Every Yoruba Ọba knows that the Fulani are the enemies of the Yoruba people, and have been the enemies of the Yoruba people since the 1800s. Every Yoruba Ọba knows that the Fulani have no respect for the office of the Ọba, and would slaughter the Ọba like an animal whenever chanced. Every Yoruba Ọba knows that the Fulani use their cows as weapons to destroy Yoruba farmlands, and to render it impossible for the Yoruba farmer to go to work. Every Yoruba Ọba knows that the Fulani without remorse murdered Yoruba men, women and children in cold blood including even those at Church worshipping God. Every Yoruba Ọba knows that the Fulani wantonly raped Yoruba women folk, and made Yoruba villages uninhabitable.
Every Yoruba Ọba knows that the Fulani are above the law of Nigeria, and that with Nigeria’s politics and structure, there could never be change in the fortunes of the Yoruba people. Every Yoruba Ọba knows that the status quo is no longer tenable for the Yoruba people, and that an independent Yoruba Nation is the only solution. Yet, the Yoruba Ọba do nothing, but they could do something.
The Ọba is quintessentially Yoruba. The Ọba is a Yoruba institution, bequeathed to us by our forefathers since time began. The Ọba is the Yoruba, the Yoruba is the Ọba. The two are inseparable. The person on the stool was just an occupier, transient, just passing through. The occupier Ọba did not possess the office, the office possessed him. The occupier Ọba had the sacred task of keeping alive the Yoruba convention, customs and traditions. The Ọba was the Yoruba megaphone (Alakosọ) and the Yoruba representative (Aṣoju). The Yoruba Ọba is a road map to the Yoruba Nation.
The Yoruba Ọba do nothing because they misunderstand their status in Nigeria. Today’s Ọba would appear not to know that there was a fundamental difference between political power and traditional indigenous power. Political power derived from political parties whilst traditional indigenous power derived directly from the people themselves. The two powers ran parallel to each other; one was not superior to the other. The colonial powers understood this dichotomy. The Yoruba Conference of Ọba first convened in 1931, and which met yearly with the Governor until 1942, was an expression of that traditional indigenous power. The Conference could convene again to declare the Emancipation of the Yoruba Nation. The Yoruba masses would follow even if the elites demurred, as many of them might do. The Fulani would not fight as they know it would be futile.
Nigeria’s law on Declaration of Emancipation
The sovereignty of Nigeria is not absolute because of Section 14 of 1999 Constitution which says:
‘(1) The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a State based on the principles of democracy and social justice. (2) It is hereby, accordingly, declared that: (a) sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority…’
In 2000, the Arewa States made use of the Section 14 provision to enact the Sharia Criminal law in their territories. The same Section 14 provision makes it lawful for the Yoruba Ọba to make a Declaration of Emancipation for the Yoruba Nation.
The right to free association is a fundamental right guaranteed by Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution where it says:
‘Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests…’
The case of Buhari v Ọbasanjọ [2005] 2NWLR (Pt 910) very clearly spelt out the circumstances under which the Nigeria armed forces could be lawfully deployed internally within Nigeria. Sections 217(2)(c) and 219(4) make it obligatory for the President to obtain prior approval from the National Assembly to exercise the power of Commander-in-Chief. The National Assembly is not likely to give the President approval to start a civil war against the Yoruba Nation.
International law on Declaration of Emancipation
According to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Kosovo case, unilateral declaration of independence was not prohibited by international law. The ICJ found that often in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, declarations of independence were made, and they were strenuously opposed by States against which such declarations were made. Yet, State practice during this period was that international law did not prohibit the declaration of independence. In relation to the second half of the 20th century, the Court found that the Law of Self-determination created the right to independence for peoples of Non-Self-Governing territories, such as, the Yoruba Nation. Any prohibition by UNSC resolutions had been made only in the context of unlawful use of force (violation of UN Charter Article 2(4)) or a violation of a jus cogens norm. That was not the context under which the declaration of the independence of Kosovo was made, and that it is not the context under which the Yoruba Ọba would be making the Declaration of Emancipation of the Yoruba Nation.
According to the ICJ, unilateral declaration of independence if made by non-State actors accorded with, and was not prohibited by international law. The Court found in the Kosovo case, that the Declarants were not bound by the Constitutional Framework. The court found that the declaration of independence was made because ‘no mutually-acceptable status outcome was possible’ and because it was necessary to give the people of Kosovo ‘clarity about their future’. The court found that the Declarants did not act nor intended to act in the capacity of an institution created and empowered to act within the governance order, but instead set out to adopt a measure whose significance and effects laid outside that order. The aforementioned ICJ opinion describes perfectly the context under which the Yoruba Ọba would be making the Declaration of Emancipation of the Yoruba Nation.
Summary
To summarise the law, there is no legal impediment to a Conference of Ọba declaring Emancipation of the Yoruba Nation. Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution does not prohibit such a declaration. International law does not prohibit such a declaration. All that is required is for a group of Ọba to have enough courage and conviction to make the Declaration. To be noteworthy, the Conference of Ọba should have a similar number as the 1931 Conference, that is, 50 Ọba or more.
There is no hierarchy of Ọba in Yorubaland. No Yoruba Ọba is superior to another. The Yoruba Nation was a collective of fully independent city states, each headed by an Ọba so that one Ọba was the equal of another. Many city states that were prominent in the 19th century, such as Ketu, for example, have lost that prominence today. The Ọba of Ifẹ (the Ọọni) was prominent because the Yoruba believed that Ifẹ was their place of origin. It was for this reason that the Ọọni was allowed to preside over the 1931-42 Conference of Ọba, which convened at different locations in Yorubaland. The Ọba of Ibadan (Olubadan) became prominent because Ibadan provided military leadership when the Fulani invaded Yorubaland in the 1800s. The Ọba of Ọyọ (Alaafin) was prominent for providing political leadership when the Yoruba were confronted by the British following the Berlin Act of 1885.
How to do it
One Ọba, the Convener, would take it on himself to organise the Declaration in three steps.
Step 1: The Convener cavasses support amongst his colleagues for a Declaration of Emancipation – this could be done by telephone or by electronic media. All the Ọba in favour automatically constitute the Conference.
Step 2: The Convener prepares a draft document something as simple as: ‘We the Conference of Yoruba Ọba on this day…solemnly make this Declaration of the Emancipation of our Yoruba Nation’. The Convener obtains affirmation as signatures again using telephone or electronic media.
Step 3: The Convener holds a press conference accompanied by a handful of Ọba to read out the Declaration in public.
That is it! Job done. That is all that tradition demanded of the Ọba. The Ọba do not have to do anything else. We activists will take over from here.