Agitation for self-determination for Yorubaland (Oduduwa Republic) began as long ago as 1967 when campaigners rallied in London jointly with agitators for Biafra. Several Yoruba self-determination organisations have since formed; some have coalesced into ‘umbrella’ groups like the Yoruba Self-determination Movement (YSDM). Over the years, mega rallies have been done both at home and abroad. Petitions have been senthome and abroad. All efforts hitherto have not dislodged Yorubaland from Nigeria.
The concept of self-determination itself is remarkably simple: any group of people who had their own territory were entitled to whatever existence they freely chose for themselves. The concept received pride of place in the Charters of the AU and UN.
UNGA Resolution 2625:
‘…all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.’
African Charter Article 20.1:
‘All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self- determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.’
How to access the self-determination right is a big problem. Unfortunately, the Charters of the AU and UN upon which the Yoruba rely do not include agreed mechanisms for activating the guaranteed rights.
One, self-determination generally was perceived as less important than territorial integrity as demonstrated in the Katangese case decided by the African Commission in 1995, and in the UN non-recognition of Somaliland that had declared its independence from Somalia since 1991.
Two, the Charter provisions of the AU and UN clearly were aspirational not concrete. UN Charter Article 1, for example, says: ‘The Purposes of the United Nations are: 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…’.
Three, the UN Charter made self-determination all things to all men, which made pursuit of it most challenging. UNGA Resolution 2625 says: ‘The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.’
Four, America and its European allies are the custodians and promoters of the self-determination concept. No entity can gain self-determination without their blessing.
So far, America and its allies have contemplated self-determination only in relation to two political situations: colonialism and imperialism. The American President Wilson on 11 February 1918 said regarding colonialism: ‘National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. ‘Self determination’ is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action.’ American and European support for self-determination for the Soviet and Yugoslav constituent nations was conditioned by the morbid fear of a spread of communism. The sense that emerges from these two political scenarios is that whether agitation for self-determination succeeded depended firstly, on the ‘situation’, and secondly, on the ‘desire’ of America and its allies.
On the matter of ‘situation’, Yorubaland is not a colony of Nigeria. Nigeria is not an imperialist country like the former Soviet Union or former Yugoslavia. The Yoruba participate fully in the governance of Nigeria; a Yoruba is currently Nigeria’s president. The Yoruba are not an oppressed minority in Nigeria. The Yoruba are not prevented from taking the steps to determine their own economic or political status. Security issues in Nigeria are not confined to Yorubaland alone. Thus, the Yoruba could not use ‘situation’ as a means of achieving self-determination.
On the matter of ‘desire’, America and its allies freely do business in Nigeria; Nigeria freely does business with them. Nigeria with its 200 million population is their most important ‘client’ in Africa. They see a loss, not a gain if Yorubaland were to exit Nigeria. In addition, the most powerful and loudest Yoruba voices in Nigeria – elites, politicians, and traditional rulers – have never publicly expressed the desire for self-determination. The fact that they are the beneficiary of the status quo is irrelevant to the decision-makers. Thus, the Yoruba could not use ‘desire’ as a means of achieving self-determination.
The reality then is that Yorubaland cannot exit Nigeria via the self-determination route as conceptualised. Most campaigners for Yoruba self-determination already sense this impossibility, and are looking to other means. The Yoruba Party in the UK (YPUK) believes that ‘situation’ and ‘desire’ are political obstacles, difficult to overcome. YPUK believes that whether or not Yorubaland belonged to Nigeria is at its heart a legal rather than a political question. British law incorporated Yorubaland into Nigeria. The legality of that law is the focus of YPUK.
There was no Nigeria until Britain unilaterally created it. Britain embarked on a series of legal subterfuge after the Berlin Act of 1885 to create an overlordship over Yorubaland. Britain transferred that overlordship to Nigeria through an Order in Council that King George V promulgated on 22 November 1913. It was Obafemi Awolowo, a Yoruba leader at the independence negotiations, who first coined the British position as one of overlordship. Britain later bequeathed the overlordship to Nigeria and entrenched it in the Nigeria independence. YPUK, whose members are heirs to the Yoruba legacy, is entitled to challenge the legality of the manoeuvrings that Britain employed to create and transfer its overlordship to Nigeria.
The truth of the matter is that what campaigners want is for Yorubaland to be free of northern domination. The correct terminology for that is emancipation, meaning freeing yourself from the control of others, not self-determination, meaning doing things your own way. Unlike self-determination, emancipation is a legal process.
Accordingly, YPUK is preparing to do legal battles with the UK government:
Battle No 1: Enforcement of the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty (earmarked for the Permanent Court of Arbitration).
Battle No 2: Annulment of the 1913 Colony of Nigeria Order in Council, the law for the 1914 Amalgamation (earmarked for Judicial Review in the UK courts).
To make donations towards these legal battles visit www.yorubapartyuk.org
Individuals, media outlets, and organisations who wish to support the YPUK initiatives please send your offers to info@yorubapartyuk.org.