CONTINUED FROM LAST WEEK.
A lecture given at the Nigerian College of Arts, Science and Technology, Enugu, on 4th February, 1961.
There has been a good deal of controversy on the true meaning and implications of the Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact which was executed by Nigeria and Britain within a month or so of our country’s attainment of independence. The Federal Government, fully conscious of the unfavourable reaction of the entire generality of our people to the Pact, has sought to place on this document a construction which its provisions cannot bear. In the process, some Government spokesmen have done violence to the ordinary meanings of certain words.
We have been told that the execution of the Pact does not necessarily oblige Nigeria to take part in any war in which Britain might be involved. A high-ranking British spokesman has made an abstruse refinement of this point by saying that a Pact of this nature automatically terminates when one of the contracting countries is involved in war. It was claimed for the Pact that it was designed mainly for the benefit of Nigeria, as under it Britain undertakes to provide facilities for the training of our armed forces. Speaking at Nsukka two days ago, the Prime Minister reiterated and re-emphasised this claim. When he moved a motion calling upon the House of Representatives to ratify the terms of the Pact, the Minister of Defence, Alhaji Mohammed Ribadu, declared that the existence of the Pact does not preclude Nigeria from entering into similar undertaking with any other country or countries, and that under it no provision has been made for the leasing to Britain of a military base in Nigeria. From the brief summing up of the Government case which I have just made – and I believe that my summary is fair and unimpeachable – it will be seen that there are six important points. According to the Federal Government, the Pact:
- Will not involve Nigeria in any war in which Britain may be engaged;
- Automatically terminates in the event of one of the contracting parties being involved in war;
- Is designed for Nigeria’s benefit, in that under it, Britain provides training facilities for members of our armed forces;
- Does not provide for the leasing of a military base in Nigeria to Britain;
- Is not incompatible with the Federal Government’s declared foreign policy; and does not preclude Nigeria from entering into a similar Pact or Pacts with any other country or countries; and
- Does not in any way detract from our country’s sovereignty.
I have a feeling that the Federal Government and its friends have repeatedly been urging these points for public consumption, in the belief that since the vast majority of the people do not possess copies of or have read the Pact, a persistent advocacy of a bad case might make it look good. Similarly, those of us who see in the Pact the diametric opposite of the Government’s points of view and a veritable danger to our country’s sovereignty, peace and well-being shall continue repeatedly to present the other side of the case until truth triumphs over misrepresentation, and the contracting parties feel obliged to abrogate what is, to all intelligent Nigerians, an infamous document.
In presenting to you the true meaning and implications of the Pact, and refuting the case made by the spokesmen of the Nigerian and British Governments, I think it will be convenient to take, one by one and in the order in which I have stated them, the six points which I have previously enumerated. With regard to the first point in the Federal Government’s case, the preamble and Article I of the Defence Agreement are relevant, and I quote them in full.
PREAMBLE:
‘Whereas the Federation of Nigeria is fully self-governing and independent within the Commonwealth;
‘And whereas the Government of the Federation of Nigeria and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland recognize that it is in their common interest to preserve peace and to provide for their mutual defence;
‘And whereas the Government of the Federation of Nigeria has now assumed responsibility for the external defence of its territory; ‘Now therefore the Government of the Federation of Nigeria and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I:
“The Government of the Federation and the United Kingdom Government each undertake to afford to the other such assistance as may be necessary for mutual defence, and to consult together on the measures to be taken jointly or separately to ensure the fullest co-operation between them for this purpose.”
The meaning and implications of these provisions are, in my humble and candid opinion, clear beyond any peradventure. The aim of the two countries – Nigeria and Britain – in entering into this Agreement is ‘to preserve peace and to provide for their mutual defence.’
There is a legal authority which has the force of law in all civilized societies (of which I venture to say we are one), that in the construction of documents and statutes every word will be understood to have its ordinary meaning unless the contrary is expressly stated in the document or statute concerned. In the absence of express interpretations to the contrary, we are bound to construe the operative words in the preamble and in Article I in their ordinary meanings.
‘To preserve peace’ means ‘to preclude or prevent war’. There is a common saying that if you want peace you must prepare for war. This saying is not only true but the truth is also being demonstrated daily to our knowledge and dismay by the two power blocs of the Communist countries and the Western Democracies. Again, to preserve peace it is not enough for a country to preclude, prevent, or prepare for war, it must be sufficiently strong militarily to resist external aggression if one was committed on it.
The phrase ‘to provide for their mutual defence’ means just what it says. If there is even as much as a scintilla of doubt in anyone’s mind as to the unequivocal meaning of this phrase, such a doubt should be dispelled by the provision of Article 1. Under this Article, each of the two contracting nations ‘undertakes to afford to the other such assistance as may be necessary for mutual defence’. This provision can only bear one honest interpretation, namely that Nigeria undertakes to give to Britain such assistance as may be necessary for the defence of Britain and vice versa.
In other words, if Britain became the victim of aggression, Nigeria would be bound under the Pact to give her such aid as may be necessary, and vice versa. For the purpose of this mutual defence, Nigeria and Britain undertake to consult each other as to what measures should be taken by the two countries jointly or separately ‘to ensure the fullest Co-operation between them’. What form the aid would take would depend on the result of the consultations, having regard to the circumstances and the needs of the emergency. We might have to send members of our armed forces to fight on the side of Britain’s armed forces, or we would not need to do more than merely give such facilities, like food or other sinews of war, as may be necessary. In this connection, I would like to invite your attention to Article III and Article IV which provide as follows:
ARTICLE III:
‘The Government of the Federation and the United Kingdom Government each undertake to accord to military aircraft of and aircraft under the control of the armed forces of the other unrestricted overflying and air staging facilities in the Federation and in the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom and dependent territories respectively.
ARTICLE IV:
‘On request by the United Kingdom Government, the Government of the Federation agrees to make available facilities at Kano and Lagos airfields for the holding of tropicalisation trials of aircraft. Should the Government of the Federation so request, the United Kingdom Government will make available to the Government of the Federation the general results of such trials.’
It is a matter of plain commonsense and of law – and Commonsense is the basis of all just laws – that involvement in a crime does not only mean actually and physically participating in its commission. A man who procures or provides facilities for the commission of a crime is in the same category as the principal offender. Besides, there is such a crime as accessory before the fact, that is knowing the design for, and giving comfort to the offender before the commission of a crime. Similarly, it is not necessary for Nigeria to send her troops to fight on the side of British troops before we are adjudged as being involved in Britain’s war. If the aggressor is satisfied that Nigeria gives facilities to Britain before or during hostility to enable the latter effectively to prosecute the war, such aggressor will not hesitate and will be perfectly justified in attacking us, even though we did not declare war on nor send our troops to fight him. As we have noted in Articles III and IV, we undertake to provide Britain with overflying and air-staging facilities in our territory, Under the Status of Forces Annex which forms part of the Defence Agreement, provisions are made to enable contingents or detachments of British naval, military or air forces to be stationed in Nigeria.
The proponents of the second point that the Defence Agreement automatically terminates when either of the contracting parties is involved in war cannot expect any intelligent and right-thinking person, least of all Nigerian, to take them seriously. For what they say in effect is that the Agreement becomes inoperative on the happening of the event on account of which it was executed. In other words, if this argument were accepted the contracting countries would give to each other such assistance for mutual defence as might be necessary before the need for such defence on either side ever arose. In any case, the Agreement does not make express provision for automatic termination as implied in the Pact as it stands.
The third point is that the Defence Pact is designed mainly to benefit Nigeria, in that under it Britain undertakes to provide training facilities for members of our armed forces. It must be emphasized that there is nothing extraordinary in the training facilities which are offered to us by Britain. Assistance in the field of training as well as the provision of expert advice in operational and technical matters, is a benefit which we can get for the asking from other friendly countries which are more advanced militarily than we are. India, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, the United States of America, and Russia, to mention only a few, will only be too willing to offer US these facilities without obliging us to give them overflying, air-staging and other military and naval facilities in return.
Besides, the obligations which are imposed upon us under the Pact are to say the least onerous, compare with the benefits we receive. Between Nigeria and Britain, it does not make sense to speak of mutual defence, or of the provision of overflying and air-staging facilities in each other’s territory. For one reason, we are not in the arms race,; we are not in danger of attack by our immediate neighbours, nor do we have aggressive designs on them; for another we have no aircraft for which we need overflying and air-staging facilities (unrestricted or otherwise) in British territory.
The fourth point, that no provision has been made in the Pact for the leasing to Britain of a military base in Nigeria, can only deceive the unwary. It is true that in the Outline of the Draft Agreement initialed in London in 1958, express provision for the leasing of a base to Britain in the following terms was made: ‘Nigeria to lease to the U.K. (on terms to be agreed)-
- a) a piece of land at Kano (of up to 150 acres) on which the U.K. may construct facilities and station personnel for staging purposes;
- b) on application by U.K. a piece of land large enough (about 1,000 acres) for the construction and operation of an airfield and staging post, if for any reason Kano became unsuitable.
It is also true that no such express provision is contained in the present Agreement or in the Annex which, as has been pointed out, forms part of the Agreement.
In order to drive home my point in this connection, however, I would like to cite Sections 1 (a), 3, 5(1), and 8(3 and 4) of the Annex:
Section 1(1):
‘“ visiting force” means anybody, contingent or detachment of the naval, military or air forces of a contracting party being a body, contingent or detachment for the time being present in the territory of the other contracting party under the provisions of this Agreement, and shall include any such body, Contingent or detachment overflying or staging under the provision of Article III or engaged in tropicalisation trials under the provisions of Article IV’:
Section 3:
‘(1) The service authorities of a contracting party may take such measures as they deem necessary to ensure the security of the equipment, poverty, records and official information of the forces of that contracting party or of authorized service organization accompanying those forces.
‘(2) The authorities of the contracting party within whose territory a visiting force is present will cooperate with such steps as from time to time may be necessary to ensure the security of the forces of that other, of members of those forces or civilian component and of dependants and their property.
‘(3) Each contracting party shall seek such legislation as it deems necessary to ensure the adequate security and protection within its territory of installations, equipment, property, records and official information of the other, and the punishment of persons who may contravene laws enacted for that purpose.’
Section 5 (1):
‘Subject to compliance with the formalities established by a contracting party relating to entry and departure members of a visiting force shall be exempt from passport and visa regulations and immigration or emigration control or inspection on entering or leaving the territory of that contracting party. They shall also be exempt from regulations on the registration and control of aliens, but shall not be considered as acquiring any right to permanent residence or domicile in the territory of that contracting party.’
Section 8 (3 and 4):
‘(3) Service vehicles, that is to say, vehicles, including hired vehicles, which are exclusively in the service:
- a) of a visiting force shall be exempt from registration, taxation and compulsory third party insurance;
- b) of an authorized service organization accompanying a visiting force shall be exempt from registration and taxation,
‘(4) A visiting force shall not be subject to any tolls (other than landing fees at civil airfields) in the territory in which it is present in connection with roads, bridges, piers, wharves, quays or lading places and the vessels of such a force shall not be subject to compulsory pilotage.’
It will be seen from these provisions that contingents and detachments of British military, naval and air forces can be stationed anywhere in Nigeria without let or hindrance, that these forces can in certain circumstances constitute a law unto themselves, and that they can enter, leave and move about the country without any control whatsoever. What has happened in effect is that what Britain, as a result of a public outcry, does not dare to ask Balewa to give her on the swing has been obtained by her on the roundabout. What is more, instead of British visiting forces being confined to specified geographical locations in the country, they now have the whole of the Federation at their disposal and mercy.
It is true that the word ‘base’ is not specifically used in the Pact. But the fact that we undertake to accommodate British visiting forces on our soil and territorial waters does necessarily and inescapably imply that we are obliged to give such parts of our national territory as may from time to time seem suitable to the contracting party for use as base or bases by their visiting forces.
The fifth point is simply ridiculous. The foreign policy of the Federal Government has been declared to be ‘neutrality’. This policy means refraining from giving assistance to any of the belligerent nations in time of war. It is not difficult to see that the Defence Agreement is incompatible with this policy of neutrality. By entering into the Agreement it is evident and incontestable that Nigeria is already militarily aligned with Britain, and that in any case countries hostile to Britain are entitled to treat Nigeria as being in alignment with her. I agree that Nigeria can enter into similar Pacts with other nations, provided (and this is a big proviso) such nations are known to be in the Western countries and traditionally friendly to Britain. How can the Federal Government expect honest and conscientious Nigerians to believe that it can enter into a similar Agreement with Russia for instance? If it is sincere in its protestation, let it try to enter into one with her right now.
The truth is that it is impossible for Nigeria to enter into similar Pacts with countries having hostile intentions or designs towards Britain. At any rate, Defence Pacts whether with Britain, Russia or any other country are evil for a country like Nigeria, and should not in any circumstance be entered into. My considered view is that the policy of Nigeria should be non-involvement in military matters.
The sixth point that the Pact does not detract from our sovereignty cannot stand even the most cursory examination. Five vital points out of a number are worth noting here. In the first place, the British visiting forces can enter, leave move about our country without any control at all, either of immigration or emigration authority. We are not even entitled to know how many members of such forces are present in our territory at any given time. In the second place, they are, whilst in our country, exempted from taxation. In the third place, in certain circumstances, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of our courts. In the fourth place, British aircraft are entitled to unrestricted overflying and air-staging facilities. In other words, we have ourselves meekly an contemptibly submitted our territorial integrity to unrestricted violation. The international row over the American U-2 flight over Russian territory is an example of the extent to which a self-respecting nation can go to protect its territorial integrity. Here we don’t appear to think we have any, and we are protecting none. In the fifth place, by entering into this Pact we have seriously weakened the position of natural leadership and tremendous influence which Nigeria is destined to enjoy among other African nations. These nations no longer trust us, because the existence of the Pact is incompatible with our inherent obligations towards those independent and dependent countries of Africa which look up to us for protection and succour against British and other Imperialists. From what I have said, it will be seen that by entering into this Pact, the conduct of the Federal Government is untenable, indefensible, and totally reprehensible, and does constitute a betrayal of the people’s trust.
I have already taken a good deal of your time. But there is a very important Agreement entered into by Nigeria and Britain the existence of which is not so well known. The Agreement is embodied in a Government White Paper entitled ‘International Rights and Obligations’. Under this Agreement, which was executed by two countries on October 1, 1960, the day of our independence, Nigeria undertakes and assumes henceforth all obligations and responsibilities of the British Government which arise from any valid international instrument in so far as such instrument may be held to have application to Nigeria. Since any such instrument could only be in existence on the eve of independence, and since it could only be held to have application to Nigeria on September 30, 1960, it follows that we have assumed on independence all those responsibilities and obligations which were held to apply to Nigeria before independence. In other words, after independence we are, under this Agreement, back to where we were in the days of our colonial status.
Let us hope that the contracting parties – Nigeria and Britain and particularly Britain – will think again on these Agreements. There is a tremendous fund of goodwill for Britain in Nigeria. These two Agreements can only, in my view, generate a fountain of overflowing poison which would do nothing but exacerbate and eventually ruin the Anglo-Nigerian relationship.
We have not yet gone very far on the road of mutual hostility between our two countries – we have not yet reached the point of no return on such a road. Before it is too late, it is imperative for Nigeria and Britain to abrogate the two Agreements already referred to, and thereby save the longstanding and, I dare say beneficial, cordiality and friendship between our two countries.
CONTINUES NEXT WEEK.
READ ALSO FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
and then