rules. The first is the State Recognition Rule, the second is the Critical Date Rule, and the third is the Montevideo Rule.
The State Recognition Rule says that an entity became a State when it was recognised as such by a State that was already established as a State. YPUK could argue that the treaty that Britain concluded with Yorubaland in 1888, and ratified in 1890, immediately conferred statehood on Yorubaland. The treaty implied that Britain recognised Yorubaland as a State with defined frontiers.
Oppenheimer in International Law: A treatise 71 8th ed 1955, @125:
‘A State is, and becomes, an International Person through recognition only and exclusively.’
Rodrigues Cedeno, ILC Special Rapporteur:
‘When a State…concludes an agreement with an entity that it has not recognised as such, it will be recognising it from that point in time onwards…’
Montevideo Convention (1933) Article 7:
‘The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.’
1965 Restatement (Second) Foreign Relations Law, 104. Manifestation of Intention to Recognise, the American Law Institute (ALI):
‘…Implied recognition may take place in a variety of ways by which a state manifests its intention to treat an entity as a state.
(2) The coming into effect of a bilateral international agreement between a state and an entity implies recognition of that entity as a state and recognition, as its government, of the regime that makes the agreement for it.’
The Critical Date Rule says that the date on which an established State recognised an entity as a State was a date of permanence. YPUK could argue that Yorubaland became a permanent State on 16 June 1890, the day of ratification of the 1888 treaty, and nothing that occurred after that date could alter Yorubaland’s status as a State. Incorporation of Yorubaland into Nigeria in the act of Amalgamation on 1 January 1914, for example, could not alter Yorubaland’s already established status as a State.
Britain argued in the Minquiers and Ecrehos Case, I.C. J . Reports 1953, p. 47 that:
‘…whatever was the position at the date determined the critical date, such is still the position now. Whatever were the rights of the parties then, those are still the rights of the parties now. If one of them then had sovereignty, it has it now, or is deemed to have it. If neither had it, then neither has it now. The whole point, the whole raison d’etre, of the critical date rule is, in effect, that time is deemed to stop at that date. Nothing that happens afterwards can operate to change the situation as it then existed. Whatever that situation was, it is deemed in law still to exist; and the rights of the parties are governed by it.’
Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) ICJ Reports 2007, p. 36, para. 117:
‘[T]he significance of a critical date lies in distinguishing between those acts performed à titre de souverain which are in principle relevant for the purpose of assessing and validating effectivités, and those acts occurring after such critical date, which are in general meaningless for that purpose…Thus a critical date will be the dividing line after which the Parties’ acts become irrelevant for the purposes of assessing the value of effectivités.’
Montevideo Convention (1933) Article 5:
‘The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.’
The Montevideo Rule, which derived from the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of a State (1933), says that a State had 4 attributes – a permanent population, a defined territory, government, and ability to form relations with other states. YPUK could argue that Yorubaland was compliant, and was still compliant today in 2025.
Yorubaland has a permanent population (Attribute 1) domiciled in a defined territory (Attribute 2). Yorubaland is enclosed by the natural barriers of River Niger to the north and east and Atlantic Ocean to the south. The Yoruba have occupied this territory on their own, undisputed since time immemorial. Despite colonialism and Nigeria’s overlordship since 1960, the Yoruba have held on to their governance structure, the ‘Constitutional Oba’, and to their laws, which is recognised in the Nigerian Constitution as Customary Law (Attribute 3). The Yoruba when opportune have proved their capacity to enter into relations with other states (Attribute 4), the 1888 treaty being an example.
Action plan:
YPUK will be using these facts to apply for membership of the UN on behalf of Yorubaland under Article 4 of the UN Charter.