Our ref: 1888treaty/ukpm/210425
21 April 2025
Sir Keir Stammer
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA
Dear Sir
Re: Letter before claim re: the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty
On 18 March 2025, I wrote to you requesting that you invoked the arbitration provision of Article 5 of the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty. It is now a month. I have not received your response. I am therefore left with no choice but to refer the entire matter of the treaty to the courts for judicial review. This is the letter before claim.
Title of claim:
1. The Yoruba Party in the UK (Claimant) -v- The Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Defendant)
The application:
2. A mandatory court order by way of judicial review to compel the Defendant i) to reverse the decision to frustrate legitimate expectations owed to the Yoruba by way of a non-cession treaty of friendship and preferential trade that Britain concluded with Yorubaland on 23 July 1888, ii) to refrain from any future acts that may frustrate the legitimate expectations, and iii) to immediately begin to honour the terms of the said treaty as directed by Queen Victoria in the Lagos Protectorate Order in Council of 27 December 1899 in respect of all ‘native’ treaties.
The issues:
3. On 23 May 1888, Queen Victoria, Head of Great Britain and Ireland, wrote to Alaafin Adeyemi, Head of Yorubaland, requesting for a treaty. On 23 July 1888, the parties concluded and signed the treaty. On 16 June 1890, Queen Victoria ratified the treaty. The Defendant also published a notice of the treaty for worldwide acceptance.
4. For the Yoruba, the treaty (the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty) gave rise to the legitimate expectations that i) Britain ‘for ever’ would treat Yorubaland as an independent sovereign State and ii) Britain would appropriate ‘not one yard of land’ from Yorubaland.
5. The Defendant however did several acts to frustrate the legitimate expectations, including;
i. the Defendant’s local officials, pursuant to their superiority in arms, ignored Yoruba treaties that they themselves had signed, conducted military raids into Yorubaland, and in 1895, assassinated the Alaafin (contrary to Article 5);
ii. the Defendant disobeyed Queen Victoria’s Southern Nigeria Order in Council 1899, which excluded Yorubaland as one of the territories constituting the ‘Southern Nigeria’;
iii. the Defendant disobeyed Queen Victoria’s Lagos Protectorate Order in Council 1899, which excluded Yorubaland as one of the territories constituting the protectorate;
iv. the Defendant disobeyed Queen Victoria’s directive in the Lagos Protectorate Order in Council 1899 that Britain had an obligation to honour all ‘native’ treaties;
v. King George V on 22 November 1913, at his Windsor Castle residence, made the Colony of Nigeria Order in Council including Yorubaland into the Nigeria colony (contrary to Article 7);
vi. on 1 January 1914, the Defendant stripped Yorubaland of its sovereignty, abolished its territorial integrity, and amalgamated it into its colonial state of Nigeria (contrary to Article 7); and,
vii. since 2021, the Defendant has rebuffed all requests to engage in negotiations over the 1888 treaty (contrary to Article 5).
The law:
6. By ratifying the treaty on 16 June 1890, Queen Victoria brought the 1888 treaty under international law.
7. By issuing the Lagos Protectorate Order in Council 1899 under an act of parliament, that is to say, the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890, Queen Victoria brought the 1888 treaty under domestic law as secondary legislation.
8. By including the directive in the 1899 Order that all ‘native’ treaties and agreements shall remain ‘operative and in force’ and ‘mutually binding on the parties’, Queen Victoria rendered the 1888 treaty justiciable in the British courts.
9. The parties, in the Preamble and at Articles 4, 5 and 6, committed themselves to eternal obligations, indefinitely binding, continuing in perpetuity, and recurring.
What the Defendant must now do to avoid litigation:
10. The Defendant must
a) Publicly announce the existence of the 1888 treaty and the associated legitimate expectations.
b) Repudiate all acts it hitherto had done to frustrate the legitimate expectations.
c) Immediately announce that it recognised Yorubaland as an independent sovereign State and respected its territorial integrity.
d) Refer any outstanding matters to arbitration as provided for at Article 5.
11. Protective cost order:
The Claimant intends to ask the court for a PCO limiting liability for costs to £2,000.
i. The Defendant, on the facts, is the party at fault.
ii. The Defendant’s lack of engagement is wholly responsible for the claim coming to court.
iii. The Claimant, registered with the Electoral Commission just over a year ago, is of limited means.
iv. The case meets the guidelines set out in Corner House for granting PCOs.
v. The case is of great constitutional importance.
12. Treaties are about aspirations. A breach of treaty damaged aspirations. By committing a breach of the 1888 treaty, the Defendant damaged, and continues to damage, the aspirations of the Yoruba. This state of affairs is not acceptable. It must immediately be rectified by the Defendant.
I should be most grateful for your reply within 14 days of the date at the top of this letter.
The Claimant sends this letter by recorded delivery.
Respectfully yours
Baasegun (Dr) Olusola Oni
Leader, The Yoruba Party in the UK