Introduction
On 21 October 2020, hoodlums attacked the palace of the Oba of Lagos, desecrated it, and carried off the Oba’s staff of office, among other items.Footnote 1 The vanguard newspaper reported the palace as one of the places destroyed by protesters.Footnote 2 The oldest court in Nigeria, the Federal High Court at Igbosere in Lagos was also razed by fire.Footnote 3 This destruction took place following the #End SARS protest, which was carried out by Nigerian youths simultaneously in different states of the federation against police brutality, extrajudicial killing, and extortion while also calling for the reform of the Nigerian police.Footnote 4 Destroying the heritage of the past hinders future generations from knowing about their heritage. The account of the desecration of the palace of the Oba of Lagos, for which no one was arrested and prosecuted, has raised several questions. Finding answers to these questions is the crux of this research.
Research question
Why would Nigerian youths destroy objects of national patrimony during a civil unrest and go unpunished?
Aim
This research aims to discover why Nigerian youths would willfully destroy cultural patrimony during civil unrest and face no penalty. The objectives of this study are to:
-
1. determine the value and significance of the palace as heritage;
-
2. determine why the palace was targeted and destroyed by the youths during the protest;
-
3. examine if the circumstance surrounding the desecration of the palace amount to civil unrest that justifies the coming into play of the 1954 Hague Convention and its Second Protocol;Footnote 5
-
4. determine whether the destruction of the palace qualifies as a crime against humanity, cultural genocide, or war crime; and
-
5. determine whether the Nigerian government has been able to discharge its responsibility to protect cultural heritage.
Materials and methodology
The study utilized a mixed method approach combining doctrinal research with empirical study. Data obtained from international instruments, books, journal articles, newspaper reports, and online sources were subject to content analysis. The study was partly conducted using electronic data collection via a carefully structured questionnaire and was posted on an online survey platform (Google form). The respondents were contacted through one of the landlords residing on Lagos Island. The questionnaire was posted on the Landlords Association Whatsapp page, and the members of the group were encouraged to fill it out and distribute the forms to other residents of the area. The residents were informed that participation was voluntary.
At the beginning of the survey, there was an informed consent section that described the voluntary nature of participation and confidentiality of responses for all respondents. There was no incentive for, or coercion of, any of the participants. Only 55 respondents from Lagos Island, where the Iga Idunganran is situated, filled out the survey. Some of the questions were structured by selecting a number on a 3-point Likert scale – with “1” indicating yes, “2” indicating I don’t know, and “3” indicating no. Data were analyzed by means of percentages. A summary of the respondents’ characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents
Structure
This article is divided into seven sections. The first being this introduction. The findings and discussion of the objectives are in the following sections. The second part provides answers to the first objective by considering the value and significance of a palace as heritage. The third part, in answering the second objective, starts by giving an account of the civil unrest that led to the destruction of the palace before considering the reactions to the destruction in the light of why heritage has been destroyed since ancient times during conflicts. The fourth section, in answering the third objective, examines the provisions of the 1954 Hague Convention and Second Protocol vis-à-vis the destruction of the Iga Idunganran. In answering the fourth objective, the fifth section explores whether the destruction of the palace qualifies as a crime against humanity, cultural genocide, or war crime. The sixth section provides an answer to the fifth objective by discussing state and public responsibility to protect cultural heritage in Nigeria. The seventh section concludes.
The value and significance of a palace as heritage
Material and non-material aspects of culture – either artifacts, monuments, or statues, that are expressive and connect the past with the present in a way that builds collective historical value for a community qualify as patrimony, which should be protected.Footnote 6 The protection of monuments is borne out of the fact that historic sites are important to man’s psychological, moral, spiritual, social, educational, and recreational well-being.Footnote 7 Historic buildings are notable for transmitting information about historical events, and they link the community with the past to which it has close ties and allegiance.Footnote 8 The culture of a people symbolizes their entire way of life, including how they view themselves and their worldview.Footnote 9 Different cultures showcase their heritage in the corridors of their palaces, which are constructed from their Indigenous architecture. Housing artifacts, natural resources, art, Indigenous architectural designs, historical accounts, and economic and socio-cultural values, palaces serve as a point of reference in understanding the social and cultural context of an Indigenous community.Footnote 10
All over the world, different researchers from various disciplines spanning archaeology, architecture, geography, urban and regional planning, and related disciplines are attracted by palaces, which are heritage monuments.Footnote 11 Royalty, leadership, spirituality, and power are showcased in the art and architectural designs found on the walls of palaces.Footnote 12 A people’s distinct characteristics and cultural setting is showcased by their art and architecture.Footnote 13
The Iga Idunganran: The Oba of Lagos Palace
Isale eko, which is otherwise referred to as Lagos Island, is the heart of Lagos where the Iga Idunganran is situated. Iga Idunganran literally means “house of the pepper,” implying the location in 1670 by the king of his palace on a red pepper farm.Footnote 14 The present Oba of Lagos lives in the Iga idunganran, which is a tourist site and a national monument in Nigeria.Footnote 15 The Iga (old palace) dates from the reign of Oba Akinsemoyin (circa 1704–20). The Oba’s power and role as the social and spiritual guardian of the community was reflected in the architectural design of the palace, which housed major shrines and served as the seat of administrative power in the community.Footnote 16 Financed by the Portuguese in exchange for trading rights in Lagos, the Iga was roofed with pottery roofing tiles provided by the Portuguese, as a fire protection device, while the building was constructed in accordance with traditional building methods and an internal design of Bini architecture. Presently, the Oba lives in a modern building that was constructed in 1959 as an extension to the remaining parts of the traditional palace. These sections of the traditional palace include the throne room containing tombs of the deceased Obas. The tombs of the deceased Obas qualify as grave treasures, which are part of Nigeria’s monumental heritage.Footnote 17 The palace, which was the traditional administrative center of power, is home to articles of trade, pieces of ancient Indiana and European clothing, iron bars and earthenware of interest, and other historical materials.Footnote 18
With colonization introducing modernity, the political seat of power shifted from the Iga Idunganran to the governor general’s office, courthouse, police station, and treasury.Footnote 19 This shift led to the disruption of Indigenous social norms. With the Oba being the spiritual head of the community and with major shrines located within the palace, the historical account of the happenings in the Iga Idunganran cannot be complete without referring to the traditional religious worship that takes place there. The historical, religious, and architectural significance of the Iga Idunganran makes it a living monument of great importance.Footnote 20 The results of the survey questions that assessed the knowledge of the respondents about African traditional religion in a bid to deduce the religious value of the palace as heritage is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Perception of people about African traditional religion
From the information in Table 2, it is disheartening to note that only 43.6 percent of the population do not see African traditional religion as fetish and backward. The remaining 40 percent believe African traditional religion is fetish and backward, while 3.6 percent have no idea if the religion is fetish or not. This result depicts the idea that some African people look down on African traditional religions. Since religion forms a part of the value system, Zeke Gbotokuma’s statement that “colonialists categorically denied the existence of African cultural values and worse still, taught the Africans to despise them” is apt.Footnote 21 In total, 94.5 percent of the study population believes that African traditional religion is a symbol of cultural identity; 87.3 percent believe that the past is relevant to the future; 58.2 percent believe that Indigenous lifestyles are not archaic. Culture and personality form the general quality of a person’s identity, and the name a person bears is the most obvious way of identifying and discerning where he is from.Footnote 22 While 40 percent of the study population depicted African religion as fetish and backwards, 67.3 percent still prefer to bear names signifying a connection to a traditional religion.
The findings on this aspect of the first objective depicts a confused state of mind or an identity crisis as a result of the brainwashing carried out by the colonial rulers. In total, 98.2 percent of the study population is willing and ready to know the truth and learn about their history in a bid to correct this identity crisis. This finding is a positive step toward eradicating the existing confusion in the minds of people. It also buttresses the position of Vineet Kaul that many people are undergoing an identity crisis even in their homes and villages as their cultural values and languages risk becoming extinct after being jettisoned for a Western way of life.Footnote 23 The perception of the study population about African traditional religion is a confused one, but it is clear that people are eager to learn the truth about their past (see Table 3).
Table 3. Assess knowledge about the value of heritage loss occasioned by the recent destruction of the Oba of Lagos palace
In these findings, 85.5 percent of the study population identify with the palace as a symbol of social identity, and 78.2 percent posit that it holds evidence of the nation’s memory, collective consciousness, and identity. This is in line with Paul Bator’s statement that “national patrimony … are part of national capital: they generate income (by attracting tourists, etc) and they can produce social and psychological benefits for a country and its inhabitants. … The national artistic patrimony is therefore closely linked to the processes of education: The study of a nation’s art is part of the process through which citizens learn who they are. This is obviously true of works possessing special historical or symbolic significance – national monuments or treasures.”Footnote 24
Despite this, only 54.5 percent of the respondents are aware of the value of the palace as a tourist attraction. This culminates in the fact that 45.5 percent of the respondents are unaware of one of the attractions in protecting symbols of national patrimony – namely, the financial interest that can be derived from tourism.Footnote 25 Hence, they cannot comprehend the economic loss occasioned by the destruction of the Iga Idunganran. This group of respondents therefore have no knowledge of the value and significance of the place as heritage and neither do they have knowledge about the right they have to benefit from heritage and to protect heritage from destruction. This idea buttresses O. R. U. Antia’s statement that, since culture is not fixed or permanent, when palaces are destroyed, a historical gap is created since the elements of culture like art and heritage architecture, which should be sustained for future generations, is irreversibly lost, and this void is passed on to future generations who are deprived from benefiting and appreciating the knowledge lost as part of their cultural identity.Footnote 26
Why the palace was targeted and destroyed by youth during the protest
Background information with respect to the cause of the protest is necessary in arriving at a sound conclusion on the reason for destroying the palace.
An account of what led to the destruction of the palace
The Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) was a unit of the Nigerian police force that was established to address the growing spate of armed robbery crimes in Nigeria. However, decades after its inception, the undercover police operations unit has been largely criticized by members of the public for instances of police brutality meted out by operatives of the unit to members of the public.Footnote 27 There have also been reports of extrajudicial killings carried out by the security operatives of SARS.Footnote 28 These tragic reports culminated in the publication of online petitions through several social media platforms against this police unit with a clarion call for the abolition of the security outfit.Footnote 29
In early October 2020, there were various youth-led protests demanding an end to police brutality in the country.Footnote 30 The protesters’ demands were captured in the slogan “5 for 5,” and they include:
-
i. Immediate release of all arrested protesters
-
ii. Justice for all deceased victims of police brutality and appropriate compensation for their families
-
iii. In line with the new Police Act, a psychological evaluation and retraining (to be confirmed by an independent body) of all disbanded SARS officers before they can be redeployed.
-
iv. Increase police salary so that they are adequately compensated for protecting lives and properties.
-
v. Setting up an independent body to oversee the investigation and prosecution of all reports of Police misconduct (within 10 days).Footnote 31
In response, the Presidential Panel on the Reform of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad, the president through his special adviser on media and publicity, and the inspector general of police “agreed” to the demands of the protesters.Footnote 32 These “concessions,” however, did not quell the raging protests across the country. During the protests, there were reports of police brutality that led to the loss of lives, and these reports fanned the flames of the protests in Nigeria.Footnote 33 Claiming that the protest had been hijacked, the Nigerian government deployed military apparatuses across the country to combat the violence that was spreading. This period of violence, bloodshed, and the devastation of lives and properties also caused the destruction of various institutions and corporations across the country, including the destruction of the Iga Idunganran.Footnote 34
Reaction to the destruction by lawmakers
The lawmakers at the Lagos State House of Assembly referred to the invasion of the Oba’s palace as a sacrilege and an attack on the culture of Lagosians.Footnote 35 The Kosoko royal family of Lagos has also expressed its displeasure:
[T]he Kosoko Royal Family equally condemn in strong terms the senseless and criminally minded attack, invasion and looting of the Palace of the Oba of Lagos at Idunganran Street by some hooligans carting away the “Opa Ase”Footnote 36 and other historical artifacts and heritage of Lagos. As members of the Lagos Royal Family, we view the Palace invasion as evil, disrespectful and an unwarranted affront to our tradition and cultural heritage. … Finally, we urge the Lagos State Government to conduct a thorough investigation and bring the perpetrators of this evil act to book, as this will deter others who might seek to perpetrate such egregious act in the future.Footnote 37
Reactions generated from the survey
From our findings, 58.2 percent of the respondents align their view with the reaction of the lawmakers that the attack on the palace is an offense against the heritage of Nigeria, while the remaining 41.8 percent do not see the destruction from the angle of damage to our collective patrimony. Only 18.2 percent of the respondents relate the destruction of the palace to a natural consequence of civil unrest, while 9.1 percent view it as a personal vendetta on the Oba of Lagos, and 14.5 percent attach no heritage value or significance to the destruction of the palace and view it as being just like the destruction of any house and the perpetrator like any other person accused of such a hostile act. In total, 41.8 percent of respondents feel that the reasons for destroying the national monument fall under the first objective on the ignorance of the value and significance of cultural heritage. This aligns with the view of Emmanuel Omisore and colleagues, who have expressed a strong disapproval for the destruction and neglect of palaces in the southwestern part of Nigeria and has based this situation not on a lack of funds or poor maintenance but, rather, on the lack of knowledge about the significance of cultural heritage (see Table 4).Footnote 38
Table 4. Which of the options below best describe your view about the burning down of the palace?
Why heritage has been a target for destruction from ancient times
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Constitution states “that ignorance of each other’s ways and lives has been a common cause, throughout the history of mankind, of that suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world through which their differences have all too often broken into war.”Footnote 39 Johan Brosche and colleagues have expressed the view that only a scintilla of research has been carried out to determine the spur of, or the provocation for, heritage destruction. According to them, four discordant types of reasons exist:
(i) attacks related to conflict goals, in which cultural property is targeted because it is connected to the issue the warring parties are fighting over, (ii) military-strategic attacks, in which the main motivation is to win tactical advantages in the conflict, (iii) signalling attacks, in which cultural property is targeted as a low-risk target that signals the commitment of the aggressor, and (iv) economic incentives where cultural property provides funding for warring parties.Footnote 40
In considering the second objective, it is safe to say that, going by this classification of what provokes heritage destruction, the damage to the Iga Idunganran falls within the first category, which covers attacks related to conflict goals. The ‘End SARS’ crisis, which led to the destruction of the palace, was directed at the supposedly bad governance of the country, and the reigning Oba is regarded as a political ally to the ruling party, which the rioters believed had orchestrated the military shootout at Lekki toll gate where the “End SARS” protesters had camped for days.Footnote 41 Properties related to other politicians in the ruling party, including the governor’s family house, were set ablaze as a result of the Lekki toll gate shooting.Footnote 42
The 1954 Hague Convention and the Second Protocol
Francis Lieber’s Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (the so-called Lieber Code), the 1874 Brussels Declaration, the 1880 Oxford Manual, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex including Convention IX, all preceded the 1954 Hague Convention in respect of providing guidance on operations and humanitarian assistance during armed conflict without defining the term “cultural property.”Footnote 43 The 1954 Hague Convention coined the concept “cultural property” and defined it to cover movable or immovable property of great importance having architectural, artistic or historical, religious, or secular interests.Footnote 44 Since the Iga Idunganran qualifies as having architectural, historical, and religious interests, coupled with it being a national monument in Nigeria, it qualifies as cultural property worthy of protection under the 1954 Hague Convention.
Internationally, the destruction of cultural property is either criminal or civil in nature. The criminal aspect that has a bearing on the crux of this article relates to the prohibition and prosecution of, and the punishment for, the destruction of cultural property and theft, both in peace times and during armed conflict.Footnote 45 Nonetheless, previous international legal instruments before the 1954 Hague Convention, especially the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949, did not provide for specific offences against cultural property, as the term “cultural property” was not used, but they did require measures to protect it as civilian property.Footnote 46 The 1954 Hague Convention and its Protocols came as a quick response to address the gaps in the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions during World War II, which featured the massive destruction of cultural heritage in Europe.Footnote 47 The 1954 Hague Convention equally augments the Geneva Conventions by way of providing an all-embracing administrative safeguard for state parties in respect to cultural heritage. Article 2 of the Convention touches on a central part of the Convention, which demands that the protection of cultural property “shall comprise the safeguarding of and respect for” cultural heritage. Safeguarding and respecting cultural heritage involves imposing duties and responsibilities both in times of peace and during armed conflict. Different state parties have applied the Hague Convention to armed conflicts within their territories,Footnote 48 which had brought to the fore the inadequacies of the Convention leading to the birth of the Second Protocol in 1999.
The preamble to the 1954 Hague Convention epitomizes the acknowledgment of the idea of the “common heritage of humankind” where it annunciated “that damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world” and “that the preservation of the cultural heritage is of great importance for all peoples of the world and that it is important that this heritage should receive international protection.”Footnote 49 Patrick O’Keefe has rightly pointed out that the principles of the Convention relate to “people” and “mankind” as opposed to states or the international community.Footnote 50
While the sixth recital to the Hague Convention directs state parties to “take all possible steps to protect cultural property,” the fifth recital admits that “such protection cannot be effective unless both national and international measures have been taken to organize it in times of peace.” Craig Forrest specifies that these recitals portray the duty imposed by the Convention on state parties with respect to giving effect to the Convention through national rules.Footnote 51 The 1954 Hague Convention applies to conflicts of an international characterFootnote 52 and to conflicts that are not of an international character.Footnote 53 In the same humanitarian spirit as exhibited in Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions, Article 19(1) of the 1954 Hague Convention states that “in the event of an armed conflict not of an international character occurring within the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, at a minimum, the provisions of the present convention which relate to respect of cultural property.”
Respect for cultural property accommodates a state party refraining from acts that would expose cultural property to destruction or damage while under the duty to mitigate the effect of military operations regarding its safety during armed conflict,Footnote 54 military necessity providing the only justification for contradicting this requirement.Footnote 55 It is important to note that Article 19 of the 1954 Hague Convention raises issues about the propriety of applying an international yardstick to persons without an international character on matters that fall within the internal affairs of a country. Forrest underscores the fact that, in order not to defeat the purpose of protecting heritage in times of conflict, the Convention specifies how to safeguard its protective regime from being destroyed by requiring that special agreements to preserve the provisions of the Convention on protecting heritage be made between the parties to the internal conflict, while giving room for UNESCO to assist the warring parties.Footnote 56 Article 19 has created dubiety on the kinds of unrest that qualify as “armed conflict not of an international character,” as the term “conflict” was not defined during the negotiations that took place before the Convention was adopted.Footnote 57
The 1999 Second Protocol, which acts as a supplement to the 1954 Hague Convention also covers both international armed conflict and armed conflict not of an international character.Footnote 58 This Protocol has been referred to as the most effective tool for protecting cultural heritage against war crimes.Footnote 59 The Protocol specifies situations that cannot be covered by the term “armed conflict not of an international character” to include “situations of internal disturbance and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature.”Footnote 60
At this juncture, it is appropriate to state that the “End SARS” riot that led to the desecration of the Iga Idunganran does not qualify for the application of the Second Protocol as it is an “armed conflict not of an international character” because it qualifies as a riot that is excluded from the scope of the Protocol’s application. Only domestic law is applicable in this regard. Despite this fact, it is submitted that cultural heritage exposed to internal disturbance and tensions should enjoy the benefits of protection offered by the 1954 Hague Convention in safeguarding cultural property through the provision of an appropriate protection regime in times of peace against the foreseeable effects of an armed conflict and respect to cultural property.Footnote 61 Articles 6, 16, and 17 of the 1954 Hague Convention provides for the marking of identified cultural property with the Convention’s special emblem of a blue and white quartered shield. Article 15 provides for an obligation to respect personnel engaged in the protection of cultural property, while Article 19 stipulates that state parties are bound to apply the Convention in the event of non-international conflicts within the territory of a state party. Since Nigeria is a state party to the 1954 Hague Convention, the requirements of Articles 6, 15, 16, and 17 ought to apply with respect to the Iga Idunganran if Nigeria has fulfilled her obligations under the Convention in conjunction with the heritage sector.Footnote 62
Destruction of heritage and crime against humanity, cultural genocide, or war crime
As Raphael Lemkin states,
[a]n attack targeting a collectivity can also take the form of systematic and organized destruction of the art and cultural heritage in which the unique genius and achievement of a collectivity are revealed in fields of science, arts and literature. The contribution of any collectivity to world culture as a whole forms the wealth of all of humanity, even while exhibiting unique characteristics. Thus, the destruction of a work of art of any nation must be regarded as acts of vandalism directed against world culture. The author [of the crime] causes not only the immediate irrevocable losses of the destroyed work as property and as the culture of the collectivity directly concerned (whose unique genius contributed to the creation of this work); it is also all humanity which experiences a loss by this act of vandalism. In the acts of barbarity, as well as in those of vandalism, the asocial and destructive spirit of the author is made evident. This spirit, by definition, is the opposite of the culture and progress of humanity. It throws the evolution of ideas back to the bleak period of the Middle Ages. Such acts shock the conscience of all humanity, while generating extreme anxiety about the future. For all these reasons, acts of vandalism and barbarity must be regarded as offenses against the law of nations.Footnote 63
Cultural genocide though included in the draft of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) was removed from the final Convention.Footnote 64 Lawrence Davidson comments thus:
Cultural genocide is alive and spreading in our world and stands as a primary warning that if we do not break through the boundaries of our thought collectives, we are doomed to reenact the wretched past, over and again. But it is doing so under the radar, so to speak, for there are no laws against it. And, yet, it is not perceived to have reached Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide the level of international scandal that makes for new laws and regulations. It would seem that such a scandal is what it would take for an event to break through the thought collectives of myriad cultures and peoples and get them to act collectively in their own interest. And even then, historical memory is all too brief.Footnote 65
Yury Pudovochkin and Gregory Rusanov provide similar reasons for destroying heritage that were proffered earlier by Brosche and colleagues. For them, the destruction of cultural property is generally for the following four purposes: intimidation of the population; political and ideological protest; deprivation of a group’s particular national, ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural identity; and destruction of economic potential.Footnote 66 In categorizing acts against cultural property that should qualify as international crimes into models of action,Footnote 67 Pudovochkin and Rusanov have classified the massive destruction of cultural values without armed conflict as a crime against humanity.
Jus cogens international crimes encompass genocide and crimes against humanity. It is, however, not clear if international crimes apply to non-state actors with no international legitimacy or level of organizational structure, effective command, control, resources, and sophisticated weapons, such as people who come together randomly to show their displeasure about government actions in the form of a riot, as was the case in the “End SARS” riot that qualified as a political and ideological protest.Footnote 68 The attack on the palace was aimed at attacking the Oba, who is believed to have been installed by the political party in power whose actions the rioters did not approve of.
Under national law, criminal laws establish liability for the destruction of cultural heritage, while, under international criminal law, destruction of heritage is regarded as a war crime if the destruction is unnecessary and conducted in war. The Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia regards unnecessary seizure, destruction, or willful damage done to the institutions dedicated to religion, charity, and education, the arts and sciences, historical monuments, and works of art and science as a violation of the laws or customs of war.Footnote 69 This Statute has only been applied to the former Yugoslavia.Footnote 70 The 1988 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides in Article 5 that the international court has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide, and the crime of aggression.Footnote 71 From the definitions of these terms found in the Rome Statute, it is obvious that the destruction of the palace that was carried out to punish the Oba does not qualify as a crime punishable under the Rome Statute as it was not a result of war but, rather, of a riot.Footnote 72
The “End SARS” riot/protest carried out across the states of the federation, with the widespread destruction of properties including cultural heritage and values, does not qualify as a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute though it obviously has a form of psychological violence on civilians that recognize and cherish the cultural values of the properties that were destroyed.Footnote 73 The destruction of heritage was ignorantly directed at the government, not the civilian population, though civilians have become the victims of these actions.
State and public responsibility to protect cultural heritage in Nigeria
An attack on the cultural values of a community or group could ultimately lead to the destruction of that group.Footnote 74 The UNESCO Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage, which was adopted in 2003, provides that a state that does not punish the intentional destruction of heritage bears the responsibility for such destruction to the extent provided for by international law.Footnote 75 States are to provide protection for heritage and put sanctions in place for dealing with those individuals that destroy heritage.Footnote 76 The question at this point is: has Nigeria discharged her responsibility under international law in this regard?
Destroying cultural property has been one of the crimes against cultural property that has existed in Nigeria since 1953.Footnote 77 Nigeria joined the 1954 Hague Convention, which came into force in August 1956, on 5 June 1961 and ratified the Second Protocol, which came into force in March 2004, on 21 October 2005.Footnote 78 As such, Nigeria ought to have in place mechanisms geared toward safeguarding and ensuring respect for cultural property, as laid down in the Hague Convention. The stance of the Nigerian Law on Treaties and its application is that international treaties do not have the force of law until the National Assembly enacts them.Footnote 79 However, the failure of the Nigerian government to enact the Convention has constituted a bar on prosecuting violators of the provisions of the convention in the Nigerian courts.Footnote 80
The National Commission for Monuments Act is charged with the responsibility of administering Museums, Antiquity and Monuments in Nigeria.Footnote 81 Penal provisions obviously have a way of curbing criminal actions.Footnote 82 This Act, which has been adjudged to be outdated,Footnote 83 penalizes the destruction of monuments in section 18 thus:
18. (1) Any person who, save as it is provided in this Act, willfully destroys, defaces, alters, removes or excavates any monument, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of N1,000 or twice the value of such monument (whichever is higher) or to imprisonment for twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment.
(2) Any person who without lawful authority destroys, defaces, alters or removes any notice, mark or sign, denoting any monument or any fence, covering or other thing erected or provided for the maintenance of a monument, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to fine or N500 or to imprisonment for six months or both such fine and imprisonment.
Afolasade Adewumi and Oluyemisi Bamgbose have proposed that this provision be increased to a penalty of not less than 14 years instead of the six months imprisonment with the option of a fine as provided in the law.Footnote 84 At this juncture, it can be said that there is a dearth of appropriate legislation protecting monumental heritage in Nigeria from willful destruction. However, there has been no form of prosecution of the hoodlums that desecrated the Iga Idunganran. The dearth of appropriate legislation criminalizing the destruction of heritage has made it impossible to see the need for carrying out an investigation into identifying the perpetrators of the destruction of the palace. The Nigerian government has not fulfilled its obligations under the international instruments as the measures that depict safeguarding and respect for heritage are not in place.
Conclusion
Culture is the peoples’ way of life, and it is the umbilical cord that ties a nation to its history. A nation is alive when its culture is alive, and it gradually dies when the connection to its cultural roots is severed. From the empirical evidence gathered and explicated in the body of this article, a central theme runs through the entire discourse – the erosion of cultural identity in Nigeria. The dualist perception that African traditional values and practices are fetish and backward and, at the same time, inextricably tied to the cultural heritage of the traditional people has occasioned a separatist movement amongst youth (who constitute about 76.4 percent of the respondents in this research) where they dis-identify themselves from the heritage of their ancestors. If unchecked, this trend may occasion the destruction of other valuable heritage sites in the country.
However, with the tools of education, legislation, and enforcement, and the restoration of heritage sites, this ill-advised trend can be abated. Misinformation and shallow understanding of the significance and implication of cultural heritage is at the root of some of the beliefs and violence demonstrated against cultural heritage sites – for example, the Iga Idunganran. The sensitization of the populace to the value of cultural heritage has triggered a massive shift in their perception of cultural heritage. Thus, there should be effort made to raise the awareness of youth and to teach them about their rich heritage and culture since the past is basically the people’s history, without which there will be no present or even a future to look forward to. Society (and the government especially) needs to see to the need for accessible quality education for all, most especially in protecting and safeguarding heritage.
Furthermore, through the instrument of legislation and a corresponding enforcement of the same, cultural heritage sites can be protected against destruction, the attitudes of the populace to cultural heritage sites can be influenced, and the vandals of heritage sites can be prosecuted accordingly. As glimpsed from the preceding paragraphs, the extant law protecting heritage sites in Nigeria is archaic and in dire need of revision, which should consider the complexities of the dangers that heritage sites are exposed to in the twenty-first century. The provision of section 12 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria should be adhered to for incorporating the international dimension of heritage crimes within the corpus juris of the Nigerian legal system on heritage law.
As a means of rectifying the ills of the past to preserve what is left, the palace and other heritage sites that have been partially destroyed should be restored. Restoration in this context will translate into the rebuilding of the structures in a manner that will depict the time and space within which they had hitherto existed. The restoration of the palace will be a step toward sustaining a sense of national identity of the Yorubas, Nigerians, and humankind at large while, at the same time, encouraging the development of traditional craftsmanship by involving craftsmen, who are skilled in the architecture utilized in erecting the former structure, in the rebuilding of the palace.
