The incorporation of Yorubaland into Nigeria on 1 January 1914, in the act of amalgamation, is null and void, and of no legal effect, because the British government exceeded its powers when it appropriated the resources of Yorubaland to develop Northern Nigeria, which was then dependent on the British taxpayer.
The facts
Amoral intent – The British government made clear its intention to deprive the Yoruba of their resources to use to relieve the British taxpayer of the financial burden of Northern Nigeria.
i. Lord Harcourt, Colonial Secretary (1 January 1914) reportedly said this:
‘We have released Northern Nigeria from the leading strings of the treasury. The promising and well conducted youth is now on an allowance of his own and is about to effect an alliance with a Southern lady of means. I have issued the special license and Sir Frederick Lugard will perform the ceremony. May the union be fruitful and the couple constant.’
ii. Lugard, Nigeria’s Governor General (1 January 1914) reportedly said this:
‘What we often call the Northern Protectorate of Nigeria today can be better described as the poor husband whilst it’s southern counterpart can be fairly described as the rich wife or the woman of substance and means. A forced union of marriage and marital bliss for both husband and wife for many years to come. It is my prayer that the union will last for ever.’
iii. Lugard in his 1920 report to Parliament, at Paragraph 5, wrote:
’The North, largely dependent on the annual grant from the Imperial Government, was barely able to balance its budget with the most parsimonious economy…was dependent on a grant paid by the British taxpayer…
Thus the anomaly was presented of a country with an aggregate revenue practically equal to its needs, but divided by an arbitrary line of latitude.’
Grounds
Misuse of law – The British government employed British domestic law that was not recognised by international law or by Yoruba law to appropriate the Yoruba resources.
i. Primary legislation
King George V, on 22 November 1913, issued the Colony of Nigeria Order in Council under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890 (FJA).
a. Section 8 of FJA specifically addressed the validity of acts done under Orders in Council; it relates solely to personal conduct:
‘Where, by Order in Council made in pursuance of this Act, any British court in a foreign country is authorised to order the removal or deportation of any person from that country, that removal or deportation, and any detention for the purposes thereof, according to the provisions of the Order in Council, shall be as lawful as if the order of the court were to have effect wholly within that country.’
b. Section 2 of the act addressed the matter of jurisdiction; it relates solely to British subjects:
‘Where a foreign country is not subject to any government from whom Her Majesty the Queen might obtain jurisdiction in the manner recited by this Act, her Majesty shall by virtue of this Act have jurisdiction over her Majesty’s subjects for the time being resident in or resorting to that country, and that jurisdiction shall be jurisdiction of Her Majesty in the foreign country within the meaning of the other provisions of this Act.’
c. Section 11 of the act required that Orders in Council be validated by parliament; there is no evidence that the 1913 Order was ever laid before parliament:
‘Every Order in Council made in pursuance of this act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith after it is made, if Parliament be then in session, and if not, forthwith after the commencement of the next session of Parliament, and shall have effect as if it were enacted in this act.’
ii. Secondary legislation
King George V issued the Colony of Nigeria Order in Council as secondary legislation pursuant to the FJA. Britain at that time had no jurisdiction over Yorubaland.
a. The Selbourne Niger Committee Report of 1898 very clearly stated that Britain did not have jurisdiction over ‘the Yoruba Country’ and the committee excluded ‘the Yoruba Country’ from its amalgamation proposals.
b. On 23 July 1888, Britain signed a permanent non-cession treaty of friendship and preferential trade with Yorubaland under international law that relied on Britain recognising Yorubaland as an independent sovereign State.
c. On 24 June 1865, a Select Committee imposed a veto on the British government that in West Africa, Britain without exception should withdraw from ‘all settlements including Lagos and not to annex new territories’.
The applicable law
Lord Diplock established the relevant law in the celebrated GCHQ case (1984).
1. Illegality
The 1913 Order was illegal.
a. King George V failed to consider matters that he should have considered, such as, the 1865 parliamentary veto, the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty, and the 1898 Shelbourne report.
b. King George V exceeded his statutory powers by disregarding the absence of jurisdiction and not submitting the 1913 Order for parliamentary scrutiny as obligated by the FJA.
c. King George V contravened a rule of law promulgated by Queen Victoria in the Lagos Protectorate Order in Council 1899, in which she permitted no exceptions:
‘…nothing…shall take away or affect any rights secured to any natives in the said territories by any Treaties or agreements made on behalf or with the sanction of Her Majesty, and that all such Treaties and agreements shall be and remain operative and in force, and that all pledges and undertakings therein contained shall remain mutually binding on all parties to the same.’
2. Irrationality
The 1913 Order was irrational.
a. King George V, by denying the Yoruba a fair and reasonable opportunity to put their case, like Queen Victoria before him had done for the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty, abused his power.
b. King George V, by not obtaining the consent of the Yoruba, who were to be severely affected by his decision, acted against accepted moral principles and standards, and was unjust.
3. Proportionality
The 1913 Order lacked proportionality.
a. King George V did not strike a balance between British interests and Yoruba interests, like Queen Victoria before him had done in the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty.
b. King George V gave all the advantages and rights to Britain and none to Yorubaland.
c. King George V did not consider or contemplate the foreseeable indignity, injuries and harm to the Yoruba people from being deprived of their resources, sovereignty, and traditional governance.
Feasibility of a legal challenge
The 1913 Order remains in force as British law, and today in 2025, is susceptible to a quashing order by the courts.
i. The Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890 under which the 1913 Order was issued does not have a specific expiry date. Queen Elizabeth II used powers conferred on her by the FJA to enact the Antarctic Act 1994 (Overseas Territories) Order 1995.
ii. A prerogative law, such as, the 1913 Order, does not lapse because of disuse. In Burma Oil Company v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, the claimant received compensation in 1965 for prerogative powers used in 1942.
The Yoruba Party in the UK (YPUK) is the political voice of the UK Yoruba community. Join us at www.yorubapartyuk.org
YPUK has instituted a court case to force the UK government to act in accordance with the terms of the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty. You can donate to the case at Lloyds Bank – Sort Code: 30-54-66; Account Number: 32655960.