Tag: Trial

TITLE: Re-visiting The Trial of King Jaja of Opobo and deportation by British Colonial Government: A Legal Analysis of The Trial of King Jaja of Opobo in 1887

AUTHORS: Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja and Dr Reginald Chikere Keke

PAGES: 173

REVIEWER: Emman Ovuakporie

PUBLISHERS: Association of Legislative Drafters and Advocacy Practitioners-ALDRAP

ISBN:978-978-995-006-5

Introduction:

The book Re-visiting The Trial of King Jaja of Opobo and deportation by British Colonial Government: A Legal Analysis of The Trial of King Jaja of Opobo in 1887 is a product of a well investigated and researched work by Dr Tonye Clinton Jaja a direct descendant of King Jaja of Opobo and Dr Reginald Keke Chikere laced with legal reviews as to the injustice meted on one of the greatest Kings in sub-Sahara Africa.Its originality is not really in doubt as both Jaja and Chikere dug out hard facts archived in the British Parliament over 135 years ago is a clear testimony to this fact.The background analogy and the narratives from the first chapter to the last are overwhelming and the flawless presentation of facts tells it all.
Chapter One:This chapter vividly illustrates with concrete evidence with dates the historical background of King Jaja of Opobo and the battles he had with the British imperialists and what led to his trials.With native intelligence, King Jaja demonstrated his political will as to his rights on imposed mercantile orders that were not favourable to his people.This narrative in the chapter explains how Jaja is well-grounded in the area’s economic
geography, Jaja established a settlement “where he would have easy access to and control of all canoe traffic to palm articles recognizes Jaja’s right to collect comey or toll from British traders as paid in Bonny, and the final article states:
After April 5, 1873, the King of Opobo shall allow
no trading establishment or hulk in or off Opobo
Town, or any trading vessel to come higher up
the River than white man’s beach opposite
Hippopotamus Creek. If any trading ship or
steamer proceeds further up the River than the
creek mentioned, after having been fully warned
to the contrary, the said trading ship or steamer
may be seized by King Jaja, and detained until a
fine of 100 puncheons be paid by the owners to
King Jaja
This last article barred European traders from the
interior markets and grants such to the sole patronage of
African traders. Jaja therefore consolidated his grip on
hinterland commerce and exercised authority over British
traders in his coastal Opobo territory. Effectively in charge of
Opobo and with a strong military backing, Jaja appropriated
comey paid by British traders to himself without regard to
the chiefs who migrated and established Opobo with him.
Even though some were dissatisfied, none could query Jaja’s
action in the open. By the late 1870s, Jaja had become one
of the most influential (if not the most influential) African
traders and well-known figure throughout Eastern Niger
Delta and beyond.
Chapter Two:
This chapter provided a historical analysis of the legal issues involved in the said trial.Here, this chapter delved into the analysis of the trial of King Jaja from the Perspective of
Legal Principles of Fair Hearing as a Human Right and Maxims of Equity
“You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse. So, will this
judgment collapse if the statement of claim is a nullity.”The authors using established judgements by Lord Denning in Benjamin Leonard Macfoy Vs.
United Africa Company (UAC) Appeal No. 67,
1960 judgment delivered on 27th November, 1961.The above statement applies to the verdict against King Jaja
by Sir Admiral W. Hunt- Grubbe at Government House, Accra in December, 1887. The entire trial and the resultant
judgment /verdict, (in the eyes of the law) amount to a nullity and cannot stand.It collapses because there was no
legal basis for the said trial of King Jaja by Sir Admiral W.
Hunt- Grubbe.Using arguments for and against, reasons were adduced why King Jaja was not given a fair hearing.Below are the reason(s) for the assertion. These reasons are
presented in simple language for easy understanding by
readers who may not be lawyers:
1. Arbitration not litigation (by a judicial inquiry) was the
stipulated method for Resolution of disputes under the 1884
Protectorate Treaty
In the first instance, under the Protectorate Treaty of 1887,
resort to (and exhaustion) of arbitration procedure was
stipulated as the one and only method of resolution of any
dispute arising between King Jaja, his Chiefs and British
colonial officials.
For the avoidance of exact arbitration clause of the
Protectorate Treaty, 1884, is reproduced hereunder:
“Article VIII – if any vessel should be wreaked
within the Opobo territories, the king and Chiefs
(of Opobo) further engage to do all in their
power to protect the persons and property of the officers, crew and others on board such wrecked
vessels. All claims for salvage due in such cases shall, if disputed, be referred to the British consular or other officer for arbitration and
decision”
Contrary to the explicit terms of Article VIII of the Protectorate Treaty, 1884, Sir Harry Johnston, the British
Consul/ Official did not refer the alleged dispute to an Arbitration Panel. To the Contrary, King Jaja was referred to
face “charges” before a judicial inquiry panel chaired by Sir
Admiral W. Hunt- Grubbe.
The Hansard of 6th March. 1888 provides evidence that “Rear
Admiral Sir William Hunt- Grubbe, commanding the West
Africa Squadron, was directed to inquire into the charges
against King Jaja of Opobo.”
In other words, the dispute between King Jaja and the British
(“have you at any time barred trade to the inland districts
beyond your jurisdiction such as Ohombela…)’ was
couched as criminal charges without resort to arbitration, in
the first instance.
“There are several differences between arbitration and
litigation. The most significant difference is that litigation is
handled in Court and must adhere to the strict rules and
statues that govern court proceedings. Arbitration is
handled outside of the Courts and can be a much speedier
and informal process. However, arbitration can only take
1 Verdict/judgement of Sir Admiral W. Hunt- Grubbe, 14 December 1887,
place if it is provided for in a contract agreed upon by the
parties”2
From the foregoing, it is obvious that the British Colonial
Officials, did not comply with Article VIll of the Protectorate
Treaty, 1884 to the extent that they failed to refer the
dispute to an Arbitration panel in the first instance.
To the contrary, they referred the dispute (the Ohombele
dispute) between them and King Jaja to a more formal
process (judicial inquiry) different from the much more
informal proceedings characteristic of arbitration as
stipulated under the Protectorate Treaty, 1884 which they
alleged that King Jaja had violated.
Curiously, the question arises, considering that resort to
litigation presupposes that a matter is “handled in the court
and must adhere to the strict rules and statutes that govern
court proceedings” under what legislation or statute was the
trial of King Jaja conducted?What statute or legislation granted jurisdiction to Sir
Admiral W. Hunt- Grubbe to undertake the trial of King Jaja?The answer to these questions are in pages 20-43 of the book and many more.Chapter Three:Jaja and Chikere in this chapter applied International Law as a yardstick to determine whether King Jaja of Opobo was given a fair hearing from being deceived and ferried to Ghana where he was tried.The narrative here explains that International Law on Reparation as Applicable to Descendants of King Jaja and Opobo “International Law consists of rules and principles governing
the relations and dealings of nations with each other, as well as the dealings between states and individuals and
relations between international organisations… in contrast,
private International Law deals with controversies between
private persons” – Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, Cornell University.The above quotation demonstrates that the dealings to the
trial of King Jaja of Opobo as conducted by British Colonial
Officials occurred within the realm of international law.Regardless of the legal inexperience of the descendants of
the victims of colonialism, the recent trend under International Law, is that inter- governmental and
supranational organisations are now urging European nations (Former Colonial Governments) to take a proactive step(s) by providing “some form or reparations such as
offering public apologies and the restitution of stolen artefacts to the countries of origin“ – This is contained in the
text of Resolution 2018/2899 (RSP) adopted on 26th March,
2019 by the European Parliament which called on its
member states (including the United Kingdom which
violated King Jaja’s right to fair hearing).
In accordance with recent developments under International
Law (such resolution 2018/2899 (RSP) adopted on the 26th
March, 2019 by the European Parliament which enjoined
European Nations including (United Kingdom to take action
for “past and ongoing injustices and crimes… committed
under European colonialism” by offering some form of
reparations such as offering public apologies and restitution
of stolen artefacts to countries of origin, the government of
the United Kingdom is enjoined to issue a public apology to
the descendants of King Jaja of Opobo and to also provide
Restitution and Compensation for the remainder of the total sum of £11,000 (eleven thousand Great British Pounds
Sterling) which it Commenced Payment in the year 1940.Already in 2013, the government of the United Kingdom
established a precedent in this regard when its then Minister
of Foreign Affairs (William Hague) issued a public apology
and went further to pay the total sum of $125,000,000:00
(one hundred and twenty-five million US Dollars) to victims
of colonial crimes in Kenya.This was the outcome of a law
suit with full citation as: Ndiku MUTUA, Paulo NZILI,
Wambugu NYINGI, Jane Muthoni MARA & Susan NGONDI
(Claimants) and THE FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH
OFFICE (Defendant) (2011) EWHC 1913 (Q.B) Case No: HQ
09X02666, Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, Date:
21/07/2011
The five Claimants in this case are veterans of the MauMau
movement which participated in the struggle for
Independence of Kenya from British Colonial rule during the
1950s. The claimants alleged that the British Colonial
government official(s) argued that no claim could be
brought against the United Kingdom government since the
colonial government had acted on its own and upon
Independence it was the Government of Kenya that
inherited
the rights and liabilities of the colonial
administration.Furthermore, the principal argument of the government of the United Kingdom was that too much time
had elapsed that the majority of those on the defendant’s side who might have given oral evidence are now dead and
that fair trial is no longer possible due to the Limitations Act
1980. The trial judge rejected the arguments of the British
government.Another important development under International Law
that provides a precedence for reparation is the Herero and
Nama People of Namibia. On Friday 28th May, 2021, more
than a century after the “genocide” of the Herero and Nama
tribes by the previous colonial government of Germany, the
current government of Germany formally acknowledged the
genocide of the Herero (Ovaherero) and Nama (Namaqua)
people. The German government agreed to issue an
apology, and committed to providing €1.1 billion (£940,000,000) towards reconstruction and development
projects in Namibia. A declaration will be signed by Maas following which it will be ratified by the Parliaments of both
countries. President Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany’s
crime in front of the Namibian Parliament while the
government of Namibia commended this as a victory, Herero and Nama leaders exhibited some scepticism as the
public apology statement did not include reference to
“compensation” or “reparation.”Application of the International Law Principles relating to
reparations to the case of King Jaja of Opobo having established that both UN and European Parliament
Resolutions and even precedents from Courts supported
the payment of compensation and issuance of public
apology to victims of colonial wrongs it logically follows that
descendant of King Jaja of Opobo ought to be recipients of
a similar gesture of public apology for the trial and conviction of King Jaja in 1887. Such a public apology by the
Government of the United Kingdom can be submitted to the
current king of Opobo Kingdom who is a grandson of King Jaja.Identification of King Jaja’s descendants are made even easier by the fact that the British Colonial government
commenced the payment of compensation in 1944. A full list
of the recipients of this compensation is provided in
Appendix IV of this book/monograph. Out of the total sum
of £22,420 earmarked only £11,420 was paid by the British
Colonial government in 1944. This implies that a balance of
£11,000 is outstanding and unpaid. Both the government of the United Kingdom and officials of the Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Office of the United Kingdom ought to compute the current value of £11,000 and
pay same to the current Amayanabo of Opobo (King of
Opobo) for distribution to the descendants of Opobo.In addition to the said sum of £11,000, other monies that
ought to be paid to the descendants of King Jaja are the total value of lost earnings of King Jaja of Opobo from the
year 1887 to 1891. According to available records, King Jaja
of Opobo’s annual income from the palm oil trade was
£10,000 multiplied by four (4) years is £40,000. This should
be computed at the current exchange rate value.
Another aspect of lost earning is the loss arising from the
sudden stoppage of the education of the children of King
Jaja of Opobo due to the trial and exile of King Jaja in 1887.In this same chapter, details of such payments are properly presented for readers to easily discern and how the British can compensate the descendants of King Jaja of Opobo.Chapter Four:
Here the authors simply established the fact that the trial of
King Jaja of Opobo in 1897 did not comply with International Law Standards of fair hearing and equity. It was also
established that in accordance with both precedents and International Law principle of reparation, the payment of a
sum of eleven thousand British Pound Sterling (£11,420)
the British Colonial Government serves as persuasive
precedent that compensation ought to be paid for colonial
crimes such as those against King Jaja.
It is recommended that additional compensations for lost
earnings etc.
For full details of the details of the said claim for reparation
see Appendix v of this book
page 57Conclusively, the forword to this book was written by His Majesty,
King Jaja of Opobo
King (Dr) Dandeson Douglas Jaja, Jeki V, Treaty King
Natural Ruler and Amanyanabo of Opobo
Chairman, Rivers State Council of Traditional Rulers a descendant of King Jaja, read part here where he stated that” I cannot imagine the depth of anguish
and deprivation, suffered by our ancestors at the time of his kidnap.Nothing can be compared to the state of confusion in Opobo
Kingdom, especially in the Royal House when he was kidnapped and
forcefully removed.The pain and anguish we suffer today when our loves ones are kidnapped in Nigeria cannot be compared in any way
to what his kingdom, his family, relations and friends suffered on the
18th September, 1887 when he was kidnapped and forcefully removed
from his kingdom against his wish. For four years Opobo kingdom was
thrown into mourning till he was finally killed by Britain, buried,
exhumed and reburied in Opobo kingdom in September 1891, two
months after his death.
The authors, Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja, one of the descendants of King
Jaja and his co-author Dr. Keke have my authority to write on
reparation for the descendants of King Jaja and Opobo kingdom as a
build up to extracting an unreserved apology, and payment of
appropriate reparation by the Government of Britain. They have been
known to have apologized for lesser crimes than the kidnap, exile and
killing of King Jaja. We hold Britain accountable for King Jaja’s death
and for all the ill treatment he received at their hands.
We call on all lovers of justice, friends of King Jaja, friends of Opobo
kingdom and the Federal and Rivers State Governments, to join in this
fight to finally compel Britain to render unqualified apology to the
descendants of King Jaja and compel them to pay adequate
reparation for the inhuman treatment King Jaja suffered at their
hands. This done, it is hoped, his descendants can find closure at last.This book is a rarity in the Nigerian book shelf because of its originality as both authors chronicled the events, places, historical facts, legal reviews vividly displayed. It’s a must read for law students, historians, legal experts, journalists and students of political science.