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.
Showing posts with label bakassi is nigeria's. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bakassi is nigeria's. Show all posts
Sunday, August 10, 2008
PLEASE DO NOT CEDE BAKASSI!
An S.O.S. letter to the authorities in Aso Rock!
For heaven's sake and for all that holds Nigeria together, please do not force your brothers and sisters of Bakassi origin into an untoward slavery in the Cameroons. Where is the plebiscite of their intention to abscond from Nigeria and move over to Cameroon? August 14th 2008 is fast approaching and the presidency is threatening to carry through their so call Green Tea agreement with the Cameroon and yield Bakassi to them. All world's precedents are opposed to the position of Aso Rock and why force someone who wants to stay in the nation out of the nation; whereas Nigeria resisted the desire by Biafra to go their own way? Is it double standards or what? Why is nobody mentioning the pact between Gowon's government and Cameroon to help them during the Biafran -Nigerian civil war to blockade Biafra into submission? In exchange Cameroon was offered Bakassi as a gift for their conspiratory collaboration. Why has no pundit or writer ever discussed the impact or lack thereof of the minority judgment of Honorable Abdul Koroma, the African Judge on the bench of ICJ from Senegal? Why can't Aso Rock tell the world that the action is against public opinion of the Nigerian people? Such ICJ's judgment can be shut down by a willing patriotic Nigerian president based on the feelings of the Nigerian people.
According to the referenced Judge Abdul Koroma minority decision, 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. 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.
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.
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.
Icheoku says that Aso Rock should have a change of mind and consider what is in the best interest of Nigeria and not sacrifice her territorial integrity on the alter of appeasing the international community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)