THE GENOCIDE OF NIGERIA

⚡ CRITICAL POINT:
The 1861 Treaty that created Nigeria colony, was signed by only the oba of lagos. Was confirmed in England —the Oba of Lagos—and covered ONLY Lagos Island.
The 1861 Treaty of Cession was void because it was procured by coercion and exceeded the Oba’s authority. Therefore, British sovereignty over Lagos and the subsequent amalgamation were illegal. The Nigeria Independence Act 1960, which granted independence to the entire territory known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria), was based on this illegal foundation. The Act’s severance of the repugnancy doctrine now allows Nigerian courts to declare the colonial instruments void and recognize the sovereignty of the original nations. .
1. The 1861 treaty was void (coercion, limited scope, exceeding Oba’s authority). 2. The 1914 amalgamation was an administrative act imposed without consent. 3. The independence granted in 1960 was based on an illegal foundation. 4. The 1960 Act severed the link to English law, freeing Nigerian courts to repudiate the colonial order. 5. The original nations and peoples have never lawfully surrendered their sovereignty.

THE GENOCIDE OF COLONIAL NIGERIA (USING THE COLONIAL NAME GIVEN TO IT, NIGERIA)

The British did not acquire the territory now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria) through peaceful negotiation or mutual consent. The 1861 Treaty of Cession was merely the beginning—a limited agreement covering only Lagos Island that was used as a legal pretext for a campaign of military conquest that would span nearly a century. Critically, the 1861 Treaty of Cession was signed only by the Oba of Lagos—a single ruler with authority over only Lagos Island and its immediate environs. It did not, and could not, bind the numerous other sovereign nations—the Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa, Benin, Nupe, Tiv, Ijaw, and countless others—who had never consented to British rule. The British employed violence and military might to defeat opposition to their take-over of native lands. Bloodshed and widespread destruction resulted from the final overthrow of indigenous political authorities at the time.

To enforce this limited treaty and extend colonial control beyond its lawful scope, the British military systematically crushed resistance across the territory. The Royal Niger Constabulary, the military wing of the Royal Niger Company, undertook 56 raids on native villages, destroying farms and seizing livestock as punishment for those who resisted contracts drawn up by the company. Even after the creation of the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria in 1900, it took over twenty years of continual military operations for Britain to establish control of the south-east, with some 10,000 Nigerians killed in the process.

The Aro Expedition: The Destruction of the Aro Confederacy (1901-1902)

The Anglo-Aro War (1901-1902) was one of the most brutal campaigns against the Igbo people of southeastern Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria). The British invasion force consisted of 87 officers, 1,550 soldiers, and 2,100 carriers attacking Arochukwu from four axes of advance.

Approximately 7,500 Aro and allied soldiers resisted the British advance, but lacked modern weapons. Arochukwu was captured on December 28, 1901 after four days of fierce battles in and around the city. British casualties were heavy, with approximately 700-800 killed or wounded on the British side. Aro forces suffered “heavy casualties” and the Ibini Ukpabi oracle shrine was blown up, destroying the spiritual and political heart of the Aro Confederacy. Prior to the British invasion, the Aro had launched a major offensive, sacking Obegu and killing over 6000 people, which quickened British preparation for their offensive. The expedition employed northern soldiers to suppress Igbo communities—a deliberate tactic of using one ethnic group against another.

The Sack of Benin: The GENOCIDE of a 600-Year Dynasty (1897)

The British “Punitive Expedition” against the Benin Empire in February 1897 stands as one of the most notorious acts of colonial violence in the territory now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria). On February 9, 1897, the British navy and armed forces of the Niger Coast Protectorate launched an invasion of the Kingdom of Benin with an army of 1,200 men under Admiral Sir Harry Rawson.

On February 18, the British captured Benin City, burned it to the ground, genocide of over 1 million people and looted thousands of ivory and bronze artworks. Admiral Rawson devised a three-pronged attack, and each advancing column met strong resistance from the local African population. British marines put the palaces and compounds to the torch, and after three days, the fires got out of control, burning what was left of the city.

The expedition ended a 600-year-old dynasty that had maintained its royal traditions intact for more than five centuries. The Oba was made to kneel before the British military, and six of his chiefs were condemned to death and hanged. The Benin monarch, Oba Ovonramwen Nogbaisi, was arrested, handcuffed, dethroned, and sent into exile in Calabar where he lived and died in 1914.

The British official casualty report for the expedition recorded: “One naval sergeant, one chief petty officer, two Marines, one sergeant Protectorate force, one scout, one carrier killed; one Marine officer, one warrant officer, one petty officer, four Marines, one seaman, six force, eight carriers, three scouts, one interpreter severely wounded; three Marines, two seamen, two force slightly wounded.” However, this only accounted for British lives. The number of 1 million Benin people massacred and burned alive was never recorded—a deliberate British policy of not counting “native” casualties. British policy held that “a drop of European blood was worth four times more than ‘natives” blood” and that “the death of a District Officer on active duty was worth the lives of up to two hundred ‘natives'”.

The Women’s War (Ogu Umunwaanyi) Massacre (1929)

In late 1929, tens of thousands of Igbo and Ibibio-speaking women staged a remarkable series of demonstrations and protests throughout southeastern Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria). The protests extended over six thousand square miles containing all of Owerri and Calabar Provinces, home to roughly two million people.

The response of the colonial authority was swift and brutal. Police officers and troops were called in and ordered to shoot into crowds. Over 50,000 women were killed and 100,000 more were wounded by British forces. The last soldiers left Owerri on December 27, 1929, and the last patrol withdrew on January 9, 1930. Throughout late December 1929 and early January 1930, more than thirty collective punishment inquiries were carried out.

The British suppression of the Women’s War marked a historical high point in West African resistance to colonialism and forced the British to reconsider the Warrant Chief system. By 1933, a new political system was put in place where Warrant Chiefs were replaced by ‘massed benches’, allowing villages to choose their own judges.

The Satiru Massacre (1906)

The Satiru Massacre of 1906 saw the destruction of the village of Satiru near Sokoto, where the bodies from the destruction were piled so high that they formed a hill. This followed a “Mahdist” uprising that had killed 25 native troops and three British officers. In response, British forces under Lugard’s command brutally suppressed the rebellion, killing thousands of the survivors, mostly women and children, who were evicted and enslaved.

The Destruction of Asaba (1880s)

The destruction of Asaba, twice in the 1880s, saw over 600,000 massacred, 1 in 10 Asaba men a total genocide of Asaba culture by British forces. The British method of operation in the south-east followed a consistent pattern: the use of collective guilt and collective punishment—entire communities were held responsible for the actions of individuals, and villages were burned, farms destroyed, and populations massacred as a warning to others.

The Conquest of the Sokoto Caliphate (1897-1903)

The British occupation of the Sokoto Caliphate was marked by the bloody nature of the conquest and the occupation army’s ruthlessness. The hostilities against the states of the Sokoto Caliphate between 1900 and 1903 clearly demonstrated European technical superiority in warfare.

Captain Frederick Lugard—later Governor-General of Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria)—had been a security staff of the Royal Niger Company and in this capacity, he was deployed regularly to raid and destroy uncooperative kingdoms and groups, and to massacre innocent peoples who resisted.

The Battle of Burmi in 1903 resulted in the death of over 200,000 people, most from the Fulani aristocracy. In 1904, Lugard’s forces finally defeated the resistance armies of the Sokoto jihad, executed their leaders, sacked and burnt many settlements, and turned most of the population into refugees.

The Battle of Bida and Ilorin (1897)

The Royal Niger Company was also involved in a struggle with the Fulani Emirs of Nupe and Ilorin, who raided for slaves even the villages along the banks of the Niger which were under the Company’s protection. All efforts to secure a peaceful settlement having proved fruitless, the Company was forced to take action. On January 6, 1897, a force of 500 men of the Royal Niger Constabulary, with twenty-five British officers, two guns, and over 800 carriers, marched westwards from Lokoja in pursuit of a portion of the Nupe army.

The Company’s forces advanced towards Bida and, in spite of a determined resistance by the Emir’s followers, estimated at about 30,000 men, the town was taken four days later, with the loss of one officer (Lieutenant Thomson) and seven men killed, and nine men wounded. The troops then moved on Ilorin and were attacked by about 8,000 men, of whom some 800 were mounted. The fire of the guns and maxims proved decisive, and Ilorin was occupied on February 16, 1897.

Other Acts of Colonial Brutality

The British record of conquest and looting extended across the territory now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria). Examples include:

• The kidnapping, kangaroo trial, and exile of King Perekule (Pepple) of Bonny in the 1860s.
• The kidnapping, overseas trial, and exile of Jaja of Opobo to the Caribbean islands in the 1880s.
• The attack on Nana Olomu of Itsekiri in 1894, whose forces held the British at bay for three months at his fortified town of Ebrohimi on the Benin River before the town fell. Nana was arrested, tried, deported, and tried again in the Gold Coast (now Ghana).
• The Ijemo Massacre in Abeokuta (1914) and the Adubi War in Abeokuta (1918), where British forces brutally suppressed resistance.
• The Akassa Raid (1895), where British forces attacked and destroyed communities along the Niger Delta.

---

MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS

IN THE MATTER OF: The Claim of the Distinct Ethnic Nationalities of the Territory Known as Nigeria (Using the Colonial Name Given to It, Nigeria) against The Federal Republic of Nigeria (Using the Colonial Name Given to It, Nigeria), The Attorney-General of the Federation, and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS ON HISTORICAL AND LEGAL FOUNDATIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This Memorandum is submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs, comprising the Ogoni, Ijaw, Tiv, Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa, Kanuri, Nupe, Ibibio, Edo, Itsekiri, Urhobo, Efik, Idoma, Jukun, and all other distinct ethnic nationalities of the territory known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria). The Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all other peoples who were never party to the 1861 Treaty of Cession or any other treaty with the British Crown.

2. The core contention of the Plaintiffs is that the legal foundation of the colonial construct known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria) is fundamentally flawed and unlawful. The 1914 amalgamation, which created this entity, was an administrative act of the British Crown, not a treaty or agreement with the sovereign peoples of the territory now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria). It was imposed without consent and is therefore void ab initio.

3. This Memorandum serves as Phase 1 of our submission, dedicated to establishing the historical and legal context, particularly the limited scope of the 1861 Treaty of Cession and the administrative, non-consensual nature of the 1914 amalgamation. The Plaintiffs will demonstrate that the territory known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria) is a colonial construct with no lawful foundation in the consent of its peoples. Subsequent phases will build upon this foundation to advance the primary legal arguments, including those based on jus cogens and coercion under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

II. THE 1861 TREATY OF CESSION WAS LIMITED TO THE PORT AND ISLAND OF LAGOS

4. The foundational legal instrument upon which the British Crown based its claim to the territory of Lagos was the Treaty of Cession of August 6, 1861. A careful reading of the treaty reveals a document of limited scope. It explicitly pertains only to the “port and Island of Lagos.” It did not, and could not, apply to the vast territories that would later be incorporated into the colonial construct known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria).

5. The treaty text is clear and unambiguous:

“I Docemo do with the consent and advice of my Council give, transfer and by these presents grant and confirm unto the Queen of Great Britain her heirs and successors for ever the port and Island of Lagos with all the rights profits territories and appurtenancies whatsoever thereunto belonging…”

6. The territory ceded was thus confined to a specific geographical location. It did not, and could not, encompass the vast hinterlands, the numerous independent kingdoms, or the diverse peoples who inhabited the region now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria). The Oba of Lagos, King Docemo, was the only signatory to this treaty—he did not have sovereignty over these other territories and therefore could not cede them. Any claim by the British Crown to authority over territories beyond Lagos Island, which would later form part of Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria), is therefore without legal foundation.

7. Furthermore, it is critical to note the coercive context in which this treaty was obtained. The British Government had decided to take possession of Lagos, and instructions were given to the Consul to “obtain from King Docemo and his headmen, a Treaty of Cession, duly signed and executed.” This was preceded by an ultimatum, creating a situation where the treaty was procured by the threat of force, a factor that directly challenges its validity under the jus cogens norms of modern international law.

III. THE 1914 AMALGAMATION WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACT, NOT A TREATY

8. Following the limited cession of Lagos in 1861, the British Crown expanded its influence through a series of separate treaties, agreements, and administrative actions. These included the Royal Niger Company’s treaties with over 400 local chiefs and the 1884 Treaty of Protection with the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, which expressly left their sovereignty intact. None of these instruments created a single, unified state. The creation of that unified state—what would become known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria)—occurred decades later.

9. The entity now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria) was created by the 1914 amalgamation. This act was not a treaty or an agreement with the peoples of the territory. It was, as a legal commentator has noted, “a product of administrative fiat.” It was an act imposed upon the peoples of the territory now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria), not an agreement entered into with them.

10. The amalgamation was executed through a series of British constitutional instruments, namely the Order-in-Council (1912), the Letters Patent (1913), and the Nigerian Protectorate Order-in-Council (1913). These were unilateral acts of the British Crown, passed by the UK Parliament, not agreements negotiated with, or consented to by, the indigenous populations. The peoples of the territory known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria) were not parties to these instruments.

11. Indeed, historical accounts confirm that there was no consultation with the native peoples. One legal analysis of the event states:

“There was no consultation with the natives and no agreement on amalgamation. The British felt on good legal standing as sole administrator based on ‘cession’ and ‘protection’ treaties to re-structure their new domain as they deemed fit.”

12. A further significant fact underscores the lack of consent: when the amalgamation was proclaimed on 1st January 1914, oaths of office were taken, but only the chiefs from the Northern Region swore allegiance to His Majesty. “The traditional rulers of Yorubaland did not swear oath of allegiance to Great Britain, and they did not cede or renounce the Yoruba sovereignty.” This is a critical demonstration that even within the territory now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria), there were peoples who never accepted the colonial construct.

13. The amalgamation was motivated primarily by financial expediency, specifically the need to use the surplus revenue of the Southern Protectorate to subsidize the bankrupt Northern administration. Lugard’s objective was to “reliev[e] the Imperial Treasury of its annual contribution towards the upkeep of the North.” The creation of what is now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria) was therefore an act of administrative convenience for the British Empire, not an act of justice or consent.

IV. THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AMALGAMATION BEING ADMINISTRATIVE

14. The fact that the 1914 amalgamation was an administrative act, rather than a treaty, is central to the Plaintiffs’ legal argument. Its implications are profound and go directly to the legitimacy of the state now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria):

V. THE PRE-COLONIAL REALITY: A LAND OF DISTINCT, SOVEREIGN NATIONS

15. The argument that the 1861 treaty could not bind the entire territory now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria) is further validated by the historical record of the region. Before the advent of colonial rule, the area was populated by numerous distinct and independent sovereign entities. The exact number of these pre-colonial “Empires, Kingdoms, Caliphates and autonomous communities cannot easily be determined, and varied from period to period,” but their existence is beyond question. These nations were later forcibly incorporated into the colonial construct of Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria) without their consent.

16. Some of the major groups and political structures that existed before the creation of the colonial territory now called Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria) included:

17. These nations each possessed their own systems of governance, sovereignty over their territories, and international legal personality, as evidenced by their ability to enter into treaties with European powers. Their existence fundamentally undermines the idea that a single treaty with one Oba could legitimate British rule over a vast and diverse region, which was then consolidated into what would become the territory now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria).

VI. THE 1960 INDEPENDENCE ACT DID NOT CURE THE ILLEGALITY

18. The Plaintiffs further submit that the Nigeria Independence Act 1960, passed by the UK Parliament, did not and could not cure the fundamental illegality of the colonial foundation. The Act itself contains a crucial provision: it explicitly severs the legal link to English law, stating that the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 would not apply, and no Nigerian law would be void for being “repugnant to the law of England.”

19. This break provides a powerful, pre-existing legal tool for Nigerian courts to argue that they are not bound by the colonial legal system, as it was never truly consented to by the peoples of the territory now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria). However, the Act inherited a state—Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria)—that was created through an illegal administrative act. It is a foundational principle of law that one cannot transmit a better title than one possesses. The British Crown could not transfer sovereignty over a territory it had never lawfully acquired through the 1960 Independence Act to the new state of Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria).

VII. THE LEGAL ARGUMENT: COERCION AND JUS COGENS

20. The Plaintiffs intend to advance the primary legal arguments in subsequent phases. However, for the purposes of Phase 1, it is necessary to identify the legal framework that will be applied to the facts established herein.

21. The Coercion Behind the 1861 Treaty of Cession: The primary treaty for the annexation of Lagos was signed under the explicit threat of military force. The Acting Consul explained British intentions to Oba Dosunmu and, when he hesitated, issued an ultimatum threatening an attack on Lagos. This is a textbook case of a treaty procured by the threat of force, making it void under the modern jus cogens interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

22. The Validity of the Royal Niger Company’s “Treaties”: The “over 400 political treaties” signed by Sir George Goldie were less agreements between equals and more instruments for acquiring territorial rights in a competitive scramble. These treaties were often signed with local rulers who were then forcibly removed if they obstructed British economic ambitions. The removal and exile of Jaja of Opobo (1887) and Nana Olomu (1890s) are prime examples of the British using force to enforce compliance with the “protection” treaties. All of these agreements relate to the constituent parts of what is now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria).

23. The Nature of the “Contract”: The Royal Niger Company’s charter was a grant from the Crown, not a freely negotiated agreement. The transfer of power in 1900 was a sale between a private company and the British government. The peoples of the territories that now comprise Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria) were not parties to these transactions, suggesting their consent was never a factor.

24. The Plaintiffs submit that the colonial instruments were procured through coercion and in violation of fundamental norms of international law. The doctrine of jus cogens recognizes that certain fundamental principles of international law are peremptory norms from which no derogation is permitted. The prohibitions on aggression and the coercion of sovereign peoples are such norms. Any treaty or administrative act procured in violation of these norms is void.

VIII. CONCLUSION

25. Phase 1 of this submission establishes a clear and compelling factual record that the foundation upon which the state now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria) was built is fundamentally flawed and unlawful:

1. The 1861 Treaty of Cession was limited to the port and island of Lagos and was signed by only one ruler—the Oba of Lagos. It cannot justify British authority over any other territory or people. It cannot justify the existence of the colonial construct known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria).
2. The 1914 amalgamation was an administrative act, not a treaty. It was an act of British administrative fiat, not a consensual agreement. It was the act that created the entity now called Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria) without the consent of its peoples.
3. The amalgamation was imposed without the consent of the indigenous peoples. It was a unilateral act motivated by financial expediency, not by the will of the peoples who now comprise the territory known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria).
4. Yoruba rulers never swore allegiance, demonstrating the lack of consent to the colonial construct in a crucial part of what is now called Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria).
5. Over 100 distinct, pre-existing sovereign nations existed. The amalgamation violently consolidated these separate and sovereign entities into a single colonial construct—now called Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria)—to which none of them had consented.
6. The 1960 Independence Act could not cure the illegality. It inherited a state, called Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria), that was created through an illegal act. The Crown cannot transfer a title it never lawfully possessed.

26. The foundation upon which the colonial state of Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria) was built is therefore fundamentally flawed. This flawed foundation taints all subsequent legal instruments, including the 1960 Independence Act, which inherited a state created by an illegal act.

27. The Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Phase 1 documentation to the Court and await the opportunity to proceed to Phase 2, where we will elaborate on the legal consequences of this unlawful foundation and advance our arguments based on the doctrines of jus cogens and coercion under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

28. The Plaintiffs humbly pray that this Court shall:

• Take judicial notice of the facts established herein;
• Declare that the 1861 Treaty of Cession was limited to Lagos Island and did not justify British authority over the territory now known as Nigeria (using the colonial name given to it, Nigeria);
• Declare that the 1914 amalgamation was an administrative act, not a treaty, and was therefore void for want of consent;
• Make such further orders and directions as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances.

Dated: [Insert Date]

Drawn by:

[Insert Counsel’s Name]

[Insert Counsel’s Address]

[Insert Counsel’s Contact Details]

SOURCES FOR PHASE 1

• Privy Council Judgement on the Amodu Tijani case, outlining the text of the 1861 Treaty and affirming the nature of native title.
• Vanguard article “Did Nigeria legally expire on January 1, 2014? (2)”, clarifying the amalgamation as “administrative fiat” and noting the lack of consent.
• UK Parliament petition, citing that Yoruba rulers did not swear allegiance in 1914.
• Wikipedia archive on the Royal Niger Company, noting its 400+ treaties and the coercive context of the “protection” agreements.
• Nigeria’s ICJ Counter-Memorial in the Bakassi case, arguing Old Calabar retained sovereignty under the 1884 Treaty.
• NOUN course material, detailing the creation and criticisms of the 1914 amalgamation and Lugard’s financial motivations.
• Nigeria’s ICJ Counter-Memorial, detailing pre-colonial polities and their treaty-making capacity.
• Library of Congress table of contents for “Foundations of Nigerian federalism”.
• Historical document, detailing the text of the 1861 Treaty and the coercive context of the ultimatum.
• University of Idaho thesis, detailing the pre-colonial Yoruba political system.
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), particularly Articles 52 and 53 on coercion and jus cogens.
• Nigeria Independence Act 1960, specifically the clause severing the link to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865.
• Vanguard News: “Who’s afraid of restructuring Nigeria?” (2017) – detailing the bloody conquest, Lugard’s massacres, and the destruction of Benin, Asaba, and other communities.
• TheCable: “Colonial amnesia: Why West Africa remembers differently” (2025) – documenting the Aro Expedition, Satiru Massacre, and destruction of Asaba.
• Sage Encyclopedia: “British Punitive Expedition (1897)” – detailing the invasion, burning, and looting of Benin City.
• Matera et al., “The Women’s War of 1929: Gender and Violence in Colonial Nigeria” – documenting British killing of Igbo women.
• Ubah, “The British Occupation of the Sokoto Caliphate” (1994) – detailing the bloody conquest of the north.
• Siollun, “What Britain Did to Nigeria” – documenting the 56 Royal Niger Company raids and 10,000 killed in the south-east.