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.

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?

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,

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:

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:

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.