.jpg)
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?
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 fo
r free?
r 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.
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 Ni
geria 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!
geria 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!
Tension In Bakassi Over Handover
ReplyDeleteBy Bassey Inyang, Correspondent, Calabar
Suspected militants from Bakassi Peninsula have attacked Cameroon gendarmes stationed in an area on the territory that was handed over to the Nigerian central African neighbours last year.
Daily Independent gathered that the attack took place within the axis of Archibong town, Akwa and Amoto axis, deep into the territory from the shores of Nigeria.
It is feared that during the attack, which took place on Monday night, at least six gendarmes lost their lives while many others were injured.
The immediate cause of the attack may not be unconnected with the continued agitation by some groups and persons in Bakassi against the handing over of the entire territory to Cameroon.
Nigeria is billed to handover the entire Bakassi peninsula and its resources to Cameroon on August 18 this year, but some persons and groups in the territory said the handover of their homeland to Cameroon was not in the interest of the people of the area who have continued to agitate to remain in their land as Nigerians.
Information reaching Daily Independent in Calabar indicate that following the development tension has enveloped the area, forcing residents to panic and wanting to move immediately into Cross River State through Ikang area which has been designated as the would-be new abode of the Bakassi people.
Daily Independent also learnt that most of the natives who intended moving out of Bakassi to areas in Nigeria are being prevented from crossing over by the Cameroonian authorities who had deployed more gendarmes to cordon off the area and stop the natives from leaving the territory.
When our correspondent sought the comment of the state police command on the incident, Police Public Relations Officer (PPRO)of the command, Thomas Adama Okpene (DSP), did not confirm or deny the attack on the gendarmes by the militants, but said he had visited Archibong West and Archibong East where the mobile policemen from Nigeria are still stationed, to ascertain the situation.
He said such attack cannot take place in Archibong because of the presence of the police, neither is there any refugee situation in Ikang, because, if such an incident had occurred, it was definitely deep in the Cameroonian territory.
The Monday attack is the second by suspected militants on Cameroon gendarmes since Nigeria started the pullout from the territory in 2006.
In November last year Cameroonian police were attacked in Bakassi by suspected militants and at least 21 of them were reported killed.
Meanwhile, a Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday declined moves by Bakassi indigenes to stop the final cession of Bakassi to Cameroon today.
In a "Green Tree Agreement'' signed by Nigeria and Cameroon on June 12, 2006, the latter would assume full sovereignty over the oil-rich Bakassi peninsula today.
The agreement was reached and endorsed by the two countries after the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)at The Hague, which held that Bakassi belonged to Cameroon.
Eight prominent indigenes of Bakassi had filed a suit before the High Court to, among others, stop the Federal Government from implementing the last lap of the agreement.
At the resumed hearing of the case on Tuesday, Justice Mustapha Umar refused an oral application seeking to restrain the Government from today's final ceding of the oil-rich peninsula.
"The issue of maintaining the status quo as canvassed is very serious and ought to have been brought by a way of formal application and supporting affidavits and documents.
"I have carefully listened to the argument by counsel, and I am inclined to refuse the application because there is nothing before me to support the position of the applicant,'' Umar said.
Counsel to the plaintiff, Kayode Fasetire, had moved the oral application urging the court to order that status quo be maintained.
He had argued that if the Southern Bakassi was finally ceded to Cameroon today, his client would be prejudiced and that there would be nothing remaining for adjudication by the court.
Counsel to the Federal Government, Abel Ezioko, opposed the application on the grounds that the position of the applicant was not backed with exhibits and affidavit evidence.
The lawyer to Cross River State government, Bassey U. Bassey, also aligned himself with the submission of Ezioko.
He urged the court not to embark on a voyage that would lead it to sit as an appellate court to the International Court of Justice.
"The Green Tree Agreement'' was made pursuant to the ICJ judgment. This court cannot upturn the judgment of the ICJ,'' he said.
In the substantive suit, the plaintiffs had asked the court to restrain government from ceding the remaining parts of Bakassi,
Northern Abana and Atabong Zones, to Cameroon.
Cameroonian Deputy Governor Abducted in Bakassi
ReplyDeleteFrom By Paul Ohia in Lagos and Ernest Chinwo in Calabar, 06.11.2008
Add To Favorites
Print This Article
Post Comment
A Cameroonian deputy governor, Felix Morfan has been abducted and several policemen killed in an attack on a village in the border region of Bakassi.
The British Broadcasting Corporation said yesterday that unidentified gunmen killed at least three police officials in the attack.
THISDAY gathered that the attack took place around Archibong town, Akwa and Amoto axis, deep into the territory from the shores of Nigeria .
The attack occurred Monday before a Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday rejected attempts to block the final transfer of the oil-rich Bakassi peninsula to Cameroon in accordance with an international tribunal ruling.
The suit was filed by eight prominent indigenes of the area, led by two former chairmen of Bakassi Local Government, Chief Emmanuel Etene and Mr. Ani Esin.
Although the cause of the attack was not known, sources said it may not be unconnected with the dissatisfaction by some groups and persons in Bakassi against the handing over of the entire territory to Cameroon .
Nigeria is billed to handover the entire Bakassi peninsula and its resources to Cameroun on August 18 this year, but some persons and groups in the territory said the handover of their homeland to Cameroun was not in the interest of the people of the area. The people have continued to voice their preference to remain as part of Nigeria .
THISDAY gathered that the development has created tension in the area, forcing residents to panic as they move into Cross River State, through Ikang area which has been designated as the new abode of the Bakassi people.
Sources also said that most of the natives who tried moving out of Bakassi to areas in Nigeria are being prevented by the Cameroonian authorities who had deployed more gendarmes to cordon off the area and stop the natives from leaving the territory.
The Police Public Relations Officer (PPRO) of the Cross River State command, Mr. Thomas Adama Okpene(DSP) did not confirm or deny the attack on the gendarmes by the militants when contacted.
He however said he has visited Archibong West and Archibong East where the mobile policemen from Nigeria are still stationed, to ascertain the situation.
He said such attack cannot take place in Archibong because of the presence of the police. He also said there was no refugee situation in Ikang, because, if such an incident had occurred it might be deep into the Cameroonian territory.
The Monday attack brings to two the number of times that the Cameroun gendarmes have been attacked by suspected militants after Nigeria commenced her pull-out from the territory in 2006.
November last year some gendarmes were attacked in Bakassi by suspected militants and at least twenty one of them were killed.
Meanwhile. at the High Court Abuja yesterday, Justice Mustapha Umar said in his ruling: "I have carefully listened to the argument by counsel, and I am inclined to refuse the application because there is nothing before me to support the position of the applicant,"
Representing the Nigerian government, lawyer Abel Ezioko said the High Court could not to sit as an appeal tribunal to the ICJ.
"This court cannot upturn the judgment of the ICJ," he said
Bakassi Boils Again, 300 Nigerians Declared Missing
ReplyDeleteFrom Ernest Chinwo in Calabar, 06.12.2008
Barely two months to the August 18, 2008 date for Nigeria’s pull-out from the remaining parts of Bakassi Peninsula, there are fears of a possible showdown between Nigeria and the Republic of Cameroon following reprisals from the gendarmes after recent clashes with suspected militants in the area.
Already, Nigerians in the Peninsula have declared 300 of their compatriots missing, while more than 1000 refugees, mostly women and children, have arrived Ikang Central in the New Bakassi Local Gover-nment area in Cross River State.
Cameroonian Armed Forces have also condoned off the northern axis of the Peninsula already handed over by Nigeria on August 14, 2006 and stationed military gunboats in the area less than 12 miles to Ikang.
The build-up may not be unconnected with the reported abduction and killing on Monday of a Cameroonian Divisional Officer, Felix Morfan, and other members of a Cameroonian patrol team by suspected Nigerian militants.
When THISDAY visited the Refugee Camp at Government Primary School, Ikang Central, it was a tale of woes as the refugees recounted their ordeal in the hands of the Cameroo-nians.
Senator Florence Ita-Giwa was supervising distribution of relief materials to the refugees.
The refugees were cramped into a block of three classrooms, while on the school field was a mass of people as they jostled to get a place to lay their heads.
The people said more than 300 Nigerians, mostly men, are still missing while thousands of others are trapped in Archibong, Akwa, Ineunya, Amomoto, Mission Field, Nyam-Nsung and other villages in the northern axis of the Peninsula condoned off by the Cameroonian authorities.
Mr. Godwin Edet Bassey said he escaped Tuesday night from Archibong Town through a bush path to the sea because the gendarmes had blocked all exit points in the village.
He said he witnessed the Monday clash between the gendarmes and the militants.
According to him, the Divisional Officer (DO), Morfan, and other officers had raided a suspected hide-out of militants in the area but did not meet anybody in the place except empty bottles of soft drinks.
He said the DO and the patrol team however met the militants on their way back and on confronting the militants, a man he gave his name simply as “Colonel” brought out his pistol to shoot the militants.
Enraged by the action, the militants reportedly sunk the patrol boat and killed five of the officers including the DO and “Colonel” while two others escaped into the village.
Bassey said the militants used an engine saw to cut the dead body of the DO to bits which they packed into a sack and sped off with.
He said following the incident, the gendarmes sealed off the area and deployed several military boats into the area with their soldiers coming from all parts of the Peninsula and South-western Cameroon.
Mrs. Suoyo John, 50 years old and mother of eight children, said they had to flee Nkan Ekure Fishing Camp Monday night because of fears of reprisal on the camp by the gendarmes following the clash with the militants.
She said the Cameroon-ians did not allow the youths and the men to leave the settlement as they were seen to be part of the people that attacked the patrol team. She said she did not know the whereabouts of her four sons who were fishing in the high seas before the incident.
Suoyo, an Ijaw, said she did not know any other place to call home as she had spent her entire adult life in the area and wondered why the Cameroonians were suddenly hostile to them.
Mr. Ita Udo Inyang, who said he is about 80 years old, also told THISDAY that he had to flee Ineunya Fisgig Camp for fear of the gendarmes whom he said had started harassing the villagers.
Chairman of the Bakassi Resettlement Committee, Ita-Giwa, described the situation as pathetic and unexpected.
She said she was informed that the Cameroonians had sealed off the area and would not let any males leave the peninsula and that was the reason why mostly women and children could escape to the refugee camp.
“So now, only women and children came out. In fact, I have some children that came out without both parents. And a woman actually, right there at the beach side, went into labour and had a baby there,” she said.
She said the Resettlement Committee was planning towards the August 18, 2008 pull-out date but did not foresee a refugee situation.
“We are waiting for August. Really I was not preparing for this because I did not foresee a refugee situation because I believe the relationship between the two countries has been cordial,” she said.
The Headmaster of the School, Pastor Evogor Ememg, said Ita-Giwa had been responsible for the feeding of the refugees since Monday night when they started arriving.
He said he had already admitted 210 refugees of school age to join other pupils of the school so that their studies would not be disrupted.
He however expressed fears that with the increasing wave of refugees, the school might not be able to cope.
The Executive Secretary of Cross River State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA), Mr. Vincent Aqua, said the agency was arranging immediate relief materials such as food, mats, mattresses, blankets and health care facilities.
He said there was need to build more makeshift accommodation in the camp to take care of the refugees from 16 fishing camps.
Aqua also said SEMA was assessing the situation and would inform the National Emergency management Agency (NEMA) about the situation.
Bakassi: 15 Nigerians Die in Boat Mishap
ReplyDeleteFrom Ernest Chinwo in Calabar, 06.13.2008
Add To Favorites
Print This Article
Post Comment
About 15 Nigerians, fleeing from the Gendarmes in the Bakassi Peninsula have died in a boat mishap following reprisal attacks from Camerounian authorities in the crisis that had enveloped the area since Monday when a top officer of the Camerounian government was allegedly abducted and suspected to have been killed by militants in the area.
The number of Nigerian returnees sacked by the Camerounian Gendermes from the ceded Bakassi Peninsula has also risen to more than 2,000 even as the 300 declared missing on Wednesday have not been found.
One of the returnees yesterday told journalists that 15 Nigerians died in a boat mishap as they were fleeing from the gendarmes but could not give details.
Shocked by the incident, the Cross River State Governor, Senator Liyel Imoke , Thursday visited the refugee camp at Government Primary School, Ikang Central where a four-year old child, Master Endurance Clement, is said to have also died. He called for the Federal government’s intervention ,saying the situation has taken the state unawares even ahead of the August 2008 pull-out date.
The condition in the camp paints the picture of despair and desperation as the embattled returnees try to get used to their fate.
One of the returnees, Mr. Bassey Nyong, 32 years old, told THISDAY at the Camp that they were in dire need of help from government and individuals.
The number of Nigerian returnees sacked by the Camerounian Gendermes from the ceded Bakassi Peninsula has also risen to more than 2,000 even as the 300 declared missing on Wednesday have not been found.
One of the returnees yesterday told journalists that 15 Nigerians died in a boat mishap as they were fleeing from the gendarmes but could not give details.
Shocked by the incident, the Cross River State Governor, Senator Liyel Imoke , Thursday visited the refugee camp at Government Primary School, Ikang Central where a 4-year old child, Master Endurance Clement, is said to have also died. He called for the Federal government’s intervention ,saying the situation has taken the state unawares even ahead of the August 2008 pull-out date.
The condition in the camp paints the picture of despair and desperation as the embattled returnees try to get used to their fate.
Bakassi: Fresh agitations over Green Tree agreement
ReplyDeleteBy John Alechenu and Oluwole Josiah
Published: Tuesday, 17 Jun 2008
Recent reports of fresh hostilities between Nigerians and Camerounians in the Bakassi peninsula have raised the stakes in the Senate as to whether or not to ratify the Green Tree Agreement.
Already, the Senate has said it will pursue the matter to a logical conclusion.
The Senate had referred the agreement to its joint Committees on Foreign Affairs, Judiciary and Human Rights for further legislative action.
However, seven months after, no action has been taken with regards to the treaty.
In an interview with our correspondent on Monday, Senate spokesman, Senator Ayogu Eze, described recent happenings in the area as an embarrassment.
Eze said We have to now require the committee to brief us when we come back. The unfortunate incident which occurred and the embarrassment that that attack has constituted to not only the country; but also to the individuals affected.
I believe that the matter will be taken up by the National Assembly especially by the Senate, we have had discussions on it with a view to making sure that that issue is brought to an end.”
In a related development, the Senate said on Monday that it would review the occurrences at the ceded Bakassi area, with a view to addressing the plight of Nigerians living in the area.
Attacks on Nigerians living in the northern Bakassi by Camerounian gendarmes had made them fled the area following the hostilities.
This has created huge humanitarian problems for the Cross River State Government.
The Senate which resumes legislative duties on Tuesday after a week‘s recess would also be considering a number of reports following the conclusion of investigation and public hearing on national issues.
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Information and Media, Senator Ayogu Eze, told our correspondent in a telephone interview on Monday that the Senate would make the effort to address the problems facing the Bakkassi people when it resumes plenary on Tuesday
BAKASSI, WHAT A BLACKMAIL!
ReplyDeleteINTERNATIONAL 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
Nigeria summons Cameroun's envoy over Bakassi violence
ReplyDeleteTo raise security in oil rich area
From Oghogho Obayuwana, Abuja
FOREIGN Affairs Minister, Chief Ojo Maduekwe, yesterday summoned the Camerounian Charge d' Affaires in Nigeria ostensibly to appraise the reports on violence in the disputed Bakassi Peninsular.
Reports over the week indicated that there had been skirmishes between the Camerounian gendarmerie and Nigerians living in the area leading to mass movement of some of the latter into neighbouring communities in Cross River State.
Unconfirmed reports claimed several lives have been lost as militants in the Niger Delta engaged the Camerounian forces in gun duel.
But speaking after a closed-door meeting yesterday with Maduekwe, the Camerounian envoy, David Sinou, said discussions focused on matters of co-operation between "two friendly countries willing to work together to live in peace."
Emerging from the 45 minutes meeting at the ministry, the Camerounian envoy who was very evasive, only unwittingly confirmed some level of tension in the area when he said: "What we are doing is to ensure that such things do not recur and to reinforce security in the area."
Sinou reacting to reports of mass movement of Nigerians from the area said: "May be a few of them may have decided to leave. Thousands are still there. May be if they move, its no big deal. Nigerians living in Bakassi are free to go out and come in; nothing prevents them from moving and going out...We have continued to work together. The two countries share a very long boundary from Lake Chad to the ocean."
He described reports of fighting and fears as the creation of the press.
"We hear these from you. We are reading all of these of late from what you publish... I have said that the two governments are willing to handle the situation together... We hear all those things from the newspapers. All we can tell you is that the two governments are working together...," he stressed.
The Federal Government expressed a willingness to re-start the Nigeria-Cameroun Joint Commission meetings.
Maduekwe said the fact that the Camerounian envoy was being summoned indicated the level of co-operation and strong bilateral ties that exist between Nigeria and her eastern neighbour.
The last meeting of the Nigeria-Cameroun Joint Commission was held in 2002. It was a much more all-encompassing platform than the recently-created Nigeria-Cameroun Mixed Commission which came about in the aftermath of the Green Tree agreement meant to facilitate the implementation of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on the Bakassi Peninsular.
Maduekwe added: "The absence of such a forum where we can regularly interact and review issues is what has led to the kind of situation that has brought about the questions you are asking. Apart from the one under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), we would like to bring this back as we engage more intensely. The government of Nigeria is responsive on this issue. We recognise that this is an African affair and we are working together to ensure that good neighbourliness is maintained and that progress on all sides is assured... This is the way I will like this matter to be seen. I thank you all."
Bakassi: Obong of Calabar demands plebiscite
ReplyDeleteBy John Alechenu
Published: Monday, 23 Jun 2008
The Obong of Calabar, Edidem Ekpo Okon, Abasi Otu V has reiterated the plea of the people of Bakassi for a United Nations‘ supervised plebiscite.
The traditional ruler’s plea was contained in a written address submitted to the Senator Jubril Aminu-led Senate Joint Committee on the Ratification of the Green Tree Agreement.
The address was obtained in Abuja on Sunday. The Obong said the people of the area were aware that the Federal Government was intensifying efforts aimed at implementing the provisions of the Green Tree Agreement.
He said as a law-abiding people, the Efik had no reservation about endorsing the decision of the state and Federal Governments on the issue.
The Obong said, “Having considered the adverse consequences of ceding that area of my territory to Cameroun, I am compelled to reiterate our plea to the Federal Government to urge the United Nations to conduct a plebiscite in the ceded area because we have been inundated with constant reports of the barbaric and inhuman treatment meted out to our kiths and kins by the Camerounians who have been ruthless in their reprisal to them.”
Commenting on the issue, Senator Bassey Ewa-Henshaw (PDP, Cross River), said the demand was reasonable and justifiable.
He however said, “If for any reason it is impossible or there is reluctance, they should allow the people of Bakassi to have a voice in their future, then you must consider that their land has been compulsorily acquired and therefore they must be paid compensation.
“There must be compensation paid to the indigenes of Bakassi for losing their ancestral homes; there must be compensation paid to the people of Ikan whose lands are going to be acquired to resettle the people and there must be funding provided for proper resettlement.”
This, he said, was necessary to put the painful loss of Bakassi to rest.
Bakassi: Nigeria, Cameroon to Collaborate on Security
ReplyDeleteFrom Damilola Oyedele in Abuja, 06.23.2008
Add To Favorites
Print This Article
Post Comment
Ahead of her complete withdrawal from Bakassi, Nigeria has agreed to a coordination of efforts with Cameroon to strengthen cooperation with a view to enhancing security in the Bakassi peninsula. Nigeria is expected to withdraw from the ceded zone on August 14, 2008.
In a communiqué signed at the end of the 22nd session of the Nigeria-Cameroon Mixed Commission organised by the National Boundary Commission in Abuja at the weekend, both countries urged the Chairman of the Mixed Commission and United Nations Special Representative, Ambassador Said Djinnit, to take all necessary measures to prepare the practical modalities for the peaceful withdrawal and transfer of authority.
In the lights of the attacks of June 9, 2008, Nigeria also agreed to compliment Cameroon’s efforts in providing adequate security for the zone to prevent a reoccurrence.
The efforts of the two countries to alleviate the plight of the displaced population, was commended by Djinnit. He proposed a coordination of efforts with the United Nations and donor agencies programmes in "support of each country’s endeavours. This is to simultaneously contribute to relief projects throughout Bakassi peninsula to assist with the resettlement of the affected populations of both countries."
He lent support to the African Development Bank’s call on both countries to harmonise their laws and regulations concerning the use of commercial vehicles as well as movement of goods and persons between both countries.
Nigeria’s head of delegation to the Mixed Commission, Prince Bola Ajibola while addressing newsmen gave the assurance that Nigeria would adhere strictly to the agreements of communiqué.
According to him, Nigeria cannot go to war with Cameroon because the highest population of Nigerians abroad numbering over four million are found there.
He gave the assurance that the Federal Government was committed to alleviating the plight of those displaced by the ceding of Bakassi, and schools and health facilities were already being put in place for them.
The mixed commission agreed to host its next meeting in Yaoundé, capital of Cameroon in October 9.
Nigeria lost Bakassi because of map –Surveyor General
ReplyDeleteBy John Alechenu, Abuja
Published: Saturday, 28 Jun 2008
The Surveyor-General of the Federation, Mr. Austin Njepoume, on Thursday said Nigeria lost the Bakassi peninsula to Cameroun due to the absence of a proper survey map.
Njepoume made the revelation during his presentation before the Senate Committee investigating the collapse of the transport sector. He said, “In the case of Bakassi, what I will say on whether the judgment was good or not, as a surveyor, if a court has given its decision, we have no option but to obey it. That is why we are having problems all over the place. My part is to implement the decision of the court and most times, we do it at the risk of our lives.
“As for the Bakassi case, the Federal Government made a mistake by ceding that part of the country to Cameroun. Nigeria provided the map used by Cameroun to nail the country. Cameroun went to court with a map produced by Nigeria, putting Bakassi Peninsula in Cameroun.
“Many Nigerian government officials made official statements that said Bakassi did not belong to the country, which were all admitted at the International Court of Justice.”
He said the Federal Government was wrong to have ceded Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun. Njepuome said the Nigerian government erred before, during and after the dispute over Bakassi because it shot itself in the foot by providing inaccurate maps used by the court to decide the case.
He also lamented the poor condition of Nigerian roads, noting that they collapse easily because they are usually constructed without surveys. He said the way forward was for government to ensure that proper survey is conducted to determine the topographic conditions of the roads before they are constructed
Senate Faults FG on Bakassi
ReplyDelete06.28.2008
Add To Favorites
Print This Article
Post Comment
C/River
Chairman, Senate Commi-ttee on Judiciary, Senator Umaru Dahiru has said ceding Bakassi Local Government Area in Cross River State to Cameroon contravened the 1999 Constitution.
Dahiru, who spoke on behalf of members of the committee at an interactive session with the displaced Bakassi people in Calabar, said “the Constitution spells out that there are 774 council.
“Ceding of Bakassi means that we now have 773 Local Government Areas”, he said.
He said the contravention of the constitution in this regard was an issue which had saddened the Senate.
“I appeal to the affected people to be patient with the Senate. I assure you that the problem would be rectified to your advantage,'' he added.
Also speaking, a former commissioner, representing the state on the NDDC, Dr Eyo Nyong, said Nigeria and the Cameroon erred on the side of human rights in handling the Bakassi issue.
He decried the condition of living of the Bakassi people, adding ``it is sad because they have become homeless in their land''.
He advised the Federal Government to resolve the matter by requesting the UN to revisit the issue.
Nyong said the matter was more political than legal.
It would be recalled that at the instance of the world court ruling in 2002, Nigeria on June 13, 2006 handed over Bakassi to the Cameroon. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo signed to the agreement at a meeting convened by the United Nations to settle how to implement the 2002 International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment.
Following the signing of the agreement by leaders of both Nigeria and Cameroon, the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission was set up by the UN to fast-track the demarcation of Nigeria-Cameroon boundaries and handle other related issues.
FG stand on Bakassi 'll boost quest for UN Permanent seat —Minister
ReplyDeleteWritten by Emmanuel Aziken and Inalegwu Shaibu
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
NIGERIA is ready to trade the disputed Bakassi peninsula with Cameroon for a permanent seat at the United Nations' Security Council, the Federal Government declared yesterday.
The administration’s declaration at the Senate public hearing on the judgment of the International Court of Justice on Baksssi came in the midst of strong protest by the President of the Senate, Chief David Mark on the implementation of the agreement by former President Olusegun Obasanjo without legislative approval.
Also at yesterday’s hearing, Senator Bassey Ewa-Henshaw (PDP, Cross River South) who represents the disputed Bakassi territory in the Nigeria Senate faulted the process of transfer to Cameroon, alleging that the people of the area were not taken into consideration.
The Green Tree Agreement was signed in 2006 between Nigeria and Cameroon to mark the beginning of a process that will lead to the final ceding of Bakassi to Cameroon following the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The Minister of State (Foreign Affairs), Alhaji Tijanni Yahaya Kaura who testified before the Senator Jibril Aminu-led ad hoc committee said government commitment to Green Tree Agreement was informed by its stand on respect for the rule of law.
Besides, he said the administration’s commitment to sustain the agreement would boost the country’s quest to achieve a permanent seat at the United Nations security council.
He said: “The judgment of the ICJ is not pleasing to Nigeria. But we are a nation that respects the rule of law and more importantly, Nigeria is a respected member of the comity of nations with strong aspiration to lead other African countries and possibly be elected as permanent member of the security council of the UN.’’
“This informed the decision of this nation to stand by that court decision, until a final decision from the National Assembly as would be enshrined in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.’’
“All pronouncements of government since May 29th, 2007 particularly on the issue of Bakassi, Nigeria has always said, ‘we remain committed to signing the Green Tree Agreement until otherwise determined by the National Assembly."
Senator Mark, represented by the deputy Senate leader, Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba (SAN) while declaring the hearing open said:
“Treaties in international laws like the ICJ judgment on Bakassi and the subsequent GTA are written agreements between two sovereign nations. However, the usual conditions essential to valid conclusions of such any treaty is the adoption by the legislature of the country concerned.
“Our constitutional practice regrettably allows the Executive Branch not only to initiate, but also to ratify such treaties and then only to bring such treaties to the Legislature for domestication, that is to say, inclusion in our laws. This obviously needs to be revisited because the correct situation in many countries is that ratification itself is the duty of the Legislature,” he said.
Loss of Bakassi is security risk, says Azazi
ReplyDeleteFrom Azimazi Momoh Jimoh, Abuja
THE Green Tree Agreement (GTA) that preceded the ceding of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun may have been entered into without veritable security consideration for Nigeria.
Yesterday, the Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Owoye Azazi, told the Senate Investigative Hearing on the GTA that there was nothing concrete to show that the military was consulted before President Olusegun Obasanjo signed the accord which he said was not in the interest of the national security.
And Senate President David Mark, a retired Army officer, linked the agreement to constitutional flaws on treaty ratification. He pledged amendments in the on-going constitution review exercise.
Azazi also directed the attention of the upper legislative House to an existing military pact between France and Cameroun, saying that in the event of any outbreak of hostilities over the Bakassi Peninsula, France would ally with its colonial outpost and physically participate.
Azazi said: "I am not sure that the military made any contribution to the Green Tree Agreement, but I know that the then Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Martin Luther Agwai, travelled with the former president to New York when the agreement was signed."
"I want to believe that if anything happens between Nigeria and Cameroun, the defence treaty between France and Cameroun will be called to force. They have such treaty with their former colonies. We don't have defence treaty with any country, we only have training agreements."
He said ceding Bakassi was not in the national interest as the area would take over the deep marine routes leaving Nigeria with shallow waters, which could not be navigated. He stressed that the area was more strategic to Nigeria than to Cameroun.
Also testifying before the Senate panel, the Secretary-General of the Bakassi People General Assembly, Chief Ndabo Umo Nakanda, said Obasanjo intimidated and forced the Bakassi people to dump their protest against the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
He said: "We were invited by former President Obasanjo to the Aso Rock Villa. When we were seated, the President said the press should excuse him and he warned us not to mention the case again. He said we should not make any further publications because according to him, we were provoking Paul Biya (Cameroun's president) by our complaints. We were intimidated not to talk."
Asked why the people failed to make their voices heard on the matter, former Cross River State House of Assembly member representing Bakassi, Mr. Joe Etame, said the former president intimidated them not to contest the matter.
The legislator remarked: "He told us that he was at the verge of having a meeting with Biya, but that because of our publications, and he brought some newspapers out, that Biya was no longer ready to meet with him. He warned us to desist from further media campaign; that he was going to negotiate in our best interest and that not even an inch of our land will be ceded. After that, we were scared."
Nakanda also alleged that the former president threatened to leave the Bakassi people's fate in the hands of Biya, saying: "He told us not to make any pronouncements again on Bakassi. That was enough intimidation. He even said, if you ever make any publication again, I will leave you to Biya, can you fight Biya?
The Bakassi People Assembly rejected the GTA and called on the Senate to devise means of encouraging Nigeria to appeal the ICJ ruling.
"This Senate should put machinery in place to appeal the ICJ ruling to the United Nations Security Council. From the inception we have ten years option to appeal and three years is still left," Nakada said.
He added: "We have seen that the overriding interest was solely economic rather than human interest. We appeal to Nigeria and Cameroun to sort their economic interests in the area and leave us alone."
"We are saying the government of Cross River is trying to make a make-shift relocation camp; we reject it in its entirety. If we are forced to go there, there is going to be problem because we will lose our identity in three years. Where are we going to practice our traditions and religion? We have our shrines and deities; we cannot go and worship other people's deities. This can not be overlooked because we still have our traditional religion".
On his part, Mark pledged that the aspect of the 1999 Constitution which spelt out the procedures for ratifying treaties by the Federal Government would be amended.
Mark, represented Deputy Leader of the Senate, Victor Ndoma-Egba, at the opening of the two-day public hearing on the GTA, lamented that the constitution empowered the executive arm of government to enter into any treaty with other countries before informing the National Assembly.
He said that the usual condition essential to valid conclusion of such a treaty "was "its adoption by the legislature of the country concerned."
He added: "Treaties in international laws like the ICJ judgment on Bakassi and the subsequent GTA are written between two countries the usual conditions essential to valid conclusion of such a treaty is its adoption by the legislature of the country concerned. But our constitutional practice regrettably allows the executive branch not only to initiate but also to ratify such treaties and then only to bring such treaties to the legislature for domestication, that is to say, inclusion in our laws." But Mark noted that "the situation after the International Court's ruling would have degenerated "into a shooting war between our two countries, but for the self-restraint on the part of our two great countries largely because of the deft diplomacy our leaders and the kind intervention of the UN".
Senator Bassey Ewa-Henshaw, in whose senatorial district Bakassi was located, also lamented that the ceding of the peninsula to Cameroon has led to a loss of future earnings of about $100 billion from oil derivation to the Cross River State.
Ewa-Henshaw, however, in his presentation to the committee, said the people of Bakassi had been deeply wronged.
"They are the unfortunate victims of high wire international conspiracy and politics which has to do with the oil and gas resources in the Bakassi", saying "but the ordinary fishermen in Bakassi are not really interested in the oil and gas. Their heritage is more important to them, he said."
He called for compensation for all the Nigerians who were settlers in Bakassi as well as the Efik people for the loss of their land and heritage.
"Ceding Bakassi without the option for the people to choose where they want to belong is tantamount to compulsory acquisition", he stressed.
He also called for the development of housing for both the incoming refugees and the original owners of the area of resettlement as well as compensation of the government of Cross River State for the loss of future earnings.
Cameroonian soldiers kill 10 gunmen in Bakassi
ReplyDeleteCameroonian soldiers killed 10 gunmen who attacked them on Thursday in the Bakassi peninsula, a long-disputed territory Nigeria is transferring to Cameroon under a World Court order, Cameroon’s Defence Ministry said.
A spokesman for the Niger Delta Defence and Security Council (NDDSC), a little-known armed Nigerian group opposed to the handover of the oil-rich territory, said its men had launched Thursday’s attack but said only four of them had been killed.
"The locality of Kombo-Abedimo was attacked by an armed band ... on three speed boats," Cameroon’s Defence Ministry said in a statement broadcast on state radio.
"Following a ripost from our naval defence forces, 10 of the attackers were killed, eight others captured and an important stock of arms and ammunition on one of the speed boats seized," it said.
Four Cameroonian soldiers were shot, one of whom died of his wounds on the way to hospital, the ministry said.
Nigerian forces are due to complete their long-delayed full withdrawal from Bakassi in mid-August to comply with a 2002 World Court order.
But some Nigerians are opposed to the handover, including some of local inhabitants, most of whom are fishermen. Some Nigerian politicians also voiced their opposition to the handover last year.
The NDDSC militant group, whose members attacked a Cameroonian security patrol at the weekend, has warned of fresh attacks in Bakassi if the handover is not renegotiated.
NDDSC spokesman Ebi Dari told Reuters by telephone early on Thursday that another attack was being prepared, and confirmed later that his men were responsible for Thursday’s attack.
"It is true our men came under intense gunfire from the Cameroon military, but only four of them were killed and two taken hostage. They also seized one of our speed boats and the arms that were inside," he said.
He said the group would continue to launch attacks in the area until Cameroon and Nigeria agreed to renegotiate the World Court ruling that recognised Cameroon’s ownership of Bakassi without seeking the consent of the indigenous population.
Many of the Nigerian majority living in Bakassi say their ancestors lived in the area before a 1913 colonial era Anglo-German treaty on which the International Court of Justice, commonly known as the World Court, based its ruling.
Bakassi, which is known to have offshore oil, lies east of Nigeria’s Niger Delta, where attacks by armed militant groups have cut output from the world’s eighth-biggest oil producer by a fifth, helping push oil prices to record highs.
No going back on Bakassi –Yar’Adua
ReplyDeleteBy DANIEL IDBONOR, Abuja
President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua yesterday reacted to the claim by the Nigerian military that the deal conceding the oil rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon was done in haste; saying that the controversial Green Tree Agreement remains valid. He declared that there was no going back on the matter as Nigeria was ready and fully committed to a successful handover of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon on August 14, 2008, in accordance with the agreement signed between the two countries.
The President spoke against the backdrop of recent reports credited to the Nigerian Chief of Defence Staff, General Owoeye Azazi that the country’s armed forces was never contacted on the security implication of the agreement conceding the area to Cameroon before fomer President Olusegun Obasanjo struck the deal on behalf of Nigerians. President Yar’Adua announced the decision during an audience with the new Cameroonian High Commissioner to Nigeria , Mr. Salaheddine Abbas, after he presented his letters of credence at State House.
"We must ensure that the August 14 handover goes ahead, in accordance with the Green Tree Agreement, and then we shall continue to work together to further strengthen our existing very cordial and brotherly relations", he said.
President Yar’Adua said consultations would continue prior to August 14, to ensure a smooth transition in the area for the benefit of all concerned, adding that Nigeria and Cameroon had a long history of cordial and mutually beneficial relations.
Earlier, Abbas, said Cameroon welcomed the cooperation from Nigeria , and was fully committed to the successful implementation of the Green Tree Agreement. He said his posting to Nigeria was a return home, because he was from the Adamawa part of Cameroon.
Three other ambassadors also presented their letters of credence yesterday. They are Ms. Iman Younes of Lebanon , Mr. Ahmedou Ould Mohammed Mahmould of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania , and Mr. Qubi Bouchraya Bachir of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic.
President Yar’Adua challenged them to take necessary steps to strengthen bilateral relations between their countries and Nigeria during their tenure, and assured them of the government’s support and cooperation to enable them achieve this.
Planned August Handover Of Bakassi Illegal -Lawmakers
ReplyDeleteBy Adetutu Folasade-Koyi, Otei Oham and Festus Owete, Abuja
Federal lawmakers from Cross River State have declared President Umaru Yar'Adua's proposed handover of the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon on August 14 as illegal.
The lawmakers are insisting that it is an illegal process because there is no substantive governor in the state for now who, they argued, is supposed to supervise the action.
Chairman of the Senate Water Resources Committee, Bassey Ewa Henshaw, led out of 11 members of the caucus to brief Senate Correspondents, insisting on a compensation plan for the people and government of the state.
They also suggested that Nigeria and Cameroon set up an exploitation agreement similar to that of Equatorial Guinea to exploit the oil and gas from Bakassi.
Besides, the lawmakers are also demanding a plebiscite from the United Nations (UN) within the next five to ten years to enable the Bakassi people determine where they wish to belong to.
"On August 14, the official handing over of Bakassi to Cameroon by the Federal Government is due to take place.
"Given the security implications of this move, we the representatives of our people in Cross River believe that the process should only take place and be supervised by a substantive governor on seat.
"What Cross River State needs more than anything in the run-up to this important event is enduring peace and not acts capable of plunging the state into turmoil an embarrassing our country.
"There are very many issues involved in the issue of Bakassi, there is security implication, there is the issue of just how ready they are to receive the Nigerians that will be displaced from the area to be handed over.
"I think the government will do well in looking at what they have to do to ensure, the safety and security of Nigerians.
"It is not for me to suggest. I had expected the chairman of the Mixed Commission to find the courage today to do the right thing, being the chief protagonist of the Green Tree Agreement," Henshaw said.
In another development, members of House of Representatives on Wednesday flared at reported decision of President Umaru Yar'Adua to finally hand over Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun on August 14.
Just as some of them led by the Action Congress (AC) Leader, Femi Gbajabiamila, frowned at the decision credited to the President, the House Deputy Whip, Aminu Tambuwal asked the House not to consider their concerns as Gbajabiamila has not complied with the House Rules to notify the Speaker ahead of time.
Iwuanyanwu cautions FG over Bakassi
ReplyDelete•Advocates plebiscite
SYLVESTER AKOR, Abuja
Frontline politician and member of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) Board of Trustees (BOT), Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, has advised President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua against handing over the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun in a hurry, until plebiscite is conducted.
He said the result of the plebiscite would enable the people decide on which of the country they want to belong to.
Iwuanyanwu, who gave the advice in Abuja when a delegation of Confederation of Muslims Students Society (CMSS), paid a courtesy visit on him, cautioned against hasty handover of the peninsula which some people could later describe as "selling our people".
He said "let me tell you, my advice is that Nigeria should not accept this. I am not saying we should go to war now. You see, it appears we couldn’t understand, the people don’t want to go there and they are Nigerians. Nigeria should not accept this; Nigeria should bring this up at the United Nations (UN) Security Council and let the United Nations come and conduct a plebiscite there.
"After the plebiscite, then I will be first convinced and my conscience would be clear that the people want to go to Cameroun . Let me tell you as a Nigerian, if we cede these people to Cameruon and they are going and shouting that they are leaving us and they are Nigerians, my conscience will never be clear. So I think really we should not accept that decision.
"We should seek further applications, even when they said the judgment could not be appealed, United Nations (UN) Security Council is there, lets call for plebiscite. They should get there and listen to the views of the people. If that is done and the people finally said they are going to Cameroun , fine and we will be happy".
"And if that is done they cannot blame Nigeria for going there because what is going to happen is that you have your own children leaving your house and he is shouting my father why are you leaving me. Can you imagine your baby crying out that papa you are leaving me, you are leaving me. Please don’t leave me, please don’t leave me. So we should not leave them".
On the crisis ridden Niger Delta region, the Champion newspapers publisher advocated a new approach in the disbursement of development funds to the region, saying the attempt by the previous administration to impact the lives of the people of the areas did not achieve much.
He said: "If you plan a process for many years and it does not work, we have to look at something else, the government had applied the use of Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) and the Oil Mineral Areas Development Commission (OMPADEC) and using revenue from state government and if you go there right now you will see that there is still much to be done.
"So I think, really there must be a different means of letting this money gets to the people. I believe that if the government in addition to whatever goes to the states or to the NDDC, certain amount of money is collected every year in cash and given to the various oil communities, the situation will not remain the same.
Lukkey Abawuru, Sodeinde Oluwaseyi
A mobile policeman, yesterday allegedly killed a middle aged man in a yet-to-be known circumstance at bank premises in Egbeda, on the outskirts of Lagos.
The action which moments after elicited violent demonstrate by a mob who attempted to set the bank atlaze also resulted in the destruction of four vehicles at the bank.
The deceased an unidentified artisan was said to be fighting with another person in front of the bank, when the police officer shot him.He died instantly.
However, his death sparked off crisis in the area as neighbours and colleagues of the victim attempted to set the bank ablaze, sve for prompt intervention of a detachment of policemen from mopol 20 Unit Command, Ikeja.
The crisis which paralysed social and eoconmic activities in the area, caused heavy vehicle traffic even as many shops and business outlets hurriedly shut their premises.
Daily Champion gathered that trouble started when the deceased engaged in a physical fight with his unidentified neighbour over an undisclosed issue at their shop, located few metres away from the bank.
The deceased allegedly chased his opponent to the bank premises an action the police officer mistook for the artics of armed robbery who wanted to invade the bank.
An eyewitness who pleaded anomity said neihbours and colleagues of the deceased immediartely protested the killings, just as hoodlums hijacked the situation and attempted to loot the bank.
The efforts of the hoodlums were however rebuffed by the policemen on guard as the command despatched a reinforcement team to contain the situation.
Speaking on the issue, the state Police Command, image makers Mr. Frank Mba said over 30 people have been arrested in connection with the incident Mba, a deputy superintendent of Police (DSP) said "at about 11.30am, hoodlums led an infighting among themselves at an undisclosed hotel at Bakery but stop.
The fighting continued and got nearer the bank premises. The Police on guard attempted to make peace but the hoodlum allegedly attempted to snatch a gun from one of the policemen who was to shoot to defend himself.
Mba said the attackers wanted to forcefully gain entrance into the bank to loot it.
He confirmed that four vehicle, were burnt and which screens of two others damaged.
Ceding Bakassi Can Destabilise Nigeria -Akinterinwa
ReplyDeleteBy Daniel Kanu, Snr Correspondent, Lagos
Professor Bola Akinterinwa, research fellow at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), has warned the Federal Government that ceding Bakassi to Cameroun may provoke large-scale conflicts that could threaten the survival of the country.
He advised that a referendum should be conducted to allow the people to decide what they prefer, rather than mortgaging their political future.
According to the scholar, "You can go to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)and say you accept jurisdiction, fine, but now that the people are saying they don't want to be Cameroonians, what do you do? They must be listened to, because that is the principle of self determination."
He warned that the country was already sitting on a keg of gunpowder, with the on-going Niger-Delta crisis and would be worse off, when compounded with the present Bakassi blunder.
Akinterinwa told Daily Independent in an interview, "Already, a linkage is being created between the Bakassi issue and the Niger-Delta crisis. By the time the people of the Niger-Delta collaborate with them (Bakassi), then it will not remain a small issue; it is no longer going to be a small conflict, it will now be a combination of Bakassi and Niger-Delta fighting Nigeria and that will create a platform for national conflict of immense proportion. In whose interest will that be," he wondered.
Contrary to some views that the Bakassi issue was a done deal, Akinterinwa said the people of Bakassi could take the case to the UN Security Council as a last resort, if the government refused to do what was expected of it.
No going back on handing over Bakassi to Cameroun — Aondoakaa
ReplyDeleteBy Tobi Soniyi and David Amuwa
Published: Friday, 8 Aug 2008
Barely a week to August 14, scheduled for the handover of the controversial oil-rich Bakassi to Cameroun by Nigeria, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Michael Aondoakaa (SAN), has said that the Federal Government will not rescind its decision.
Skip to next paragraph
Photo file
Mr. Michael Aondoakaa
The minister said this on a programme monitored on Africa Independent Television on Thursday.
He said that Nigeria had submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as a third party and she must therefore, uphold the judgment of the ICJ.
His words, “The handover will proceed as scheduled in compliance with the judgment of the International Court of Justice.
“The reason is that we had submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ as a third party. And the moment you submit to the jurisdiction of ICJ as a third party, you are bound by its Article 94 and the jurisdiction excludes any other.
“So, we voluntarily submitted to the content of the matter ‘jurisdiction’ as established in the Charter of ICJ 1965. And do not forget, we are a member state of the United Nations.
“When we were dragged before the ICJ, we submitted to the matter ‘jurisdiction’. We made submissions. In the final analysis of the judgment, we gained some grounds and we lost some grounds,”
In a related development, an Abuja-based Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, on Thursday, faulted Justice Muhammed Umar on his last week’s judgment on Bakassi and urged the Federal Government to go ahead and hand over the peninsular to Cameroun.
Meanwhile, a Northern Group, the Northern Friends of the South-South Association, has said that ceding Bakassi to Cameroun will compound the Niger Delta crisis.
The President of the group, Alhaji Suleiman Yerima, addressed journalists on the issue in Lagos on Thursday.
Also, a Peoples Democratic Party chieftain, Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, on Thursday in Abuja described the planned ceding of the Bakassi peninsular to Cameroun as unfortunate
Bakassi: Wali, Boundary Commission Disagree
ReplyDeleteFrom Saka Ibrahim in Birnin Kebbi, 08.07.2008
Add To Favorites
Print This Article
Post Comment
Kebbi
Nigeria's former Representative to the United Nations, Alhaji Aminu Wali has faulted the Federal Government over the controversial ceding of the Bakassi peninsular to the Republic of Cameroun, admitting that there was some blunder committed in the process.
But Director General of the National Boundary Commission (NBC), Alhaji Sadiq Marafa Diggi, yesterday defended the ceding of Bakassi Pennisula to Cameroon and confirmed that the Federal Government will hand over the peninsula to Cameroon on August 14.
He said the handing over of Bakassi will however not affect the map of Nigeria ,stressing that the oil rich peninsula was never part of Nigeria based on available legal and historical facts which were made available to the Federal Government.
Ambassador Aminu Wali, who was Nigeria's Representative in the UN when the controversial decision via the ruling of the ICJ in The Hague was taken and told THISDAY in Kano during an interview that some of the actions of the government in the Bakassi case did not reflect the feeling of Nigerians, noting that the national and state assemblies, which ought to have played prominent role in the issue, were left out in the negotiation and decision on Bakassi.
The NBC boss said the handing over of Bakassi will however not affect the map of Nigeria ,stressing that the oil rich peninsula was never part of Nigeria based on available legal and historical facts which were made available to the Federal Government.
Diggi who was speaking at the Annual Conference of Surveyors at the Presidential Lodge , Birnin Kebbi Tuesday disclosed that Nigeria only included Bakassi Peninsula on its map in 1991.
According to him, the World Court gave out the territory based on previous treaties signed by those at the echelon of power in Nigeria .
These, he said, included the treaty of 1913, the 1964 Cairo declaration by Heads of State of African Countries, the opinion of the legal team set up by the Federal Government and the testimony of former World Court Judge, a Nigerian, Chief Justice Teslim Elias at a public lecture that Bakassi Peninsula actually belongs to Cameroon.
He said the creation of Bakassi Local Government by the Federal Government in 1996 further confirmed that the Bakassi Peninsula was never part of Nigeria .
Said Diggi :"I want to seize this opportunity to talk on Bakassi Peninsula and that the Federal Government will be handing it over to Cameroon on August 14, this year. I want to inform this gathering that Bakassi was never part of Nigeria and it was only included in our map in 1991. Other treaties signed by the Federal Government also proved that the place actually belongs to Cameroon ."
But Wali said "We submitted ourselves to the jurisdiction of the court by assuring that whatever decision reached, we would abide by it. But when the decision finally came we lost, Bakassi, simply because we have oil in Bakassi, that was why Bakassi became an issue and since we are talking about the rule of law and the international law, we simply submitted ourselves that we will accept the verdict and therefore, I do not think there is much we can do to salvage the situation because we have to be honorable in our own action".