BAKASSI, WHAT A BLACKMAIL!

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ABDUL G. KOROMA; CASE CONCERNING THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA (CAMEROON V. NIGERIA: EQUATORIAL GUINEA INTERVENING) JUDGMENT OF OCTOBER 10th, 2002.
"Role of Court in judicial settlement of territorial and boundary disputes — Nigeria's claim to Bakassi based on original title and historical consolidation and to settlements around Lake Chad based on historical consolidation — 1884 Treaty of Protection between Great Britain and Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar — Legal basis for solving dispute — Invalidity of Anglo-German Agreement of II March 1913 — Failure of Court to properly assess evidence establishing historical consolidation — Historical consolidation provides valid basis for ter­ritorial title.

1. Perhaps nowhere is the category of the peaceful settlement of disputes more imperative than in territorial and boundary disputes between neighbouring States, given the potential for such disputes to escalate with destructive consequences for the States concerned.
2. But this notwithstanding, with reference to the Court's role as an arm of preventive diplomacy, i.e., being seised of disputes which seem entirely political but which have a legal component, the President of the Court told the United Nations General Assembly in 1991 that the Court's mission was to declare and apply the law, and that it would range outside that task at its peril and at the peril of international law (see Sir Robert Jennings, "The Role of the International Court of Justice", British Year Book of International Law (BYBIL), 1997, p. 3). Therefore, even in performing this role the Court is bound, pursuant to its Statute, to apply relevant treaties and conventions as well as general principles of law recognized by the Parties (Statute of the Court, Art. 38). Hence, the Court cannot allow itself to abdicate this judicial responsibility.
3. I am, however, obliged to observe that the conclusion reached by the Court with respect to the 1884 Treaty between Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar regarding the Bakassi Peninsula is tantamount to a recognition of political reality rather than to an application of the treaty and the relevant legal principles. In my view, it is not the function of the Court to recognize or consecrate political reality but rather to apply the law in ruling on disputes before it. Nor can I concur with the Court's response to the claim of "historical consolidation" by Nigeria in this case, the implication being that conventional title based on the 1913 Anglo-German Agreement is the only valid means of acquiring title or that the mode of territorial acquisition is closed. If the latter were the case, there would have been no place in the Court's jurisprudence for prescriptive title, etc. In my view, the approaches taken by the Court to reach its conclusions on these two issues are both fundamentally flawed.The main purpose of applying the law is to do justice and where the law is not correctly applied it could lead to an injustice. It is principally because of my disagreement with the conclusions and findings of the Court regarding these two issues that 1 have decided to exercise the faculty to enter this dissenting opinion as provided for by the Statute.

4. In this dispute both Parties maintain that the main focus is the Bakassi Peninsula, although they expect different results. In its final submissions with respect to Bakassi, the Republic of Cameroon, inter alia, requested the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over the peninsula is Cameroonian. In both its Memorial and pleadings before the Court, Cameroon relied mainly for its title on the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 and on various effectivites.

5. The Republic of Nigeria, for its part, requested the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over the Bakassi is vested in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It based its claim to sovereignty over the peninsula on original title, as confirmed by the Treaty of Protection which the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar signed with Great Britain on 10 September 1884 and mainly on historical consolidation. In this regard, Nigeria contended that parts of the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913, under which Bakassi was ceded by Great Britain to Germany and subsequently inherited by Cameroon as successor State, were invalid as Great Britain was not entitled to cede the territory pursuant to the 1884 Treaty, which was a treaty of protection and in no way transferred sovereignty to Great Britain over the territories of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. Nigeria further argued that the 1913 Agreement was also invalid on grounds of inconsistency with the principle nemo dat quod non habet. In Nigeria's view, however, such invalidity only applied to those parts of the Agreement which purport to prescribe the boundary and which, if effective, would have involved a cession of territory to Germany, that is to say, essentially Articles XVIII to XXII.

6. In paragraph 209 of the Judgment, the Court reached the conclusion that under the applicable law at the time Great Britain was in a position in 1913 to determine its boundary with Germany, based on the 1913 Agreement. In paragraph 212 of the Judgment, the Court stated that it is unable to accept that until Nigeria's independence in 1961, and notwithstanding the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913, the Bakassi Peninsula had remained under the sovereignty of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. The Court went on to find that Nigeria, at the time, accepted that Articles XVIII to XXII of the Anglo-German Agreement of 1913 were valid and in effect, and that it recognized Cameroonian sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula (paragraph 214). Based on these findings, the Court, in its operative paragraphs, decided that the boundary between the Republic of Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria in Bakassi is delimited by Articles XVIII to XX of the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913; and that sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula lies with the Republic of Cameroon.

7. This conclusion, with respect, is unsustainable, both in the light of the 1884 Treaty and in the light of the material evidence which was before the Court. The findings are in clear violation of the express provisions of the 1884 Treaty and contrary to the intention of one of the parties to the 1884 Treaty — that of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar — and hence to the rule of pacta sunt servanda, i.e., the sanctity of treaties. This finding, in violation of the applicable treaty and clearly in breach of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, is not only illegal but unjust.

8. Moreover, I am also unable to accept that the categories of legal title to territory are restricted to what the Court described as the "established" modes, in its response to the contention that the principle of historical consolidation was a valid basis for territorial title, that is to say that proven long use, coupled with a complex of interests and relations, as in the present case, can have the effect of attaching a territory to a given State. In my opinion, founded on the jurisprudence of the Court (Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 139; Minquiers and Ecrehos (United Kingdom/France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 57; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador!Honduras: Nicaragua intervening). Judgment, I.C.J. Reports; 1992, p. 565, para. 345), historical consolidation, if supported by the requisite evidence, can be a sound and valid means of establishing territorial title in international law. When, therefore, such evidence is presented to the Court, as in this case, it does not seem legally justified to reject such evidence because it is categorized under a particular rubric. Rather than being preoccupied with the "label" of the evidence, the Court's essential judicial function should be to assess and interpret the evidence before it objectively, so as to determine whether or not such evidence is sufficient to establish title to the territory in question.

9. As stated earlier, Nigeria's claim to Bakassi is, on the basis of original title, vested in the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, the geographical extent of which covered south-eastern Nigeria and which in the 1700s was peopled mainly by the Efiks and the Efiat. Historically, the territorial authority of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar is said to have extended as far east as the Rio del Rey. Nigeria pointed out that the limits of the territorial authority of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar are conveniently represented by two inland waterways known as the Archibong Creek and Ikankau Creek; that the area known as Old Calabar was the centre of Efik activity and authority and included towns such as Duke Town, Creek Town, Henshaw Town and Obutong Town; that other Efik towns further afield included Tom Shott's Town and Arsibon's (now Archibong); that each of these towns, or virtually city States, had its own King or Chief from whom, by the early nineteenth century, the paramount chieftaincy or kingship — later the Obongship — of Old Calabar evolved; that in the nineteenth century Old Calabar and its Efik Houses had established their authority not only over the area around Old Cala­bar, but also over all the lands between Cross River and the Rio del Rey. Furthermore, through economic, social and cultural links, the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar exercised control over their citizens. In particular, through the Ekpe shrine, the Kings and Chiefs ensured the effective administration of justice, the maintenance of peace and security and the development of the resources within their territory. The material evidence before the Court thus showed that the activities of Old Calabar included the founding of settlements of increasing permanence in the Bakassi Peninsula which were within the dominions of Old Calabar.

10. The Court was also furnished with evidence that the British Con­sul Hewett, who negotiated the 1884 Treaty of Protection between Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, described Old Calabar in the following terms: "This country with its dependencies extends from Tom Shots ... to the River Rumby (on the west of Cameroon Moun­tains), both inclusive" (Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, Vol. I, p. 95). "The Chiefs of Tom Shot country, of Efut ... the country about the River Rumby, made declarations that they were subject to Old Calabar" (CR 2002/8, p. 45, para. 31), an important and significant statement ema­nating from an official who had direct and first-hand knowledge of the area and evidencing and confirming the extent of Old Calabar. Later evi­dence of this was provided in 1890 by another British Consul, Johnston, who stated that "the rule of the Old Calabar Chiefs extended far beyond the Akpayafe River to the very base of the Cameroons" (Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, Vol. I, p. 95), and qualified this by adding that the "Efik people . . . only went as Far East as the right bank of the Ndian River" (ibid.). According to Johnston, who had travelled the region extensively:"(t]he trade and rule of the Old Calabar Chiefs extended, in 1887, considerably further to the east than the Ndian RiverThe left or eastern bank of the Akpayafe and the land between that river and the Ndian is under the rule of Asibon or Archibong Edem III, a big Chief of Old Calabar." (Ibid.)

11. On the basis of this evidence, Nigeria maintained that Bakassi and the Rio del Rey are demonstrably to the west of the Ndian River, and Bakassi was part of Old Calabar's outlands. Nigeria maintained that the I884 Treaty between the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar and Great Britain extended over this territory and was a treaty of protection and not one in which the territory was ceded to Great Britain. In the light of the foregoing, Nigeria complained that parts of the Agreement of 1913 which Great Britain concluded with Germany were inconsistent with the 1884 Treaty of Protection and therefore invalid. In Nigeria's view, the offending Articles were the following:"XVIII. Thence it follows the thalweg of the Akpakorum (Akwayafe) River, dividing the Mangrove Islands near Ikang in the way shown on the aforesaid map T.S.G.S. 2240, sheet 2. It then fol­lows the thalweg of the Akwayafe as far as a straight line joining Bakasi Point and King Point.XIX. Should the thalweg of the Lower Akwayafe, upstream from the line Bakasi Point-King Point, change its position in such a way as to affect the relative positions of the thalweg and the Mangrove Islands, a new adjustment of the boundary shall be made, on the basis of the new positions, as determined by a map to be made for the purpose.XX. Should the lower course of the Akwayafe so change its mouth as to transfer it to the Rio del Rey, it is agreed that the area now known as the Bakasi Peninsula shall still remain German territory. The same condition applies to any portion of territory now agreed to as being British, which may be cut off in a similar way.XXI. From the centre of the navigable channel on a line joining Bakasi Point and King Point, the boundary shall follow the centre of the navigable channel of the Akwayafe River as far as the 3-mile limit of territorial jurisdiction. For the purpose of defining this boundary, the navigable channel of the Akwayafe River shall be considered to lie wholly to the east of the navigable channel of the Cross and Calabar Rivers.XXII. The 3-mile limit shall, as regards the mouth of the estuary, be taken as a line 3 nautical miles seaward of a line joining Sandy Point and Tom Shot Point."Nigeria claims that the effect of this Agreement was that Great Britain passed title to Bakassi to Cameroon, which it was not entitled to do.

12. Cameroon, on the other hand, contended that it would be inappropriate to talk of Old Calabar as if it possessed international personality or as if it was recognized as a State during that period with defined territorial limits which Nigeria could have inherited.

13. The Court, in paragraph 207 of its Judgment, held that the 1884 Treaty signed with the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar did not establish an international protectorate and it went on to say that from the outset Britain regarded itself as administering the territories comprised in the 1884 Treaty, and not just protecting them, and that the fact that a delegation was sent to London by the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar in 1913 to discuss matters of land tenure cannot be considered as implying international personality and simply confirmed the British administration by indirect rule. According to the Judgment, the Court held that Nigeriaitself had not been able to say with clarity and certainty what happened to the international personality of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar after 1885. This implies that the 1884 Treaty did not mean what was stated in it and Great Britain was entitled to alienate the territory covered by the Treaty of Protection despite the express provisions of that Treaty.

14. With respect, the reasoning given in support of the finding amounts to a serious distraction from the legal issues at hand. The duty of the Court, in my view, would have been to undertake a proper examination of the Treaty with a view to establishing its intention and meaning. The 1884 Treaty provides as follows:"Article 1. Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, &c, in compliance with the request of the Kings, Chiefs, and people of Old Calabar, hereby undertakes to extend to them, and to the ter­ritory under their authority and jurisdiction, her gracious favour and protection.Article 2. The Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar agree and prom­ise to refrain from entering into any correspondence, Agreement, or Treaty with any foreign nation or Power, except with the knowledge and sanction of Her Britannic Majesty's Government," (Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, Vol. I, p. 109; emphasis added.)

15. The Treaty is thus unambiguously clear. Great Britain undertook to extend "her gracious favour and protection" to the Kings, Chiefs and people of Old Calabar. According to jurisprudence, a treaty whose terms and provisions are clear does not need to be interpreted. Nor may interpretation be used as a pretext to deny the clear meaning of a legal instrument. However, if the Court chooses to interpret the treaty it has to be interpreted in accordance with the applicable international rules at the time the treaty was concluded. Since the purpose of interpreting a treaty is to ascertain the intention of the parties to the treaty, there is, therefore, no reason to interpret the 1884 Treaty otherwise than in accordance with the international rules which operated at that time and which included the principle of pacta sunt servanda (the sanctity of treaties). Thus, if the Court had interpreted the 1884 Treaty, even in the light of the then existing canons of interpretation, the legal meaning that would have emerged is that the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland undertook to extend to the territory under the authority and jurisdiction of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar "her gracious favour and protection". The creation of the protectorate by the 1884 Treaty did not involve any cession or transfer of territory. On the contrary, the protecting Power — Great Britain — was only to protect the citizens of Old Calabar and not to dispossess them of their territory. Nor did the Treaty confer rights of sovereignty on Great Britain. On the contrary, it conferred a duty of protection and not for the benefit of a third party. Accordingly, since the Treaty was validly concluded and this has not been demurred, and Great Britain even raised it against other European States whenever their interests were in conflict in the region, Great Britain thus recognized the sovereignty of the Kings and Chiefs and people of Old Calabar over their territory and this cannot subsequently be denied. The 1884 Treaty thus constitutes evidence of an acknowledgment by Great Britain that the Kings and Chiefs of Old Cala­bar were capable of entering into a treaty relationship with a foreign Power and that they were recognized as capable of acting at an international level. Therefore, to argue that the 1884 Treaty did not mean what it said would not only be inconsistent with the express provisions of the Treaty itself, but would also be contrary to the rule of pacta sunt servanda (the sanctity of treaties), a rule which forms an integral part of international law and is as old as international law itself. In other words, it is impossible for a State to be released by its own unilateral decision from its obligations under a treaty which it has signed, whatever the rele­vant method or period. Thus, given that the 1884 Treaty was a treaty of protection and not one of cession involving the alienation of territory, it follows that Great Britain's authority in relation to the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar did not include the power to conclude on their behalf treaties which entitled the protecting State to alienate the territory of the protected State; therefore, the relevant parts of the 1913 Anglo-German Agreement, by which Great Britain purportedly ceded the territory of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar to Germany, lay outside the treaty-making competence of Great Britain, and were not binding on the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar nor ultimately on Nigeria as the successor State. There is, therefore, no legal basis on which to hold, as the Court has done in this case, that the protector State was entitled to cede terri­tory without the consent and in breach of the protective agreement, by stating that "from the outset Britain regarded itself as administering the territories comprised in the 1884 Treaty, and not just protecting them" (para. 207) or that under the law prevalent at the time (in 1913) Great Britain was entitled "to determine its boundaries" (para. 209), even when this affected the territory of a protected State without its consent and inconsistent with the provisions of the relevant Treaty. These conclusions are totally at variance with the express provisions of the 1884 Treaty and in violation of the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Moreover, by con­cluding the 1884 Treaty, it is clear that the territory of Old Calabar was not regarded as a terra nullius but a politically and socially organized community which was recognized as such and which entered into a treaty relationship with Great Britain, a treaty Great Britain felt able to raise against other European States.

16. The foregoing is the correct conclusion which the Court would have reached had it taken the proper approach of interpreting the Treaty with respect to the territory of Old Calabar. Such examination would have shown that the Treaty precluded Great Britain from ceding the territory in question. It would also have revealed that Britain was not entitled to cede Bakassi under the terms of the Treaty. Such a finding would have been founded in law. It is common knowledge that territorial titles were acquired by European States in Africa by treaties of cession, but in the case of a protectorate treaty the sovereignty which inhered in the local ruler would be split in such a way that the protector State would exercise rights of external sovereignty in favour of the protected entity whilst the internal sovereignty would continue to be exercised by the local kings and rulers. In this regard, some African protectorate treaties, such as the 1884 Treaty with the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, were expressed in nega­tive clauses, which imposed restrictions on the contracting rulers as far as exercising their external sovereignty is concerned. Under such a treaty, the Kings and Chiefs undertook not to enter into treaties with other Powers, not to maintain relations (including diplomatic intercourse), not to go to war with such Powers, and, most importantly, not to cede territory. Thus, the clause prohibiting transfer of territory to "other" European Powers was considered the most important within the framework of the protectorate. In the case of the 1884 Treaty between the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar and Great Britain, Great Britain was not authorized in the international relations of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, or otherwise, to act in their name and on their behalf, nor did the Kings and Chiefs give up their right and power to make treaties and agreements with foreign States, but agreed that they would do so only after having first informed the British Government and having obtained its approval.

17. In my view, the position with regard to protectorates is correctly stated in the latest edition of Oppenheim. According to the author:"An arrangement may be entered into whereby one state, while retaining to some extent its separate identity as a state, is subject to a kind of guardianship by another state. The circumstances in which this occurs and the consequences which result vary from case to case, and depend upon the particular provisions of the arrangement between the two states concerned.Protectorate is, however, a conception which lacks exact legal precision, as its real meaning depends very much upon the special case . . .The position within the international community of a state under protection is defined by the treaty of protection which enumerates the reciprocal rights and duties of the protecting and the protected states. Each case must therefore be treated according to its own merits . . . But it is characteristic of a protectorate that the pro­tected state always has, and retains, for some purposes, a position of its own as an international person and a subject of international law." (Opprnhfim's International Law, Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts (eds.), 9th ed., Vol. I, pp. 267-269; emphasis added.)

18. It was against this background and on this basis that the Court should have looked at the 1884 Treaty, a treaty of protection which specifies the terms of protection and the rights and obligations, which did not include authority to alienate territory. Bakassi was part of the territorial scope of the 1884 Treaty of Protection and could not have been changed without the consent of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. Thus, to the extent that evidence of such consent was not provided, there was no basis even under the applicable law at that time for Great Britain to be able to determine its boundaries with Germany in respect of Bakassi, and to the extent that such determination was detrimental to the interests of Old Calabar it should have been declared invalid by the Court. The Judgment did not make it clear what the Court had in mind by saying that Great Britain was in a position to determine its boundary in 1913, because the primary question is whether Great Britain was entitled to alienate the territory which included Bakassi in 1913. And since the answer to this question has to be in the negative, the 1913 Anglo-German Agreement could not and cannot be regarded as valid.

19. It follows from the above that I cannot agree with the Court's findings that the maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria lies to the west of the Bakassi Peninsula and not to the east in the Rio del Rey. Nor can I accept that the maritime boundary between the Parties is "anchored" to the mainland at the intersection of the straight line from Bakassi Point to King Point with the centre of the navigable channel of the Akwayafe River in accordance with Articles XVIII and XXI of the 1913 Anglo-German Agreement. The Court reached these findings on the basis of the 1913 Agreement which, as I have already demonstrated, is invalid as far as those of its provisions relating to Bakassi are concerned. This invalidity alone should have prevented the Court from reaching the aforementioned conclusions (ex una causa, nullitas) or (ex injuria non oritus jus).
Historical consolidation
20. Another aspect of the Judgment which has given me much cause for legal concern is the Court's refusal to assess Nigeria's evidence relat­ing to historical consolidation, which was one of the main grounds of it's claim to territorial title to Bakassi and with respect to some villages which had grown up around Lake Chad, and the Court's treatment with regard to the concept itself. Nigeria claimed that historical consolidation, which is founded upon proven long use, coupled with a complex of interests and relations which, in themselves, have the effect of attaching a territory, constitutes a legal basis of territorial title.

21. With reference to the established villages around Lake Chad, Nigeria cited various elements of local government administration in support of its claim of historical consolidation and effectivites including: legal jurisdiction, taxation, authority of traditional rulers and the fact that the settlements were populated by Nigerian nationals.

22. With reference to the Anglo-German Agreement of 1913 and despite its invalidity in relation to the 1884 Treaty between Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, Nigeria argues that the weight of evidence suggests that there was no German occupation or administration of Bakassi, and no significant pattern of German activities there, in the period between March 1913 and May 1916. It pointed out that the realities of administrative development in the peninsula between 1913 and 1916 showed that Bakassi continued to be administered as part of Nigeria and that the administration and governance of the area came virtually exclusively from Nigeria. Nigeria also stated that, as far as local government was concerned, the British in 1922 introduced a system of indirect rule, using "Warrant Chiefs", and that in 1933 the system of indirect rule was superseded by a native authority system introduced by the Native Authorities Ordinance of 1933. Nigeria explained out that in 1950 this overburdened system of local government was rationalized by the Eastern Region Local Government Ordinance No. 60 of 1950, leading in 1955 to the three-tier system of local government which was later replaced by a two-tier system under the eastern regional local government law.

23. As far as legal jurisdiction was concerned, Nigeria pointed out that native courts were established in the first years of British rule under their system of indirect rule and that the Native Authorities Ordinance of 1933 introduced new native courts organized along similar lines to the local native councils. The Court was also informed that the people of the Bakassi region were paying taxes to the Calabar and Eket authorities, and that these divisions within Nigeria were collecting the taxes. Further evidence was that a Methodist school was established at Abana on Bakassi in 1937 and that a census was conducted in the area under the auspices of the Eket Division in 1953. Ties with the traditional authori­ties of Old Calabar continued uninterrupted and public order was main­tained with the investigation of crime. There was also evidence of the exercising of ecclesiastical jurisdiction as well as the delimitation of elec­toral wards and the citizens participated in parliamentary elections and were enumerated in the census. Public works and development adminis­tration were carried out as well as the exercising of military jurisdiction. Thus a considerable amount and volume of evidence was presented to substantiate the claim of historical consolidation including education, public health, the granting of oil exploration permits and production agreements, the collection of taxes, the collection of custom duties, the use of Nigerian passports by residents of the Bakassi Peninsula, the regulation of emigration in Bakassi, and that the territory itself had been the subject of internal Nigerian State rivalry.

24. Nigeria maintained that there was acquiescence to all these activi­ties, some of which had been carried out over a long period. It contended that acquiescence in this respect had a threefold role: (1) as a significant element in the process of historical consolidation of title; (2) that it con­firms a title on the basis of peaceful possession of the territory concerned; (3) that it may be characterized as the main component of title. Nigeria submitted that the Government of Cameroon acquiesced in the long-established Nigerian administration of the Bakassi region and to most of the aforementioned activities until 1972 onwards when there were various Cameroonian initiatives, and in particular the project of renaming vil­lages, which clearly demonstrates the previous absence of Cameroonian administration. Nigeria submits that at no stage did Cameroon exercise peaceful possession of the peninsula and that from the time of independ­ence in 1960 until 1972, the Government of Cameroon failed to challenge the legitimate Nigerian presence in the region.

25. Responding to the claim of title based on historical consolidation, the Court, in paragraph 65 of the Judgment, stated that apart from in the Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) case "[this] notion . . . has never been used as a basis of title in other territorial disputes, whether in its own or in other case law" — and that nothing in the Fisheries Judgment suggested that the "historical consolidation" referred to allowed land occupation to prevail over an established treaty title. The Court also stated that "the established modes of acquisition of title . . . take into account many other important variables of fact and law" (ibid.), which are not taken into consideration by the "over-generalized" concept of "historical consolidation".

26. In my view, the categories of legal title to territory cannot be regarded as finite. The jurisprudence of the Court has never spoken of "modes of acquisition", which is a creation of doctrine. Just as the Court has recognized prescriptive rights to territory, so there is a basis for historical consolidation as a means of establishing a territorial claim. Nor can the concept of historical consolidation as a mode of territorial title be regarded as "over-generalized" and alien to jurisprudence. Both munici­pal and international law including the Court's jurisprudence, recognize a situation of continuous and peaceful display of authority — proven usage — combined with a complex of interests in and relations to a ter­ritory, which, when generally known and accepted, expressly or tacitly, could constitute title based on historical consolidation. The "important variables" of the so-called established modes of acquisition, which the Court did not define, are not absent in historical consolidation. If any­thing, they are even more prevalent — the complex of interests and rela­tions being continuous and extending over many years plus acquiescence. Historical consolidation also caters for a situation where there has been a clear loss or absence of title through abandonment or inactivity on the one side, and an effective exercise of jurisdiction and control, continu­ously maintained, on the other (see Fitzmaurice, "General Principles of International Law", Recueil des cours de I'Academie de droit interna­tional de La Haye, 1957, p. 148).

27. Failure of a State to react to a claim may, under certain condi­tions, not amount to acquiescence, though in most cases it will. In the Minquiers and Ecrehos case, France pleaded that it was impossible to keep under surveillance the activities of the United Kingdom with respect to the islets. Responding to this argument, Judge Carneiro replied that France was obliged to keep the disputed territory under surveillance and failure to exercise such surveillance and ignorance of what was going on on the islets indicate that France was not exercising sovereignty in the area (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 106). In the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, the Court held that Great Britain, being a maritime Power traditionally concerned with the law of the sea, with an interest in the fisheries of the North Sea could not have been ignorant of Norwegian practice and could not rely on an absence of protest, relevant in proving historic title (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 139). Thus a passive course of conduct involving failure to protest may be taken into account in determining acquiescence in a territorial dispute. If the circumstances are such that some reaction within a reasonable period is called for on the part of a State, the latter, if it fails to react, must be said to have acqui­esced. "Qui tacet consenlire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset."

28. Regarding the length of time required to prove title on the basis of historical consolidation, every material situation calls for its own solu­tion, based on the balancing of competing claims and depending on the area. Title may be proved even without reference to the period of time during which sovereignty had coalesced over the territory in dispute. In paragraph 65 of the Judgment, the Court stated that "the facts and cir­cumstances put forward by Nigeria . . . concern a period of some 20 years, which is in any event far too short, even according to the theory relied on by it". While proven long usage is an important element to con­solidate title on a historical basis, however, and depending on the area, that period may sometimes be shorter. What is required is an assessment of all the elements to determine whether the facts presented establish the claim.

29. With reference to the matter at hand, the evidence of original title on which Nigeria bases its claim to Bakassi can be found in the admin­istration of Bakassi on the part of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar before and after the conclusion of the 1884 Treaty with Great Britain, the exercising of authority by traditional rulers, the Efik and Efiat toponymy of the territory, its ethnic affiliation with Nigeria but not with Cameroon, the long-established settlement of Nigerians in the territory and the mani­festation of sovereign acts, such as tax collection, census-taking, the pro­vision of education and public health services. The acquiescence of Cam­eroon in this long-established Nigerian administration of the territory, the permanent population, the significant affiliations of a Nigerian character, do substantiate a claim based on historical consolidation and which in turn militates in favour of territorial title and stability. The claim to territorial title to Bakassi and to the Nigerian settlements around Lade Chad was thus adequately substantiated and there is no legal justi­fication to cast doubt on its legal basis and integrity.

30. Since the basis of the Court's finding on Bakassi has relied mainly on its evaluation of the Anglo-German Agreement of 1913, I cannot help but point out that even in the Court's jurisprudence, conventional title is only one way of establishing title to territory. The Chamber of the Court in the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali) case makes the following observation:

"The Chamber also feels obliged to dispel a misunderstanding which might arise from this distinction between 'delimitation disputes' and 'disputes as to attribution of territory'. One of the effects of this distinction is to contrast 'legal titles' and 'effectivites'. In this context, the term 'legal title' appears to denote documentary evidence alone. It is hardly necessary to recall that this is not the only accepted meaning of the word 'title'. Indeed, the Parties have used this word in different senses. In fact, the concept of title may also, and more generally, comprehend both any evidence which may estab­lish the existence of a right, and the actual source of that right. The Chamber will rule at the appropriate juncture on the relevance of the evidence produced by the Parties for the purpose of establishing their respective rights in this case. It will now turn to the question of the rules applicable to the case; in so doing, it will, inter alia, ascer­tain the source of the rights claimed by the Parties." (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 564, para. 18; emphasis added). This position was further confirmed by another Chamber of the Court in 1992 in the case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening):"The term 'title' has in fact been used at times in these proceedings in such a way as to leave unclear which of several possible meanings is to be attached to it; some basic distinctions may therefore perhaps be usefully stated. As the Chamber in the Frontier Dispute case observed, the word 'title' is generally not limited to documentary evi­dence alone, but comprehends 'both any evidence which may estab­lish the existence of a right, and the actual source of that right' (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 564, para. 18)." (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 388, para. 45.)Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is regrettable for the Court to have made the 1913 Anglo-German Agreement the main basis of its finding, since this Agreement, in my view, was patently unjust.

31. To sum up my position, by denying the legal validity of the ISM Treaty whilst at the same time declaring valid the Anglo-German Agree­ment of 1913, the Court decided to recognize a political reality over the express provisions of the 1884 Treaty. The justification for this choice does not appear legal to me. It would not be justified for the Court, given its mission, if it were to be regarded as having consecrated an act which is evidently anti-legal. I regret this situation and it explains my position in this matter.

(Signed) Abdul G. Koroma

PROBE: - OBASANJO IS NOT THE ONLY CULPRIT!

Commendably the National Houses of Senate and Representatives through their various committees are presently looking into the crass recklessness that characterized the past “regime” of the medicine man of Otta, Babalawo Aremu Olusegun Obasanjo. While Icheoku applauds this unique effort by Nigerians to once hold her ex-government accountable for her stewardship, the peoples’ mandate holders must also take a step further and extend their inquiry to other failed governments of Yakubu Gowon, Shehu Shagari, Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida as well as Sani Abacha. It will not be fair just to concentrate the probe on Olusgeun Obasanjo’s past government without extending the searchlight on these other "destitute" past governments. Otherwise the current effort might be wrongly interpreted as a vendetta by the Hausa/Fulani Oligarchs on Obasanjo, for not following through with an undertaking to be tele-guided by them while in office. These feudal lords are equally still groaning for being out of power, the only job they "know how to do", and just for mere eight years. These past governments have a lot to be ashamed of and the sooner some of their skeletons are unearthed the better for the body psyche of Nigerians.
YAKUBU GOWON: - This Northerner from Plateau State presided over Nigeria from July 1966 through the unholy jihad-civil war against the Easterners till 1975. During his tenure in 1972 Nigeria accrued unprecedented revenue as a result of then energy crisis where global energy shortage was recorded. Admitted he did some work constructing some roads, overpasses aka flyovers, and a few other infrastructures in Nigeria; but he once declare that there was too much money and he did not know what to do with it. For not knowing how to properly invest the excessive revenue in infrastructure and sundry developments and also for his atrocious genocidal war against the people of Biafra which claimed several millions of lives, this also-disgraced ex-military junta from Plateau State should be probed. The asinine and venomous manner with which he waged the war against a people defending themselves from a total extermination entitles him to be taken in chains to the war crimes tribunal at The Hague for offences against humanity and human rights violations. As a potential war criminal. Yakubu Gowon should be made to become a cell-mate to Liberia’s enfant-terrible, Charles Taylor.
SHEHU SHAGARI: - This Northern weakling from Sokoto State presided over Nigeria, by proxy of Umaru Dikko, from 1979 to 1983; as President under the banners of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN). Although he informed the nation on arrival that he met an empty treasury, but the profligacy of his henchmen Umaru Dikko, Adisa Akinloye and Ibrahim Tahir was of such a Byzantine magnitude that he should be made to answer for their misdeeds. The politics of the Ajaokuta Steel Industry, the Metallurgical Institute and his government’s indiscriminate location of infrastructures, just out of partisanship, such as where they built big post offices in a rural agricultural communities that don’t even write letters. It was evidence of a government without a real man at the helm of affairs which resulted in its minions running wild everywhere.

MUHAMMED BUHARI:- This army general from Northern State of Katsina would have done well but he was a zealot! He headed the military junta in Nigeria from 1983 to 1985. The War Against Indiscpline with Babatunde Idiagbon was the hallmark achievement of his regime. Be that as it may, he showed traits of corruption when he "permitted" Major Jokolo to bring in fifty three suitcases without the necessary Customs check into Murtala Mohammed Airport Lagos during the currency change of 1983. The appearance of impropriety when Buhari was waging a ferociuos war against indiscipline and asociated corrupt practices was mind-boggling. Also Buhari retroactively sentenced and executed Barthlomew Owoh and Crew for a drug complicity which they were involved in long before the decree of death was promulgated. This Buhari also perverted democracy by overthrowing an elected government of Shehu Shagari in a military coup de tat. So for his anti democracy activities, for crimes against humanity of retroactive capital punishment and for apparent corruption, this also disgraced ex-leader of Nigeria shoul dbe investigated.
IBRAHIM BADAMOSI BABANGIDA: - This self acclaimed evil genius military junta held Nigerians against their will from 1985 to 1993. If there is any other Nigeria “leader” that deserves to be x-rayed, that person’s name is Ibrahim Badamosi Babaginda aka IBB His dare-devil obsession for power made him overthrow a government wherein he was serving as a defense minister – what a tragedy of disloyalty. He also forcibly retired his confidant defense minister Domkat Bali without according him any courtesy while the said Domkat was vacationing in his home State of Plateau; this was after using him to execute Mamman Vasta. So much of sympathy for these military marauders! He trumped a coup and implicated his best man at his wedding, Mamman Vasta, a poet and executed him immediately and informed the nation after the fact. The mother of all state murders and killings under this munchkin’s regime was the parcel bomb execution of a trail-blazing investigative journalist, Dele Giwa of the Newswatch magazine. It was thought that this journalist was investigating alleged drug involvement of this army general when his life was brutally cut short by TNT explosive sent to him from the seat of government headed by IBB. All attempts by Gani Fawehinmi to force an investigation into this dastard murder have been continuously frustrated by the powers that be because they are afraid the inquest might incriminate Ibrahim Badmosi Babangida. There was also a plane load of ebullient army officers including an acquaintance Captain Mba that was forcibly brought down at Ejigbo near Lagos on the watch of Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida; wiping out a new generation of young army officers because allegedly, IBB was afraid of their possible putsch. On financial crime, the first gulf war brought into Nigeria coffers, more that then $12billion dollars USD and Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida is yet to tell Nigerians how that money was spent or the private bank account number in Zurich Switzerland housing the money. Politically, IBB committed genocide with his annulment of the first freest and squarely won democratic election of the century which saw Bashorun Moshood Kamowole Abiola as the elected President of Nigeria. He brazenly annulled it and damned the consequence. Legally, IBB challenged the superiority of a legally constituted investigative judicial body led by Justice Chukwudiufu Oputa, somewhat similar to South Africa’s Truth Commission. The tribunal had requested testimony from IBB but were scorned and advised to travel to Minna Niger State, his home turf for whatever they may want from him. What a denigrate obsufucator of the law, Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida is. For all these crimes and other numerous atrocities supervised by IBB, he should be handcuffed to a tribunal which should send him away forever, at least to show how not to rule a people. That he slaughtered the Gideon Orkar group is equally a credible ground for his investigation, trial and eventual conviction.

SANI ABACHA: - Although long dead and now in HELL, this short-man devil could be posthumously investigated for his atrocious regime in Nigeria between 1993 to 1998. Several billion dollars belonging to Nigeria was looted away under his regime. The death of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola and Pa Rewane, etc are enough criminal acts of and by the state under Abacha for which he should be made responsible. Human rights activist Poet Ken Saro Wiwa was charged, tried and executed for "treason" all within 24hours under the watchful supervision of Sani Abacha and the world learnt about it several hours after the fact of the state murder. The then Minister for external affairs, Tom Ikimi was embarrassed to learn about it from a foreign news correspondent in far away Asia when the reporter asked him why his government was in such a rush to execute Ken Saro Wiwa? A man of credible character in Tom Ikimi's shoes would have resigned on the grounds of this shut out by the government he was serving, but instead he stuck in there like atypical Nigerian shameless steward who is just happy to be tolerated around the corridors of power. He can be posthumously convicted even if for a symbolical purposes only and for the records. He equally had his fair share of periodically alleging phantom coups and killing and locking up people in the process. Luckily some of his henchmen like Jeremiah Useni, Oladipo Diya etc are still around to answer for the sins of this midget from Kano State of Northern Nigeria.
In conclusion therefore, while I do not carry water for Aremu Olusegun Obasanjo, justice should be served fairly. Obasanjo was not the only thief or vampire to have ever held Nigeria hostage. What is good for the gander is also good for the goose and the arrogance of the Arewa Consultative Forum notwithstanding; the probe of past governments SHOULD extend to all the past inept governments which suffered Nigeria greatly. This is the only thing that makes sense and Babalawo Aremu Olusegun Obasanjo should not be singled out, just because a Mallam so desired. This is the time for the South to finally call the bluff of these feudalistic overlords in the North, who parade themselves like the lords of manor of Nigeria. Regrettably Obasanjo failed to fully mobilize the South for this moment when they would have risen in unison in his defence and against the Northern Oligarchs once and for all; but by Obasanjo not developing the South during his infamous eight years in power, there is no basis both in law and in fact for the South to rally around him. If Olusegun Obasanjo has a critic who loathes him dearly, this blogger is one of them; extending to 1999 when I campaigned vigorously against his second adventure into the Nigeria presidency - being an ex-military man whose first coming in 1976 was less than desirable. But should the South sit out this moment when the North rallies around even their most despicable leader such as Abacha in times of need? I don’t think so; and like the former secretary of FCA Omotola said during the investigative panel hearing the corruption charges in Abuja recently, the country belongs to us all.

On a final note, the one good thing to come out of this attempt by the National Assembly is that a once in a lifetime opportunity knocks on the door for Nigerians to rise up and take their country back from these few despicable "leaders" who have hijacked the country from them since independence. Hold them accountable and ban them from holding any public office for life as a deterrent for future would be thieves of the treasury. The people of the country should support their elected representatives and encourage them to go the full nine yards in investigating these corrupt charges and where credible basis exists for trying the culprits, should comence such process and if convicted, they all should be sentenced accordingly and made to pay restitution to Nigeria as may be adjudged fair and reasonable wherever the circumstance so dictates.

BIAFRA, A CASE FOR A RE-VISIT!

"By way of preamble, Biafra is that part of Eastern Nigeria, Africa that tried unsuccessfully to secede from Nigeria through a civil war that lasted from 1967 to 1970”

Is it conceivable to argue that Biafra technically was not conquered but was forced to surrender due to a very asphyxiating economic blockade; which brought untold hardship on the people of Biafra thereby compelling the protagonists of the war effort to throw in the towel? Could this effort at secession just be in abeyance since there is still no real reconciliation, rehabilitation and re-integration amongst Nigerians thirty eight years after the end of firearms-hostilities between Biafra and Nigeria? Is it logical to postulate that although the battle was technically “lost” in the war front but the war still goes on in the hearts and minds of both sides particularly the people of Biafra? Further is it plausible to say that the rest of Nigerians do not really want Biafra to come back into their fold, otherwise, where are their incentives? Assuming the surrender is conclusive, could Biafra then be the only lost cause in the annals of freedom fighting and survival efforts throughout the world? Was it Sudan with John Garanger? Was it East Timor and Indonesia? Was it Aceh in Malaysia? Was it Palestine or in the Balkans Kosovo which provides us the reference place in this discuss. Freedom fighters all over the world usually most always end up with either a two nation states arrangement or at minimal, a power-sharing arrangement wherein the fears of the fighters are enshrined in a document and protected by the oppressive central government; with the rebel leader as a vice president or premier carrying out oversight functions respecting the arrangement. Why Biafra’s result was different remains to be emphatically and empirically determined; however some school of thought posits that Biafra’s cause became so personalized thereby alienating other interests groups hitherto propagating it and also that Biafra failed to properly mobilize her war effort. Some protagonists have quipped that Biafra was a child of necessity and under such circumstances could not have done any better. To this blogger, the jury is still out on the real under-belly of what made Biafra to “fail” and this cause will remain a secret until long after the principals on both sides have all gone, then and only then would the real root cause of what went awry be revealed.
Nigeria as an entity is an aberration. It is a ruse. It is a quandary. It is an illusion. It made no sense then when it was clobbered together by colonial Britain with their amalgamation of 1914, it does not make sense now as a “viable” political entity and it will not ever make sense in the future as a viable force to reckon with. Nigeria’s inactive passivity at present is comparable to a volcano that although not currently erupting is very restive inside the bowls of the earth. It is an unholy marriage – people forcibly yoked together in an unholy wedlock will someday either divorce themselves or kill one another. For some time now without end Nigerians have been clamoring for a Sovereign National Conference to discuss the conditions of their continued tolerance of one another as a country but to no avail. Some lords of manor therein have resisted this call and the same people are first to question why all the mushrooming freedom fighters especially in the Niger Delta area of the country. This clique of people forget that those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable. To some people, these so called militants are patriots whose only sin is that they are questioning the continued injustice being meted to their people by successive Nigerian governments. One of such governments arrested, charged, convicted and executed one of their leaders all within forty-eight hours; and that leader’s name was Ken Saro-Wiwa. He stood up for what was right for and by his people against apparent wrongs by the Nigeria government and they killed him, no questions asked. At the rate of the restiveness in the cavity of Nigeria, one day the world will wake up to learn that Nigeria as a nation has joined the “league of countries that once was” - like the old Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and most recently Serbia-Montenegro. But the good news for these other countries is that while their decimation was for most part peaceful, that of Nigeria may be a lot much different judging from the bottled-up anger, frustrations and grievances so embedded in most many Nigerians. There is no reason to continue to hold the various nationalities together in the suffocating hell’s kitchen called Nigeria; absent a comprehensive re-assessment of the bonds holding them together. As it is presently constituted, there is no love lost among the various ethnic nationalities therein encapsulated. The good news however is that the handwriting on the wall suggests that the glue hitherto holding them together is fast melting and the resulting cataclysm shall be unparalleled if not timely checked. Sovereign National Conference is the answer!
The inept Aremu Obasanjo’s past administration made matters worse by his hellish policies and draconian governance; to the extent that fear and distrust today has become more palpable than at the beginning of his maladministration in 1999. Obasanjo did not achieve anything worth the billions of revenue his government took in through an unprecedented high cost of crude oil. In comparison, the erstwhile midget dictator Sani Abacha will forever be remembered for at least an accomplishment – Nigeria won a junior world cup during his regime. Obasanjo will however be perpetually vilified for all the atrocities of Odi massacre, Zaki-Ibiam’s mayhem, Chris Uba’s running amok in Anambra State and destroying several state properties and some lives in his infantile tantrum, and his moronic ceding of Bakassi to Cameroon. As a panacea, Nigeria should be peacefully divided along the various nationalities that presently make it up; that each may go their separate ways to pursue their respective destinies. Some people are tired of being held down waiting for some “mallam” somewhere in the Sahara desert of Northern Nigeria to finish drinking his “nono” or chewing his “gworo” and waking up by 12.00noon to start figuring out the policies of State. Or an “mgbati man” from Western Nigeria to finish dancing his “owambe music” and hatching out another line of conspiracy before leading the example of the failed Obasanjo’s administration or an “okolo man” from Eastern Nigeria to finish the day’s hustling (with some of them stuffing medicine capsules with white chalk-powder ready to send hit men after NAFDAC chair-lady for daring to straighten them up) before tinkering with States affairs. We are not one and neither do we share any affinities whatsoever together in common – not in culture, not in language, not commonality of interest, not in life style, not in appearance or outlook, not in ethnic food, not in philosophical and political aspirations; even the geographies are different. This blogger remembers the history of Nigerian independence struggle which would have paid off the same time as Ghanaians in 1957 but for the North which told the South to go ahead with their own independence because they are not ready yet. The south decide to wait in the spirit of one Nigeria till 1960 and this wait is still going on in the year 2008. This blogger goes further to add that these group of “mullahs” were not ready then, are not ready now and will never be ready. Look at the developments in the various regions and yet they have been in power much longer than all the other tribal regions put together, who is the least developed? The North, because the government cannot do everything for the people, the people must also put some foot forward. There is no common denominator coalescing Nigerians together to pursue a common purpose; and those in the Diaspora are not any better as they find it utterly difficult if not impossible to maintain one viable Nigerian Unions/Associations because they cannot tolerate one another. No Nigerian believes earnestly in one Nigeria any longer since the death of Nnamdi Azikwe although those power-drunks at the helm of affairs use that mantra as a tool of exploitation. Every Nigerian sincerely holds other Nigerians from other regions outside their own particular enclave with disdain and suspicious apprehension. The "mgbatis" (Yorubas) of Western Nigeria are the arch culprit; even the attempt, the "okolos" (Igbos) of Eastern Nigeria are making to truly unify Nigeria with their unbridled adventurism is constantly being rebuffed by the rest of Nigerians which always make them their "fair" game whenever there is any disturbance. They are usually the first to be slaughtered, maimed, dispossessed and driven out. It is delusional to think that Nigerians are truly one Nigeria and only time will tell what becomes of it.
Prescriptively, Nigeria should go the way of the Balkan States or the old Soviet Union or the recent Serbia-Montenegro cum Kosovo. Population wise, there are easily thirty million people to be found in each of the three principal regional blocks of Nigeria and hence will be very viable countries, respectively. Costa Rica is a country and they are just four point four million people with no standing army. Switzerland is a country with just about seven million people and is home to all the trillion dollars stolen out of Africa by her successive despotic heads of governments and their minions. Aside of China with 1.3billion people, India with 1.2billion people, United States of America with 300million people, Indonesia with 231million people, Brazil with 183million people, Pakistan with 162million people and Bangladesh with 158million people, Nigeria is the next most populous country in the world with about 148million people. Who really wants to call such a "clustered" place home especially when the infrastructure is highly under-developed? Nigeria is numerically bigger than any country in Europe including Russia; Nigeria is bigger also than any country in South America except Brazil; Nigeria is also bigger than Canada's 33million as well as Mexico's 106million; Japan's 127million people inclusive. Among the 222 countries and territories of the world, Nigeria is eight in the hierarchy of most populous countries. Some countries have fewer than 1million inhabitants with Pitcaim Islands being the least populated with only 50 people. All those mantras of the bigger the better has not achieved anything for Nigeria but has been the tool of choice for the over-lords who are milking her dry, so it might as well forever rest in peace. Let the people go; let the willing ones go take flight just like an eagle and soar while the rest can become another Dafour for the United Nation to worry about. Look at United Arab Emirates and the very successful experiment called Dubai! Nigeria, it is a shame! It is a shame that over forty years after her independence and amidst the available resources, Nigeria is still wallowing in abject want of practically everything from good roads, electricity, medical care, security, food, houses to all such other comforts of life that makes modern life livable; yet this is a country that have taken in over $500Billion USD in revenue since 1970. Where are the Benjamines?

Watching Maoist rebel Prachand of Nepal few years ago, extract resounding agreement from the government of Nepal affirms that a determined rebellion could resolve intractable oppression in a country. A case in point is Nigeria where a peaceful sovereign national conference has become impossible to convene. The freedom fighters of the Niger Delta must not waver but steadily and surely persist in their demands for fairness and equity regarding their territorial wealth. Can you imagine for an instance somebody from Maine going to Texas and asserting rights over oil wells therein – this will surely bring the sheriff to town. Yet almost all the oil blocks in the Niger delta are owned by mostly Northerners with Danjuma’s oil block alone allegedly valued at over $1.2billion USD and Danjuma is from Taraba State and not the Niger Delta. How many oil wells do the Henshaws, the Saro-Wiwas, the Horsefalls, the Okumagbas etc own? It is thievery and must stop! The Niger Delta patriots are honed in and by God’s speed they shall succeed. A saying goes that if you cannot find the cricket, you might as well scatter its’ mound. Let every soul support these efforts by the youth of the Niger Delta in their quest to be fairly treated so that equity and peace may reign in Nigeria. Othman Dan Fodio once said that conscience is an open wound and only truth can heal it; so speak up Nigerians as justice for one is justice for all. The people of Niger Delta deserve to be mad at the injustices they have suffered over the years in the hands of successive Nigeria governments and reserves the right to be heard. It is about time some serious soul-searching is done that equity may prevail. Justice is sacrosanct to peace!

In summation therefore, there is no justification for all the wrongs going on in Nigeria. There is no reason why millions of well qualified Nigerians should be scouring the streets in Diaspora for survival amidst all the natural resources-driven wealth therein situated just because their home governments is rudderless and lost in the wilderness. There is no justification for the non development of infrastructures in Nigeria despite all the billions of dollars USD which the country have taken in since oil was discovered therein, in Oloibiri in 1958. The people of Nigeria are denied and deprived of basics of life amenities and Dubai (UAE) is a testimony for a government that really loves her people. What is the need to continue to sustain an entity that does not thrive or discharge its basic obligation to her people? It is about time some real hard questions are asked. It is about time enough really becomes enough – let everybody go their separate ways that certain group’s desire to go to the moon could be realized. This blogger still remembers very vividly the “Ogbunigwe aka Ojukwu bucket” improvised explosive devices (IEDS); improvised oil refineries that were built overnight to fuel the war effort; planes that were landed in improvised and specially night illuminated runways in the middle of jungles; guns and ammunition that were manufactured as child of necessity - a lot was accomplished during Biafra. It was done then and it can be done again.

Biafra is a testimony of what is possible for a willing mind and a fully mobilized populace. Even these mongrels presiding over Nigeria went as far as technically closing down PRODA, a flagship project development agency in the march for industrial breakthroughs in Eastern Nigeria, situated at Enugu. Biafra is an idea that is worth revisiting especially in view of what recently happened in Kosovo. Maybe a Kosovo style approach will yield desired result for the millions yearning to be free, Biafrans - establish contacts with the mighty and powerful United States of America, Britain, Germany and France; abstract their tacit approval/support and let the chips fall as they may. A complete balkanization is what Nigeria needs so that people could be freed to pursue their destinies however they may deem fit – some people wake up by 4.00am, some by 6.00am; some by 8.00am and some by 10.00am and some others in between so it is an arrant nonsense for anyone to expect that everybody will wake up at the same time. Where this panacea is not possible or practicable then, let the country settle for a full really working confederation with a weak center; sustained from heavy taxation just to maintain the army and foreign relations. Let us declare in one loud voice, “to your tents oh Nigerians” that the Bible prophesy for the Israelites could be fulfilled in Nigeria. Let Nigeria hold a SOVEREIGN NATIONAL CONFERENCE to fine-tune her continued existence as an entity - a lot has been lost over the years to the inefficiency of successive marauding governments! SNC will help in bridging this erosion. SNG is the only way forward that makes sense and nothing short of that will achieve the desired result. Enough of all these yokes hindering Nigeria from becoming a country to reckon with amongst comity of nations. All the phony declarations of greatness or intentions to get there by 2020 will come to naught absent a well conceived and freely conducted sovereign national conference as the way forward which will also serve as a building block for this new Nigeria. Nigeria needs a total rebirth and this is the core of this commentary.

SOUTH AFRICANS, BARBARIANS?

The ongoing extermination of fellow African people who are not South Africans natives but who are living in South Africa by South Africans is both deplorable and callous. This is because there would have been no South Africa for these disgruntled and misguided barbarians to lay claim to as theirs were it not for the concerted efforts of every African and their respective governments who fought apartheid off. These Africans paid taxes to their government who in turn supported anti-apartheid movements with such money which culminated to Nelson Mandela being freed from Robin Island prison penultimate his presidency which heralded full freedom for South Africa. Now these urchins are claiming that South Africa is their exclusive preserve and that non natives black Africans are thus not welcomed there; leading to the wanton disregard for human lives currently pervading South Africa. This is condemnable and should be so condemned by all men of good faith and decency. Icheoku heretofore condemn and unequivocally, the genocide currently going on in South Africa! Who the heck are these South Africans that they should be committing genocide of unprecedented magnitude against fellow Africans upon whose back they got their freedom? This is the same South Africa that the doyen of talk show, Oprah Winfrey invested a whooping $40million dollars establishing a girls academy there yet Oprah is not a South African and would have been so killed were she a plebeian subsisting in South Africa. Where is Nelson Mandela amidst all these pogrom? Where is the father of Africa when some of his children are being killed off and forced to flee for their lives from South Africa which they jointly freed from apartheid? Where is the outrage of Desmond Tutu, the peace-maker? Where is African Union? What is Thabo Mbeki's government doing to checkmate these arrant nonsense and unwarranted mayhem? This blogger remembers very vividly the involvement of then General Olusegun Obasanjo led Nigerian government with the struggle against apartheid both in manpower training and development as well as equipping the freedom fighters with their canteen and sometimes paying their staffers. This blogger equally remembers the sacrifices of people of then Rhodesia now Zimbabwe many of whom spilled their blood waging urban guerrilla warfare with both Botha and Ian Smith led oppressive governments. Now that Africans should be putting their heads together to explore the chances of reintegration from the colonial balkanization, just like the Europeans are doing through the European Union and other regional blocs are exploring through various regional cooperation, Africans are rather busy killing one another; South African are currently carrying out this genocide against fellow brother Africans because, according to them, they are not one of their own. When will Africa become a grown up? How can a blackman call a fellow blackman a stranger in motherland Africa? When will Africa begin to value precious blood of life in human beings by respecting the sanctity of life? Do Africans really treasure being called barbarians because of their love and penchant for shedding blood? Today it is South Africa, last time it was Rwanda, the other day Kenya, then Liberia, then Ivory Coast, then Sierra Leone, same with Uganda, also the intractable Congo, likewise the failed state of Somalia, then the Darfurians of Sudan and Chad just to mention a few of the hotbeds of Africa, where the West is making bountiful profit through arms sales with which they keep their population forcibly in check. Why would Africa be the biggest market for firearms and munition when it cannot feed her populace? Something is not right with this picture and a call for a speedy solution is the clarion cry of Icheoku. Africans must learn to be their brother's keeper and should see every blackman as a brother to be assimilated rather than exterminated. The world is laughing at the sordid affairs in Africa and has since declared Africa the cursed part of the body world. Africa is the cry baby of the world and Africa is the last outback of a developed and developing world. Hunger is worst in Africa! Disease is worst in Africa! Natural and man-made disasters are pandemic in Africa! Education is least developed in Africa! Nothing scientifically or otherwise has been bequeathed to the world by Africa! Wars are highest in Africa! Killing of one another is highest in Africa! Genocide is highest in Africa! Poverty is highest in Africa! Sit tight governments are most prevalent in Africa with the Mubarak of Egypt, Qaddafi of Lybia, Mugabe of Zimbabwe readily coming to mind. What use then is Africa one may ask? Africa cannot get her acts together and these wanton shedding of African blood by fellow Africans can only exacerbate an already bad situation, hence must be stopped and NOW! For desecrating Africa by shedding the blood of fellow Africans, the people of South Africa are hereby declared by Icheoku as the ungrateful ingrates of the African continent! They are despicable! Their acts are abominable! They are the present day barbarians of Africa! They are the decrepitude of African humanity and stands condemned by Icheoku for being the biblical Esau of Africa by killing their brother Abel fellow Africans! Such dying cries of butchered Africans go straight to God who has thus decreed South Africans a cursed people of Africa! South Africa will continue to wear this toga until they repent of their sins and ask for forgiveness of all Africans. Woe to you South Africans for killing fellow Africans on such a flimsy excuse as being non indigenous! Instead of becoming a melting pot UNITED STATES of AFRICA just like America, South Africa has today become the killing field of Africa where fellow Africans are butchered for no real reason at all. As of today, 56 Africans of non South African origin living in South Africa has been killed with 650 of them seriously injured by these hyena-South Africans! When will enough be really enough South Africa? Your act is both deplorable and criminal. Shame on you, South Africans!

SINGLE NIGERIAN LADIES IN THE US, WHO WILL MARRY THEM?

This past year alone I've had at least half a dozen friends who have returned to Nigeria to bring brides. Am not talking about those who left fiancees and girlfriends at home and returned to fulfill their pledges; no I am rather referring to those who went to conduct a fresh search for that elusive bride they claimed they couldn't find in the US. While there is nothing wrong with this phenomenon in general, I take exception to the notion held by some single Nigerian men in the US that most of the single Nigerian ladies also in the US are either corrupt in the moral sense, too materialistic or have simply lost their cultural values as appertains to marriage. Nothing, indeed, could be farthest from the truth and sadly enough, some of these men who have taken that trip to their villages and home states to fetch their brides are paying the price at the hands of these supposedly innocent homely women whom they had imported from motherland.
We should reckon that times are changing rapidly and our single men must reassess their marital plans with respect to these changing times. In some cases, the women brought from home have proven beyond reasonable doubt to be even more materialistic, more morally bankrupt, more sordid and less submissive than the single Nigerian women in the US. The latter having lived, schooled and worked in the US often have far more realistic expectations of their men than those from home who are taken in by the splendor of their new environs. The Nigerian society of our fathers and mothers is but an illusion in the present day and the single men must be aware of this fact before they pack their bags and head home in search of their 'Virgin Mary'. Some of these women once they arrive in the US proceed immediately to torment their husbands [or as they say in Nigeria - show him pepper] seeing that he no longer has a choice in the matter. Some remain patient until that all-important document is in hand and then proceed to leave their husbands for another gentleman, in most cases, younger and richer.
One of the fellows in my community who brought his wife from home has since confessed to me [and whoever would listen] that he made a grave mistake. He now agrees that he should have married his beautiful Nigerian girlfriend in the US who he exchanged for his wife at the behest of his family. With every phone call, they impressed upon him that the single Nigerian women in the US, and particularly, the one he was dating seriously at the time, were not good enough for him. They opposed the relationship primarily because she was from another state. His mother advised him that he must marry a girl from his area that they can vouch for in terms of her family history, background, education and sexual history. But how can they verify her sexual history? Will they go chasing all her ex-boyfriends in search of information about her sexual escapades, performance or lack thereof? Will they go to the university and asked each guy if he has bedded her or know of anyone who has or how many lecturers she had slept with for marks? How? In any case, at the end of the day, his mother prevailed [they always do] and this gentleman returned home to marry this highly recommended lady of supposed impeccable moral standing. But he and the rest of the community soon came to find out that there was nothing impeccable about her moral standing as she has been the biggest flirt in town since she made it down from Nigeria. You see, this lady, only in her mid twenties, is blessed with an impressive 'Dolly Patton' type chest and that has been both a source of imaginable pleasure to her husband as well as the source of ample disappointment and anguish to the poor guy, given that other men, quite regrettably, are also vested in that "source". Seemingly, with her beauty that makes the likes of Tara Banks jealous, some single Nigerian men [I bet some married ones too] in and around this community suddenly developed a keen interest in the work schedule of her husband in order to take advantage of his absence. As it is now, the couple has since separated only after three years of matrimony.
This is a very sad commentary, but so many other similar occurrences abound in this land and these calls for a critical assessment of the situation by these Nigerian single men before they take that marital plunge back home in Nigeria. With our society laced with the penchant for self-aggrandizement and immediate gratification, our single men can no longer take the recommendations of their friends and family at face value. They ought to probe further and take the time to truly souse themselves in the relevant details of the lady they intend to marry and bring to the US. If the truth be told, in some cases, some of these men would be better off if they settled for a single Nigerian lady already in the US. All things considered, it's cheaper, involves little or no immigration hassle as they are already in the country and provides the opportunity for the couple to at least know each other through on hands dating before taking that nuptial plunge. Most importantly, this eliminates the "US" factor as the man is assured that the lady's interest in him is not as a result of her desire of a better life in the US. But regrettably, some of our men are now learning the hard way that the “Ngozi” or “Ronke” or “Amina” that was fetched from the village at the recommendation of their parents and relatives only used them to gain entrance into the US. How would a man who spends 99.9 percent of his time in faraway America ascertain that such a “wife to be” is for real? How would a man know that Ronke isn't using him as a means to come to America and better her own life and finally possibly hook up with that ex-boyfriend of hers elsewhere whom she never really got over with emotionally or perhaps tell the man off as not being her type!? Some of our young and single ladies in Nigeria are very desperate to get out of that country. I hear it all the time when I go home for a visit. They come on to any Nigerian man who visits home regardless of his marital status or age or looks and some of them even camp out at the airport in the hopes of attracting the eye of any US arrived! Even some Nigerian men who are married to Americans and other non-Nigerians who go home for a visit are sometimes told to drop their foreign wives for a "real home gal". They call these men "Hamburger Nigerians" because of the mistaken belief that their white women cook for them only hamburgers and not "amala" or "egusi" soup. But this couldn't be true, because I know of a Nigerian lawyer in Baltimore who married a white woman who cooks Nigerian cuisines better than some so called home gals. Some of these gals would say "yes" to any man who comes from the US to seek their hand in marriage regardless of his caliber, level of education, looks, character and what have you. The question most of them ask is not "What kind of man is he", but rather, "Will he take me to America?" Their motivation has nothing to do with love but is rather self-serving as a means to just get out from Nigeria.
That leads me to the question - how about the single Naija ladies in the US, who will marry them? Who will marry them if most of the Nigerian bachelors in the US are returning home to their villages in Nigeria to bring their brides? Who will marry Bola in Los Angeles? Who will marry Adaobi in Chicago? Who will marry Aisha in New York City? Who will marry Eno in Oakland? And the same story is true of single Nigeria girls in every State and City in America hoping and praying for that Naija man to find her in his radar. It's about time some of these 'home-going' men took a good look at the available Nigerian ladies in the US; they might be surprised at what they find. This is not to aver that there are no disingenuous, creepy, conniving and mischievous ones amongst this group in the US. There are, but some are still responsible professionals who contrary to popular belief haven't exchanged their fine cultural upbringing for the flimsy and casual ways of the West. They are everywhere in the US, in every shade, shape and size. The choice is infinite. But some, admittedly, are snubs, with an inflated sense of self and worth. One can usually recognize these types. When they walk into a party, they behave like they own the place; their shoulders are higher than the ceiling. Even before taking a good look at the men at the party, they would conclude that they aren't good enough for them. When you ask them politely for a dance, they would behave like you just asked for their hand in marriage. They would give you the famous 'Nigerian woman's' look and would hiss louder than a governor's siren, measuring you up and down with their eyes even before you blink.
On account of the seeming lack of interest by some single Nigerian men in the US, some of our women have given up and have forayed into the path of men from other countries and races including Whitemen, Asians, Jewish, Arabs, Jamaicans, Pakistanians, Indians, Bangladesh, Latin men and some are even tangling with Chinese men - the 'Lo mien' Naijas. One of my Naija lady friend has since pitched her tent with white men. She said she once dated Nigerian men and found them to be chauvinistic and inconsiderate - a broad brush. She claims that she cannot find a Nigerian man who can tolerate her strong and forward personality. Most Nigerian men, according to her, want "yes" women - women who will cloth and bath them, cook and clean for them and still be available to offer a plethora of sexual pleasure whenever. She stated that she gave Nigerian men a chance, but they "blew it" [her words] because they were either too possessive, demanding or simply oblivious on the fine art of how to treat a woman with respect, care and love. Even little things like sending flowers on birthdays and other memorable occasions and being romantic are lost on some Nigerian men, she contends. But all of this could not be true of all Nigerian men, is it?
Evidently, there are so many young and single Nigerian women in the US who are waiting for that special Nigerian man to knock on their door. Some of them believe that the man for them is yet to be born - Good luck! Some might not wait too long before they try their luck with men of other races. For those Nigerian men who think that all the good Nigerian women are still in Nigeria and ignore the ones here, they must think again. The young women at home are no fools. They are savvy, informed, independent and in some cases even more knowledgeable than the ones in the US. Some of them are far wiser than the three wise men and it would be foolish for any man to think that in them he would find submission and acceptable morals simply because they were brought from home. Sometimes, the best things are next to us and we just don't realize that. This is in no way to aver that the women brought from home all have ill-intentions - not at all. There are many who are in very successful marriages. What I am asserting, however, is the simple fact that those men who state categorically that most of the single Naija women in the US have lost their cultural sprite because of the corruption of the American society should have a rethink.

EXCLUSION CLAUSE: - The above picture of a top Nigerian model used here is for illustration purposes only of how beautiful Nigerian girls are and not in any way suggestive that she is not a marriage type or that she is looking for a husband. Of her marital status, this blogger does not claim any knowledge whatsoever, thereto! This article was sent in by an anonymous contributor; it was however editorially retouched slightly with our target visitors in mind.