Saturday, June 7, 2008
BAKASSI BELONGS TO NIGERIA!
Nigeria should reject the decision of the World Court granting ownership of Bakassi to the Cameroons as being more political than founded on solid legal grounds! The reasoning in the minority decision of Hon. Justice Abdul G. Koroma of the World Court is of a very strong persuasive authority in doing so. (the said decision is republished as a comment hereinunder and as a posting below, titled "Bakassi, what a blackmail").
The mother of all atrocities of the failed and disgraced past administration of the medicine man of Otta, Babalawo Aremu Olusegun Obasanjo was the forcible excision of Nigerians of Bakassi origin from Nigeria; and given on a platter to the Cameroons. It was a World Court’s opinion that Bakassi be ceded to the Cameroons, his apologists will argue? But tell that to the marines. What World Court's opinion are we talking about when a national interest of Nigeria is at stake? These people of Bakassi are Nigerians and by this horrendous illogical decision of the World Court, acquiesced to by Olusegun Obasanjo, they are now being forcibly handed into an untoward slavery in the Cameroons. This should be of grave concern to every fellow Nigerian! What World Court's opinion are we talking about when the chambers of the World Court did not follow any known legal precedent or basis in reaching their decision? According to the minority opinion of the World Court's Judge Abdul G. Koroma, the 1913 treaty between Britain and Germany upon which the majority decision of the court was based, was a no brainier as it relates to the exercised power by Great Britain because Great Britain acted ultra vires their existing authority. Britain under their 1884 Treaty of Protection with the Old Calabar chiefs, did not have the authority of the Old Calabar chiefs to cede any portion of its land to Germany; as the treaty of protection was for protection only and did not in any way confer any ownership authority or right of cession over their territory, including Bakassi to Britain (see particularly paragraph 15 of the referenced dissenting judgment below) . One who does not have something cannot give it away - nemo dat non quod habet! Great Britain violated this known cannon of Property Law and hence the World Court was in error when it decided that Cameroon owns Bakassi based on the purported transfer of Bakassi to the then controlling Germany by Britain. The said treaty of 1884 did not confer on Britain the rights to cede the land of the Calabar Chiefs or any part thereof to anyone including Germany. The purported act of Britain was ultra vires, a nullity and of no effect ab initio, hence any subsequent act arising therefrom could not therefore be valid. Nigeria where are your lawyers?
How could the "clay" giant of Africa allow a Lilliput Cameroon to triumph over her in world politics. How could a resource-full Nigeria miscalculate its way out of victory in the world court amidst glaring evidence of her subsisting, continuous and uninterrupted ownership of Bakassi? Why did Nigeria play into the hands of the European colonial masters who have found a willing partner in their World Court, otherwise upon which precedent did the World Court base its decision? Where was the precedent? If Britain could maintain a stronghold on Argentinean-claimed Maldives aka Falklands Islands several thousands of miles away from England in South America and even went to war to keep it British; if the about 8000 miles away from Washington Guam could be claimed and maintained, Hawaii inclusive by America; if France also exerts a forcible control over some islanders of French Polynesian and Papua New Guinea; if China could “forcibly” twist British arm and took over Hong Kong and is menacingly keeping a hawkish eye over Taiwan with zero tolerance to Tibet freedom struggles; if Pakistan and India could wage several wars over Kashmir; if Morocco will not leave Western Polisario Front alone; if Israel will not give back the Golan Heights to Syria; if Spain will not leave Basque territory and Gibraltar alone and finally if America will not give back to Mexico all its western territories captured in wars of yore including California; why then should Nigeria capitulate to this evil arm-twisting through the agency of the World Court? Why should Nigeria succumb to Cameroonian blackmail - give Bakassi to Cameroon for free?
What was Obasanjo thinking when he accented to this deal to hand over Bakassi to Cameroon? Bakassi which has been and remained Nigerian since the inception of statehood in Africa! Bakassi, over which the regime of Buhari/Idiagbon fully mobilized the Nigeria armed forces for a showdown with Cameroon. Icheoku believes that Obasanjo was part of the deal that wrongfully ceded Bakassi to Cameroon during Nigeria/Biafra civil war, in their hideous attempt at totally emasculating and strangulating Biafra. In exchange Cameroon assisted in imposing an eclipsing-total blockade of the region called Biafra from their side of the border. This postulation gains credibility because Cameroon did not ever lay a claim to Bakassi until 1972, shortly after the end of Nigeria/Biafra civil war. So why would Cameroon suddenly start laying claim to Bakassi just after the civil war; Bakassi which was never theirs since the inception of Nigeria and Cameroon's statehood if not for the implication of the above mentioned agreement between them and the blood-sucking then Nigerian government of Yakubu Gowon. (Paragraph 29 of the said Judge Abdul G. Koroma's dissenting opinion below is highly instructive). Still speculating, Obasanjo was now shown some glaring evidence of his complicity in this deal, coupled with his “guilty” conscience (assuming he has any) and suddenly Bakassi could now be pawned off to Cameroon! Bakassi was part of Biafra and why would Nigeria not let Biafra secede but is willing to cede Bakassi, a part thereof, over to Cameroon? What is the subliminal message here? If the civil-war era agreement to cede Bakassi to Cameroon was a Nigerian government's act, the Nigeria that was incomplete without Biafra; why then would such act not be ratifiable by present day Nigeria which includes the returning Biafra? Why did the National Assembly not ratify such an Olusegun Obansanjo accented World Court's decision? Are Bakassi people lesser Nigerians than Olusegun Obasanjo himself? What about some parts of Southern Chad which was captured by Buhari when he was a GOC somewhere up Northeast Nigeria and Shagari would not readily authorize a military action against the insurgent Chadian? What about Sokoto, Maiduguri, Kano, Kaduna and all those northern territories which Gideon Orkar excised and handed over to Niger Republic, Chad and whatever is up there during his short lived coup de tat? Obasanjo should have gone ahead and ceded away all Nigerian territories because he is pandering to some World Court’s ruling? It is a strategic blunder which Nigeria will pay for and dearly some day. Obasanjo goofed by this act and the National Assembly should reverse him immediately or at best not ratify his ascent.
Did Obasanjo’s executive power also cover trading off or ceding Nigeria territories to other nations? Does the National Assembly not have an oversight function to perform here? Somebody please call the head-doctor as some brains are running out of sync. It is unprecedented! If Cameron is so desirous of getting Bakassi back, they should shed their blood for that. It is called conquest. It is called military adventurism, period! After all, was South Western Cameroon not part of Nigeria until the plebiscite of 1963 when they freely joined Cameroon? Why couldn't the people of Bakassi through such similar plebiscite decide their own fate whether to remain Nigerians or move across the border to Cameroon? Obasanjo goofed big time by this act; and because of this infamy as well as other numerous atrocious misbehaviour of his, he is hereby declared by Icheoku as a denigrate person! Bakassi is historically Nigerian and should therefore remain so!