GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA: FOR WHO THE BELL TOLLS NEXT.

Just five people shy of Sandy Hook elementary school mass shooting incident that claimed 26 lives, the Uvalde Texas Robb elementary school mass shooting at 21 victims, now ranks among the highest grossing gun carnage in America. It is sad that such frequent blood spilling has tragically become part of our culture as a society. May the souls of the killed now rest.

25th AMENDMENT: ITS NOW ALL CRICKET.

Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi once questioned former President Donald John Trump's fitness to remain in office due to what she claimed was his declining mental capacity. Does anyone know what Madam Speaker presently thinks about the incontrovertible case which America is now saddled with? Just curious!

WHO WILL REBUILD UKRAINE?

The West should convert frozen Russian assets, both state's and oligarchs' owned, into a full seizure and set them aside for the future rebuilding of Ukraine. Like the Marshal Plan, call it the Putin Plan.

A HERO IS BORN.

I am staying put. I will not run away and abandon my people. The fight is here in Ukraine. What I need are weapons and ammunitions, not a ride out of town like former Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani - President Volodymyr Zelensky.

IT IS WHAT IT IS.

"There is too much hate in America because there is too much anger in America." - Trevor Noah.

WORD!

A life without challenges is not a life lived at all. A life lived is a life that has problems, confronts problems, solves problems and then learns from problems. - Tunde Fashola.

NOW, YOU KNOW.

When fishing for love, bait with your heart and not your brain, because you cannot rationalize love. - Mark Twain.

JUST THE FACT.

In our country, you can shoot and kill a nigger, but you better not hurt a gay person’s feelings - Dave Chappelle

DO YOU?.

“What you believe in can only be defined by what you’re willing to risk for it." - Stuart Scheller.

HEDGE YOUR CRISIS.

Never get in bed with a woman whose problems are worse than yours. - Chicago PD.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

'The best way to keep peace is to be ready to destroy evil. If you Pearl Harbor me, I Nagasaki you.' - Ted Nugent.

OUR SHARED HUMANITY.

Empathy is at the heart of who we are as human beings. - Cardinal Matthew Kukah.

WORDS ON MARBLE.

"Birth is agony. Life is hard. Death is cruel." - Japanese pithy.

REPENT OR PERISH - POPE.

Homosexuality is a sin. It is not ordained by God, therefore same sex marriage cannot be blessed by the church - Pope Francis.

CANCEL CULTURE IS CORROSIVE.


FOR SAKE OF COUNTRY.


MAGA LIVES ON: NO RETREAT, NO SURRENDER!

TWITTER IS BORING WITHOUT HIS TWEETS. #RestorePresidentTrump'sTwitterHandle.


WORD.

"If you cannot speak the truth when it matters, then nothing else you says matters.” - Tucker Carlson.

#MeToo MOVEMENT: A BAD NEWS GONE CRAZY.

"To all the women who testified, we may have different truth, but I have a great remorse for all of you. I have great remorse for all of the men and women going through this crisis right now in our country. You know, the movement started basically with me, and I think what happened, you know, I was the first example, and now there are thousands of men who are being accused and a regeneration of things that I think none of us understood. I’m not going to say these aren’t great people. I had wonderful times with these people. I’m just genuinely confused. Men are confused about this issue. We are going through this #MeToo movement crisis right now in this country." - Harvey Weinstein.


RON DELLUMS: UNAPOLOGETICALLY RADICAL.

"If it’s radical to oppose the insanity and cruelty of the Vietnam War, if it’s radical to oppose racism and sexism and all other forms of oppression, if it’s radical to want to alleviate poverty, hunger, disease, homelessness, and other forms of human misery, then I’m proud to be called a radical.” - Ron Vernie Dellums.


WHAT REALLY MATTERS IN LIFE - STEVE JOBS

“I reached the pinnacle of success in the business world. In others’ eyes, my life is an epitome of success. However, aside from work, I have little joy. Non-stop pursuing of wealth will only turn a person into a twisted being, just like me. God gave us the senses to let us feel the love in everyone’s heart, not the illusions brought about by wealth. Memories precipitated by love is the only true riches which will follow you, accompany you, giving you strength and light to go on. The most expensive bed in the world is the sick bed. You can employ someone to drive the car for you, make money for you but you cannot have someone to bear sickness for you. Material things lost can be found. But there is one thing that can never be found when it is lost – Life. Treasure Love for your family, love for your spouse, love for your friends. Treat yourself well. Cherish others.” - SJ

EVIL CANNOT BE TRULY DESTROYED.

"The threat of evil is ever present. We can contain it as long as we stay vigilant, but it can never truly be destroyed. - Lorraine Warren (Annabelle, the movie)


ONLY THE POOR WISH THEY HAD STUFF?

“I’m not that interested in material things. As long as I find a good bed that I can sleep in, that’s enough.” - Nicolas Berggruem, the homeless billionaire.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

ADEDIBU, GOOD RIDDANCE?


At last the man who played god has gone the way of all mortals! Chief Lamidi Ariyibi Adedibu is no more, thanks be to God the humbler of all folks. As you contemplate what Adedibu's departure means to you, Icheoku is of the opinion that his exit from the political landscape of Nigeria particularly Oyo State will provide the much needed balm for the healing process to begin. This is a "man" who held Oyo State in a death grip for so many years, that no man "breathes" except Adedibu says so. He made governors of men who are ready to play possum at his sight and give him unfettered access to the revenue of the State; men he wantonly replaced at the slightest whiff of disloyalty. Two of his sons he made senators and ran Ibadan like his personal fiefdom. His brush with NAFDAC's Dora Akunyili is still very fresh in the memory and his indictment for possible breach of the peace and inciting mayhem could not be prosecuted because all witnesses were intimidated into silence. The medicine man of Otta, Babalawo Aremu Olusegun Obasanjo, the failed former president of Nigerian coronated him the "Father of PDP". The erstwhile chairman of PDP, Lt. Col Ahmadu Ali ordained him the "Garrison commander of PDP". He was referred to as the "Strong man of Ibadan Politics". All has ended as he lay prostrate in a cold freezer somewhere in the land of Oduduwa! Vanity is vanity all is vanity the preacher said. His confrontation with the Olubadan N'Council was of a national spectacle. But at last, Ibadan is Free! Free at Last! Same with Oyo State; and also Yoruba land and finally Nigeria. Now that Aremu Olusegun Obasanjo's last man-friday is no more, the Arewa wolves can finally gnaw away in vengeance at his over-exposed body. The almighty God is all knowing by creating MR DEATH, in him all human beings are equal. Today Adedibu is no more! He is now history - a once was! Hallelujah! Whether Chief Lamidi Ariyibi Adedibu will be remembered as a political Juggernaut or a political thug will be for historians to pontificate about; at least no one will intimidate anyone, anymore in Ibadan and Oyo State in general, with the demise of Adedibu. Sleep in perpetuity Adedibu! So long! Shalom! E da abo! Ka omesia! Sai n jima! Goodbye! Greet our dear Cisero of Oke Ona, Attorney General Bola Ige, SAN and confess to him whatever you may possibly know about the hatching of the evil plot that took his very productive life, SALUT!

Saturday, June 7, 2008

OBAMA/CLINTON TICKET? - JUST SAY NO!

FYI: this article was written in the earlier weeks of May but was updated and brought forward in view of recent political developments. Happy trails!

The RFK assassination reference by Hilary Clinton concerning Barack Obama has finally sealed whatever hope she may have had of a possible vice presidential run with Barack Obama. Hilary Clinton is a very high risk candidate for the office of vice presidency because she will definitely plot to bring Barack Obama down in order for her to be sworn in as the president. Her overbearing ambition is now manifesting itself as a desperation and William Shakespaere's Macbeth is very instructive on what a vaunted ambition may lead men to do. The "JUST SAY NO" in the title of this article should have preferably now therefore be read as "NEVER"!


It is inconceivable that a successful presidential nominee Barack Obama will ever contemplate to run on the same ticket with a disgraceful and soon to be completely disgraced Hilary Clinton as his vice presidential candidate. Many of us Obama’s supporters will not like to see such an aberration and strongly advise against it. Hilary Clinton is not honorable and by her words and actions so far, have shown the clay she is made of. By her trying to invent fuzzy mathematics to remain in contention makes her more despicable. The best treatment is for the Obama camp not only to shun her but also to do all they possibly could to pay Hilary back in her own coin of a vindictive desperado. Were the reverse the case and Hilary was winning as had been contemplated, there is no way in hell the Clintons would have considered an Obama vice presidency. Be that as it may, Icheoku will now go forth to adduce reasons why such a ticket should not even be given a second thought.
First, both Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are from the minority block of the American voting electorates - whereas Obama is black, Clinton is a woman. It will be a political suicide to neglect the one big electoral block as represented in the white American males; so it becomes imperative that a white man be on the ticket. It must be a presidential nominee Barack Obama with a white man vice presidential candidate to reassure the majority white males that their interest will be protected under the experiment of a minority president. Otherwise they will take flight to an apparently unlikable but tolerable grandpa John McCain; after all McCain is a white man admitted he may be a "grumpy" old white man. In a democracy, it is always about protection of various interests and that of the majority MUST always be adequately protected. An Obama and a white female would have been a good idea too, but the white men will not accept it and will need adequate representation before they can sanction their exclusion for the first time, at least for four years, from their “white house”. If by any improbable mathematical miscalculation, a Hilary Clinton emerges as the nominee, she will certainly take a white man running mate, period! This white man running mate is non-negotiable in view of the historical facts available – somebody must be there in the white house to ensure adequate representation of the majority white males of America. So presidential nominee Barack Obama must as a political necessity pick a white male possibly from the South as his vice presidential candidate. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia will be an ideal candidate since he brings with him national security experience having served in Vietnam as a decorated marine as well as the "good ole boys" southern connection. Barack Obama must as a political necessity, resist as a burden, any attempt by the party or the Clinton's campaign to impose Hilary Clinton on him as his vice president. Moreover, Hilary Clinton will not necessarily bring anything compensatory to the ticket such as a red state, groups of voting blocs etc; but a huge liability - after all she is a Clinton and like a snail, will always drag her baggage along.
Secondly, the theme of Barack Obama’s campaign is CHANGEchange we can believe in. This change means change of the status-quo and Hilary Clinton is part of the statusquo that has and needs to be changed as a matter of fact. Hilary is married to a former President Bill Clinton who hangs out with another former President George H. Bush Snr who is the father of the present President Goerge W. Bush Jnr. Together between the Bushes and the Clintons they would have had a total of 28years in the White house - 8years of senior Bush vice presidency with Reagan; his own 4years presidency; Bill Clinton's 8years and the baby Bush soon to be completed 8years. This more than qualifies Hilary Clinton as part of the establishment that needs to be changed. Hilary Clinton comes with “35years” of experience, which experience is the reason why the statusquo has remained the way it has and maintained thus far; which experience is fuelling the current change-fever in the land. If we are where we are today because of past policies of past administrations, is it not logical to infer that Hilary’s alleged experience is a negative one which has put us where we are and therefore needs to go. If her experience was good or beneficial enough, there would have been no need to desire a change, but the clamor for change shows that her “experience” is of no good and therefore must not be retained. To do otherwise will be to reprobate and it will be seen by the majority of us supporters of Barack Obama as just a talking point by Barack Obama just to secure the nomination and not rooted in a deep heart-felt desire to effect a real change. WE MUST AND SHOULD NOT BE TURNED OFF WITH A BARACK OBAMA'S CHOICE OF HILARY CLINTON AS HIS VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE! For a change to be effective and grounded, it must be total both in outlook and substance:- all past last names occupying the Whitehouse, including the Clintons must be changed; all past policies that were not beneficial to the American people particularly the masses must be changed; all the talking-points of partisan hacks must be changed; all past politics of distraction must be changed; all politics of divisiveness must be changed; all politics of convenient-lies must be changed; all politics of double-speak must be changed; all politics of personality cult must be changed; all politics for the rich and the well connected only must be changed; a Whitehouse in a strangle-hold of lobbyists and special interest groups must be changed and finally our course and direction in the world especially in Iraq must also be changed. Hilary Clinton does not fathom favorably in any of these desirables and therefore must be rejected by the Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama as his vice presidential candidate; as being part of the things that need to be changed. To do otherwise will be very detrimental and will alienate the majority of his supporters who have fuelled his change-themed candidacy including Icheoku & Company. According to a time tested advice, If you must talk the talk, please walk the walk too Barack Obama! Barrack Obama’s campaign is anchored in the burning desire of the American people to change things including Hilary Clinton herself. By the same token, if by accident of fate, Hilary "steals" the nomination, Barack Obama SHOULD NOT accept to run with her but should wait for another time. Such a ticket with a Clinton will not win the general election and what is the point allowing oneself to be identified as a looser especially if tainted by the Clinton's very high unfavourable rating? Being identifed as a loser is not very good and this is what one school of thought alleges that tanked John Edwards campaign before it could take off. But it will not happen to Barack Obama, provided he listens to the teeming voices of people calling on him to resists running with Hilary Clinton as his vice presidential candidate - the voice of the people is the voice of GOD!
Thirdly, presidential nominee Barack Obama must avoid the fate which befell President George Walker Bush Jnr. As has been shown with Dick Cheney, it is never a good idea to have an overly very powerful vice president. A vice president Hilary Clinton will be all too powerful for Barack Obama’s presidency - with all her contacts as a former first lady to the still hanging-around former President Bill Clinton, a two term US Senator from New York and a “desperate housewife” who so much desires the presidency for herself. Loyalty will be suspect and at any given opportunity she will like to take over the presidency either through sabotage or instigated impeachment proceedings against a President Barack Obama. President Bush got on just fine with Dick Cheney because as Cheney indicated earlier on he was not interested in running for the office; and allegedly proclaimed that even if he were to be nominated, he will not run, if elected he will not serve. Also Dick Cheney is a recluse who shuns the limelight and would rather operate in the background. The reverse is the case with Hilary Clinton, whose burning ambition to enter the annals of history as the first woman president of America, which made her to take all the rubbish from a lying and cheating husband, is an open secret. Also Hilary like Paris Hilton enjoys prime-time and devours the attention of the paparazzi. To now see that ambition suddenly evaporate before her eyes through the insurgent Barack Obama's mesmerizing campaign, themed hope and change, is heart-wrenching and she will seize upon any opportunity to redeem that ambition. Hilary will be a huge security risk as a vice president to Barack Obama and like a “leper” must be kept as far away from the Barack Obama's Whitehouse as possible, short of a complete ostracision. Hilary Clinton will forever covet the office and will not be a safe vice president to have and should thus be rejected by Presidential nominee Barack Obama. Hilary’s voting block will turn around and vote for Obama in the November general election as the option of a Grandpa John McCain's presidency is a nightmare not worthy of contemplation in the first place. Hilary is a reject and should be so confined out by the vice presidential searching committee of Barack Obama.
The Fourth reason why Hilary Clinton should not be considered as a potential vice presidential candidate for an Obama presidency is that she is very divisive and is a cannon fodder for the republicans to rally their base. The name Clinton evokes different memories for different people in this country and is the war cry the republicans will need to rally their base during the general election:- all the anti-Clintons fanatical evangelical supporters of the Republican Party establishment will intoxicatingly stump for a final last-man standing show down with the Clintons; including against a Barack Obama's ticket which parades a Hilary Clinton! Who would like to be reminded of how Bill Clinton was receiving oral treatment from Monica Lewinsky in the Whitehouse of all places? Who would like to be reminded of the possibility that the so far Bush-cleaned Whitehouse will be re-stained or soiled again by a now to be freer Bill Clinton? If he could do the much he did while a sitting president saddled with all important matters of the state, who could imagine what will become tenable with his wife engrossed in matters of the state and Bill Clinton freer to roam about? This is the kind of campaign tool no responsible democrat will like to provide the Republican Party with. The Clintons are a quarry for the Republicans and a Hilary’s vice presidential candidacy will contaminate Barack Obama and should be avoided at all possible cost; so that the republicans will not find what to run against Barack Obama with. Can you imagine a campaign advert that portrays Hilary Clinton as a president in the waiting running with Obama? No, this scenario is unacceptable and should therefore be jettisoned. So far the Republican Party is lost at sea on how to fashion their campaign against Barack Obama but that will suddenly change were Hilary Clonton to be the vice president. Their campaign ad will then constitute the vulnerable Hilary Clinton. Hilary Clinton is the weakest link and therefore should not be allowed to run as vice presidential candidate with Barack Obama. Fortunately there are a plethora of so many highly qualified vice presidential materials in the Democratic Party and other options should be given much higher priority than Hilary Clinton.
Fifthly, Bill Clinton will not go away and being the sleek Willy he is, shall devise a way of being relevant in the new Barack Obama's administration. Bill is too overbearing and were Hilary to miraculously emerge through a fuzzy math, Bill will be a co-president in addition to being the de-facto vice president cum national security adviser and secretary of state – all at the same time and for and by himself alone. The bottom line is that Bill Clinton will surely have his hand in every pie of the state and will function as the final bus stop for every thing going out of Hilary’s Whitehouse – GOD FORBID! Get rid of this couple once and for all so that America will forever forget them and not be reminded of the infamous escapade with Monica Lewinsky which they have come to represent in so many minds. Away with the Clintons! No to a Hilary Clinton's vice presidency with Barack Obama!
In conclusion therefore, the Democratic Party establishment must rise up to the occasion and checkmate the excesses of the Clintons this once and for all. The Clintons are going out of their way in their mad quest for a re-occupation of the Whitehouse and are prepared to cheat, lie and truncate the process to get there. If they were winning, nobody will ever hear anything about sitting the Florida and Michigan delegates which they hitherto signed unto to their non seating; if they were winning or have won eleven straight states, people would have persuaded Barack Obama to drop out of the race to make way for cordiality; now she would not even release her tax records until push came to shove over the matter and yet she promises to bring transparency to government? She would also not release her first lady’s records as Bill’s co-president until it amounted to pulling her teeth and yet she promises to bring transparency to government? It is now being rumored that her campaign approached Canada with a different vibe on NAFTA and yet turned around to accuse Obama of doing that? Hilary told the nation that they are a family in Democratic party and would not campaign dirty but any serious watcher of last week penultimate Ohio/Texas “victories” will agree with Icheoku that like the “I did not have sex with that woman Ms Lewinsky” episode of Bill Clinton, that this couple are comfortable telling bare naked lies with impunity. Also remember the "whatever happens in this election I feel honored running with Barack Obama" rhetoric and then went ballistic afterwards.

The Clintons are unreliable and unbelievable and should therefore never be believed or trusted again. Their word means nothing, politics notwithstanding. When will the Clintons be told enough is really enough or are they more important than the Democratic Party itself that they should be allowed to ruin the fabric holding the Democratic Party together through their selfish egoistic and childish claim to a nomination which they have since lost? Whatever becomes of this political season, one thing is clear and that is, Barrack Obama is the peoples’ preferred choice for the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate nomination and Hilary Clinton SHOULD NOT be his vice presidential candidate. The voice of the people is resounding in their choice of barack Obama and this should be respected otherwise Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 will be a child’s play come November 2008. Any unselfish individual would have since thrown in the towel, except the Clintons, judging from their start off point of an inevitable coronation to the present smack down humiliation by a first timer to the national scene, Barack Obama. Shame to the Clintons! It is shocking that they still have the face to shamelessly carry on with a finished campaign – it is just ordinary grandstanding but the country is wiser.

BAKASSI BELONGS TO NIGERIA!








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

Thursday, June 5, 2008

GABON, CANNIBALS?

For a preamble, Gabon is a tiny petty dictator-controlled country in Central Africa while Nigeria is supposedly the giant of Africa located on the west coast of Africa.

Any country really worth its existence would launch a "war" at any person or authority or entity which subjected her citizen to such inhumane treatment as the roasting alive, without any justification whatsoever, of the victim pictured here below. Icheoku asserts categorically that no criminality whatsoever is deserving of the grilling of a living human-being, over coals of fire to inflict such degree of burns as was the case here! It does not matter whether the victim committed the most heinous crime or otherwise, talk-less of mere cohesion for information on the where-about of another, who is not in any known legal guardianship of the victim. The Gabonese government of Omar Bongo should be held vicariously responsible for this nefarious act of his government officials; who subjected a Nigerian citizen living lawfully in Libreville Gabon, to such a painful and excruciating ordeal! Where are the paid diplomats of Nigeria? What measures are being taken by Nigeria's Foreign Affairs Minister? Where are the Generals of the brave Nigerian Armed Forces or is the protection of her citizens no longer one of their roles? Why would the government of Nigeria's Umaru Yaradua not take a decisive diplomatic and military action if need be, on this tiny inconsequential country of Gabon? This is imperative in order to demand and receive respect; and also send a strong message that Nigeria can no longer tolerate the abuse of her citizens by anyone including little Gabon. The inaction of Nigeria's high-ups in matters as this has made Nigerians, all over the world, the butt of every country and her people. The time is now for Nigeria to act decisively or forever remain the clay-tiger of Africa which several decades of inept governments have subjugated her to. Nigeria should say, never again will any of her citizen be subjected to such barbarism as was witnessed in this case. Gabonese government is treating this incident with levity because it has not generated enough outrage yet, in the international community and Nigerian government is possibly treading softly because it does not want to irk the Gabonese. But a human-being had his human rights savagely violated and hence justice must be served.
Icheoku condemns in the strongest term possible, the perpetrators of this inhumane act! It is savagely! How can a people be so barbaric that they roasted alive, a living person? Icheoku hereby declare the Gabonese authorities, the last remaining cannibals of the African continent. Shame on you Gabonese authorities! And for you, Midget President Omar Bongo of Gabon, your country stinks as the worst abusers of human rights in Africa.


Please see below, an abridged version of a letter from Access to Justice that triggered the condemnation by Icheoku, of the Gabonese authorities for their fragrant abuse of Mr. Joseph Adumekwe's human rights!








Access to Justice' Urgent Campaign Newsletter

Dear Friends.
We want to solicit your help to further publicize the trauma suffered by a Nigerian, Mr. Joseph Adumekwe in the hands of Gabonese officials. We hope that our collective voices and action will help to break the cold deliberative silence over this matter by both Gabonese and Nigerian officials.
Here now is what allegedly transpired:-
"Mr. Joseph Adumekwe was a legal resident of Libreville Gabon, until his arbitrary deportation therefrom back to Nigeria on Friday, 25th April 2008 by Gabonese authorities. His ordeal began on the 16th of December 2007, on which date Mr. Adumekwe was taken into custody by the Gabonese police for interrogation over the whereabouts of one Mr. Uche Ekejiuba - a member of Mr. Adumekwe's kindred union in Libreville who was wanted by the Gabonese authorities.
During interrogation, Mr. Adumekwe vehemently insisted that he knew nothing about Mr. Ekejiuba's whereabouts, save for the fact that the aforesaid Uche Ekejiuba was a member of his kindred union but had abandoned attending regular meetings since 2006. Disbelieving his statement, the Gabonese police forced him to place his 10 fingers on the floor and began trampling on them with the heels of their boots until his fingers fractured severally leaving him in excruciating pain and suffering. When that did not elicit the desired result, Mr. Adumekwe was then hung face up with an iron straddled to two vertical poles, while a pile of newspapers was lit under his back until his central back area roasted extensively (see victim's pictured body part below). Mr. Joseph Adumekwe was thereafter deported to Nigeria and without any medical care.


Wednesday, June 4, 2008

HILARY CLINTON, FORGIVEN!


"Today I am standing with Senator Barack Obama to say "YES WE CAN"! With those chorus Senator Hilary Clinton has made herself acceptable to millions of Americans who desire a change we can believe in. Welcome to the HOPE & CHANGE fold, Senator Hilary Clinton; - that is the way to go and the only way that makes sense in this time and moment in American history! With her endorsement of Barack Obama for President and declaring her unflinching total unalloyed support for Barack Obama's campaign, the US Senator from New York has completely and fully atoned for her mistakes and misspeaks, pertaining to Barack Obama during the last primaries! It is politics and that we understand. Icheoku has therefore forgiven this particular Clinton for all the things she did wrong and against our candidate, Barack Obama, during the last Democratic Party's Presidential Primaries. We now hold this statements to be true that Hilary Clinton will proactively support Barack Obama's effort during his present election campaign and will do everything within her powers to ensure that Barack Obama is elected the next president of America in November 2008. Welcome to the family Hilary Clinton! A caveat however, our stance on your not being the vice presidential candidate remains unchanged as the militating circumstances are insurmountable. We appreciate your support and thank you for coming around for our candidate Senator Barack Obama! VOTE FOR CHANGE, VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA! VOTE FOR HOPE, VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA! Visit http://www.barackobama.com/ today and see for yourself why this hurricane of a movement!

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN'S PRESIDENTIAL ADVENTURE - WHAT A FATE!

Initially when I saw these pictures I thought I was starring at a happy couple on the grounds of an executive old peoples and/or retirement home. However upon a closer look, I discovered that one of them is aspiring to become America’s 44th president and his name is Senator John McCain. At 73years he will be the oldest first time president of America. My concern however is that that job is not an easy job – look at how fast Bush 43rd is aged since becoming the president. Bill Clinton looked worst when he left office but is gradually recovering ever since. The multi million dollar question however is, how would that office “torture” our grumpy old grandpa McCain? This was one of the reasons I had initially rooted for Mitt Romney because he has youth on his side. Senator John McCain’s advanced age is of great concern to many Americans because it is more likely than not that he might win the November elections and that office being a youth killer or aging machine will show no mercy to such a Methuselah. Senator John McCain’s chances at the next election as our next president is not because of his eminent qualification; no it is for reasons obvious to an unbiased discerning mind; after-all this is America the land of a lot of wonders. Remember that GW won a second term in 2004 and with overwhelming majority despite all odds stacked against him because the Christian right said so. Can an old grandpa McCain be able to wake up at 3.00AM for those telephone calls? What about the infirmities of the aged? What is the deal here America?

This blogger must concede that John McCain is used to torture having had that experience as a twenty something year old at the hands of the Vietnamese, but what one can withstand at twenties is far more different than what a seventy plus years degenerated body can tolerate. My prayers go to John McCain and I hope the soldier in him will see him through his campaigns and possible election victory come November 2008. In a country where white men always have their way and racism still pervades the society, the electing populace might see in him their ideal representative and thus elect him as the next president. Were McCain to be as socially handicapped as the other democratic nominee (black or woman), he wouldn’t stand a chance at the presidency because of his frail old age, rabid temperament and small un-presidential stature. It is equally important to note that whereas the democratic nominee is a lawyer, well schooled in logic and clear thought, with the ability to nuance issues, Grandpa John McCain does not have a college degree and hence, will be seeing the world on the prism of only black or white, the reason GW failed. This is also the reason why it took John McCain full 73years to recognize that Martin Luther King was a leader of a movement worthy of honoring; since at 50years, he refused to vote to honor MLK with a national holiday. That John McCain shamelessly apologized for this his lack of knowledge at Memphis on April 4th 2008 fortieth anniversary of the killing of MLK and the extended booing he received was a tell tale sign that the audience were not fooled by his election year political maneuver.

This blogger strongly believes that if John McCain was not running for office of the presidency, he would not have attended the celebration talk less of apologizing for his ill advised vote against MLK national holiday. Have John McCain not been running for office these past decades as the US Senator form Arizona? Were there not black folks in Arizona? Did he not support the move by Arizona not to honor MLK with a national holiday? John Mccain is 73years and belongs to the old school of hard knocks that propagated racism alongside Virginia’s Senator Bird of the KKK notoriety. The question now is what has so dramatically changed to warrant his sudden change of heart and to understand the place of MLK in the annals of history deserving his belated shallow apology for not supporting a national holiday in his honor hitherto? The answer is that he is pandering for black votes come November 2008 and my sure bet is that he will not get any of that as he is not only John McCain but also a republican and of the Regan school of scorch earth republicanism. His breed of republican is anathema to blacks and minorities’ interest and therefore must be forsworn. By embracing Ronald Reagan’s legacies, the blacks and other minorities have been put on notice that the slave master is back on the saddle and they better scamper to the hills for safety.

Senator John McCain is not a solid choice for the presidency, his military service notwithstanding, and therefore should not be voted in. However, should the unexpected happens and we are burdened with Senator John McCain’s victory at the polls, we will survive after all we have almost survived the eight years of GW nightmare. Say no to John McCain; save Americans the agony of possibly burying her sitting president as his very advanced age, his not so good health and the rigors of the office might fatally conspire against him. John McCain is too old for the demands of that office and should be allowed to only serve out his senate term and retire in dignity to an old peoples/retirement home as replicated by those pictures above. For the presidency, a resounding thundering NO should be given to old grumpy grandpa John McCain and to do otherwise will be festering the evils of our society which years of continuing on the same path has not rectified. John McCain may be good for the people of Arizona as their senator but for the presidency of America, JUST SAY NO! This election is a silver bullet which could be used to put an end not only the GW’s less to be desired presidency but also to tell the whole wide world loud and clear that America has finally turned the corner and racism is now defunct; at least by symbolism of an OBAMA’s election as president of the United States of America. Barack Obama is eminently qualified – he is very erudite, intelligent, eloquent, attentive, deliberate, youthful and smart and above all understands that between white and black, there is the grey area. We need a fresh beginning and a fresh morning daisy will be a consummate choice. BARACK OBAMA is the answer to the question of how does America move forward from here. VOTE NO to John McCain and YES to BARACK OBAMA for president in November 2008!

OBAMA, THE GIANT KILLER!

IT IS OFFICIAL, BARACK OBAMA IS THE NOMINEE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! Hail the next commander in chief in the waiting, of the best and brightest armed forces in the world, the United States Armed Forces, "President" Barack Obama! Senator Barack Obama has secured the Democratic Party's presidential primaries and peradventure will ne the next elected president of the United States of America in November 2008. The road he traveled to secure the nomination was not easy but he triumphed! For the second time in known and recorded history, a "Lilliput" has smothered a giant! The first was the biblical David slaying of Goliath and now Senator Barack Obama has done it against the Clintons! Not only did Barack Obama win the Democratic Party's Presidential Nomination, but he won against the Clintons - Hilary, Bill, Chelsea and the over 35years old fabled Clinton's political machine. For this feat, President in the waiting Barack Obama is hereby crowned by Icheoku as the DAVID OF OUR TIME! Barack Obama is heretofore declared by Icheoku as the consummate GIANT KILLER OF OUR TIME! Congratulations Senator Barack Obama for a job well done! You ran an incredible fantastic campaign and the prize is worth the fight. Now that the Clintons has been demolished, we now march on against Grandpa John McCain for the mother of all battles, the November general election! God willing, Grandpa John McCain will not be as formidable a candidate as was the Clintons and victory shall be ours! Once again, Congratulations Mr. President in the waiting. Icheoku is proud of what you represent and is happy to be part of this great movement!

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

BAKASSI, WHAT A BLACKMAIL!


INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ABDUL G. KOROMA; CASE CONCERNING THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA (CAMEROON V. NIGERIA: EQUATORIAL GUINEA INTERVENING) JUDGMENT OF OCTOBER 10th, 2002.
"Role of Court in judicial settlement of territorial and boundary disputes — Nigeria's claim to Bakassi based on original title and historical consolidation and to settlements around Lake Chad based on historical consolidation — 1884 Treaty of Protection between Great Britain and Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar — Legal basis for solving dispute — Invalidity of Anglo-German Agreement of II March 1913 — Failure of Court to properly assess evidence establishing historical consolidation — Historical consolidation provides valid basis for ter­ritorial title.
1. Perhaps nowhere is the category of the peaceful settlement of disputes more imperative than in territorial and boundary disputes between neighbouring States, given the potential for such disputes to escalate with destructive consequences for the States concerned.
2. But this notwithstanding, with reference to the Court's role as an arm of preventive diplomacy, i.e., being seised of disputes which seem entirely political but which have a legal component, the President of the Court told the United Nations General Assembly in 1991 that the Court's mission was to declare and apply the law, and that it would range outside that task at its peril and at the peril of international law (see Sir Robert Jennings, "The Role of the International Court of Justice", British Year Book of International Law (BYBIL), 1997, p. 3). Therefore, even in performing this role the Court is bound, pursuant to its Statute, to apply relevant treaties and conventions as well as general principles of law recognized by the Parties (Statute of the Court, Art. 38). Hence, the Court cannot allow itself to abdicate this judicial responsibility.
3. I am, however, obliged to observe that the conclusion reached by the Court with respect to the 1884 Treaty between Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar regarding the Bakassi Peninsula is tantamount to a recognition of political reality rather than to an application of the treaty and the relevant legal principles. In my view, it is not the function of the Court to recognize or consecrate political reality but rather to apply the law in ruling on disputes before it. Nor can I concur with the Court's response to the claim of "historical consolidation" by Nigeria in this case, the implication being that conventional title based on the 1913 Anglo-German Agreement is the only valid means of acquiring title or that the mode of territorial acquisition is closed. If the latter were the case, there would have been no place in the Court's jurisprudence for prescriptive title, etc. In my view, the approaches taken by the Court to reach its conclusions on these two issues are both fundamentally flawed.The main purpose of applying the law is to do justice and where the law is not correctly applied it could lead to an injustice. It is principally because of my disagreement with the conclusions and findings of the Court regarding these two issues that 1 have decided to exercise the faculty to enter this dissenting opinion as provided for by the Statute.
4. In this dispute both Parties maintain that the main focus is the Bakassi Peninsula, although they expect different results. In its final submissions with respect to Bakassi, the Republic of Cameroon, inter alia, requested the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over the peninsula is Cameroonian. In both its Memorial and pleadings before the Court, Cameroon relied mainly for its title on the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 and on various effectivites.
5. The Republic of Nigeria, for its part, requested the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over the Bakassi is vested in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It based its claim to sovereignty over the peninsula on original title, as confirmed by the Treaty of Protection which the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar signed with Great Britain on 10 September 1884 and mainly on historical consolidation. In this regard, Nigeria contended that parts of the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913, under which Bakassi was ceded by Great Britain to Germany and subsequently inherited by Cameroon as successor State, were invalid as Great Britain was not entitled to cede the territory pursuant to the 1884 Treaty, which was a treaty of protection and in no way transferred sovereignty to Great Britain over the territories of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. Nigeria further argued that the 1913 Agreement was also invalid on grounds of inconsistency with the principle nemo dat quod non habet. In Nigeria's view, however, such invalidity only applied to those parts of the Agreement which purport to prescribe the boundary and which, if effective, would have involved a cession of territory to Germany, that is to say, essentially Articles XVIII to XXII.
6. In paragraph 209 of the Judgment, the Court reached the conclusion that under the applicable law at the time Great Britain was in a position in 1913 to determine its boundary with Germany, based on the 1913 Agreement. In paragraph 212 of the Judgment, the Court stated that it is unable to accept that until Nigeria's independence in 1961, and notwithstanding the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913, the Bakassi Peninsula had remained under the sovereignty of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. The Court went on to find that Nigeria, at the time, accepted that Articles XVIII to XXII of the Anglo-German Agreement of 1913 were valid and in effect, and that it recognized Cameroonian sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula (paragraph 214). Based on these findings, the Court, in its operative paragraphs, decided that the boundary between the Republic of Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria in Bakassi is delimited by Articles XVIII to XX of the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913; and that sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula lies with the Republic of Cameroon.
7. This conclusion, with respect, is unsustainable, both in the light of the 1884 Treaty and in the light of the material evidence which was before the Court. The findings are in clear violation of the express provisions of the 1884 Treaty and contrary to the intention of one of the parties to the 1884 Treaty — that of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar — and hence to the rule of pacta sunt servanda, i.e., the sanctity of treaties. This finding, in violation of the applicable treaty and clearly in breach of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, is not only illegal but unjust.
8. Moreover, I am also unable to accept that the categories of legal title to territory are restricted to what the Court described as the "established" modes, in its response to the contention that the principle of historical consolidation was a valid basis for territorial title, that is to say that proven long use, coupled with a complex of interests and relations, as in the present case, can have the effect of attaching a territory to a given State. In my opinion, founded on the jurisprudence of the Court (Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 139; Minquiers and Ecrehos (United Kingdom/France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 57; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador!Honduras: Nicaragua intervening). Judgment, I.C.J. Reports; 1992, p. 565, para. 345), historical consolidation, if supported by the requisite evidence, can be a sound and valid means of establishing territorial title in international law. When, therefore, such evidence is presented to the Court, as in this case, it does not seem legally justified to reject such evidence because it is categorized under a particular rubric. Rather than being preoccupied with the "label" of the evidence, the Court's essential judicial function should be to assess and interpret the evidence before it objectively, so as to determine whether or not such evidence is sufficient to establish title to the territory in question.
9. As stated earlier, Nigeria's claim to Bakassi is, on the basis of original title, vested in the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, the geographical extent of which covered south-eastern Nigeria and which in the 1700s was peopled mainly by the Efiks and the Efiat. Historically, the territorial authority of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar is said to have extended as far east as the Rio del Rey. Nigeria pointed out that the limits of the territorial authority of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar are conveniently represented by two inland waterways known as the Archibong Creek and Ikankau Creek; that the area known as Old Calabar was the centre of Efik activity and authority and included towns such as Duke Town, Creek Town, Henshaw Town and Obutong Town; that other Efik towns further afield included Tom Shott's Town and Arsibon's (now Archibong); that each of these towns, or virtually city States, had its own King or Chief from whom, by the early nineteenth century, the paramount chieftaincy or kingship — later the Obongship — of Old Calabar evolved; that in the nineteenth century Old Calabar and its Efik Houses had established their authority not only over the area around Old Cala­bar, but also over all the lands between Cross River and the Rio del Rey. Furthermore, through economic, social and cultural links, the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar exercised control over their citizens. In particular, through the Ekpe shrine, the Kings and Chiefs ensured the effective administration of justice, the maintenance of peace and security and the development of the resources within their territory. The material evidence before the Court thus showed that the activities of Old Calabar included the founding of settlements of increasing permanence in the Bakassi Peninsula which were within the dominions of Old Calabar.
10. The Court was also furnished with evidence that the British Con­sul Hewett, who negotiated the 1884 Treaty of Protection between Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, described Old Calabar in the following terms: "This country with its dependencies extends from Tom Shots ... to the River Rumby (on the west of Cameroon Moun­tains), both inclusive" (Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, Vol. I, p. 95). "The Chiefs of Tom Shot country, of Efut ... the country about the River Rumby, made declarations that they were subject to Old Calabar" (CR 2002/8, p. 45, para. 31), an important and significant statement ema­nating from an official who had direct and first-hand knowledge of the area and evidencing and confirming the extent of Old Calabar. Later evi­dence of this was provided in 1890 by another British Consul, Johnston, who stated that "the rule of the Old Calabar Chiefs extended far beyond the Akpayafe River to the very base of the Cameroons" (Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, Vol. I, p. 95), and qualified this by adding that the "Efik people . . . only went as Far East as the right bank of the Ndian River" (ibid.). According to Johnston, who had travelled the region extensively:"(t]he trade and rule of the Old Calabar Chiefs extended, in 1887, considerably further to the east than the Ndian RiverThe left or eastern bank of the Akpayafe and the land between that river and the Ndian is under the rule of Asibon or Archibong Edem III, a big Chief of Old Calabar." (Ibid.)
11. On the basis of this evidence, Nigeria maintained that Bakassi and the Rio del Rey are demonstrably to the west of the Ndian River, and Bakassi was part of Old Calabar's outlands. Nigeria maintained that the I884 Treaty between the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar and Great Britain extended over this territory and was a treaty of protection and not one in which the territory was ceded to Great Britain. In the light of the foregoing, Nigeria complained that parts of the Agreement of 1913 which Great Britain concluded with Germany were inconsistent with the 1884 Treaty of Protection and therefore invalid. In Nigeria's view, the offending Articles were the following:"XVIII. Thence it follows the thalweg of the Akpakorum (Akwayafe) River, dividing the Mangrove Islands near Ikang in the way shown on the aforesaid map T.S.G.S. 2240, sheet 2. It then fol­lows the thalweg of the Akwayafe as far as a straight line joining Bakasi Point and King Point.XIX. Should the thalweg of the Lower Akwayafe, upstream from the line Bakasi Point-King Point, change its position in such a way as to affect the relative positions of the thalweg and the Mangrove Islands, a new adjustment of the boundary shall be made, on the basis of the new positions, as determined by a map to be made for the purpose.XX. Should the lower course of the Akwayafe so change its mouth as to transfer it to the Rio del Rey, it is agreed that the area now known as the Bakasi Peninsula shall still remain German territory. The same condition applies to any portion of territory now agreed to as being British, which may be cut off in a similar way.XXI. From the centre of the navigable channel on a line joining Bakasi Point and King Point, the boundary shall follow the centre of the navigable channel of the Akwayafe River as far as the 3-mile limit of territorial jurisdiction. For the purpose of defining this boundary, the navigable channel of the Akwayafe River shall be considered to lie wholly to the east of the navigable channel of the Cross and Calabar Rivers.XXII. The 3-mile limit shall, as regards the mouth of the estuary, be taken as a line 3 nautical miles seaward of a line joining Sandy Point and Tom Shot Point."Nigeria claims that the effect of this Agreement was that Great Britain passed title to Bakassi to Cameroon, which it was not entitled to do.
12. Cameroon, on the other hand, contended that it would be inappropriate to talk of Old Calabar as if it possessed international personality or as if it was recognized as a State during that period with defined territorial limits which Nigeria could have inherited.
13. The Court, in paragraph 207 of its Judgment, held that the 1884 Treaty signed with the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar did not establish an international protectorate and it went on to say that from the outset Britain regarded itself as administering the territories comprised in the 1884 Treaty, and not just protecting them, and that the fact that a delegation was sent to London by the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar in 1913 to discuss matters of land tenure cannot be considered as implying international personality and simply confirmed the British administration by indirect rule. According to the Judgment, the Court held that Nigeriaitself had not been able to say with clarity and certainty what happened to the international personality of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar after 1885. This implies that the 1884 Treaty did not mean what was stated in it and Great Britain was entitled to alienate the territory covered by the Treaty of Protection despite the express provisions of that Treaty.
14. With respect, the reasoning given in support of the finding amounts to a serious distraction from the legal issues at hand. The duty of the Court, in my view, would have been to undertake a proper examination of the Treaty with a view to establishing its intention and meaning. The 1884 Treaty provides as follows:"Article 1. Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, &c, in compliance with the request of the Kings, Chiefs, and people of Old Calabar, hereby undertakes to extend to them, and to the ter­ritory under their authority and jurisdiction, her gracious favour and protection.Article 2. The Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar agree and prom­ise to refrain from entering into any correspondence, Agreement, or Treaty with any foreign nation or Power, except with the knowledge and sanction of Her Britannic Majesty's Government," (Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, Vol. I, p. 109; emphasis added.)
15. The Treaty is thus unambiguously clear. Great Britain undertook to extend "her gracious favour and protection" to the Kings, Chiefs and people of Old Calabar. According to jurisprudence, a treaty whose terms and provisions are clear does not need to be interpreted. Nor may interpretation be used as a pretext to deny the clear meaning of a legal instrument. However, if the Court chooses to interpret the treaty it has to be interpreted in accordance with the applicable international rules at the time the treaty was concluded. Since the purpose of interpreting a treaty is to ascertain the intention of the parties to the treaty, there is, therefore, no reason to interpret the 1884 Treaty otherwise than in accordance with the international rules which operated at that time and which included the principle of pacta sunt servanda (the sanctity of treaties). Thus, if the Court had interpreted the 1884 Treaty, even in the light of the then existing canons of interpretation, the legal meaning that would have emerged is that the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland undertook to extend to the territory under the authority and jurisdiction of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar "her gracious favour and protection". The creation of the protectorate by the 1884 Treaty did not involve any cession or transfer of territory. On the contrary, the protecting Power — Great Britain — was only to protect the citizens of Old Calabar and not to dispossess them of their territory. Nor did the Treaty confer rights of sovereignty on Great Britain. On the contrary, it conferred a duty of protection and not for the benefit of a third party. Accordingly, since the Treaty was validly concluded and this has not been demurred, and Great Britain even raised it against other European States whenever their interests were in conflict in the region, Great Britain thus recognized the sovereignty of the Kings and Chiefs and people of Old Calabar over their territory and this cannot subsequently be denied. The 1884 Treaty thus constitutes evidence of an acknowledgment by Great Britain that the Kings and Chiefs of Old Cala­bar were capable of entering into a treaty relationship with a foreign Power and that they were recognized as capable of acting at an international level. Therefore, to argue that the 1884 Treaty did not mean what it said would not only be inconsistent with the express provisions of the Treaty itself, but would also be contrary to the rule of pacta sunt servanda (the sanctity of treaties), a rule which forms an integral part of international law and is as old as international law itself. In other words, it is impossible for a State to be released by its own unilateral decision from its obligations under a treaty which it has signed, whatever the rele­vant method or period. Thus, given that the 1884 Treaty was a treaty of protection and not one of cession involving the alienation of territory, it follows that Great Britain's authority in relation to the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar did not include the power to conclude on their behalf treaties which entitled the protecting State to alienate the territory of the protected State; therefore, the relevant parts of the 1913 Anglo-German Agreement, by which Great Britain purportedly ceded the territory of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar to Germany, lay outside the treaty-making competence of Great Britain, and were not binding on the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar nor ultimately on Nigeria as the successor State. There is, therefore, no legal basis on which to hold, as the Court has done in this case, that the protector State was entitled to cede terri­tory without the consent and in breach of the protective agreement, by stating that "from the outset Britain regarded itself as administering the territories comprised in the 1884 Treaty, and not just protecting them" (para. 207) or that under the law prevalent at the time (in 1913) Great Britain was entitled "to determine its boundaries" (para. 209), even when this affected the territory of a protected State without its consent and inconsistent with the provisions of the relevant Treaty. These conclusions are totally at variance with the express provisions of the 1884 Treaty and in violation of the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Moreover, by con­cluding the 1884 Treaty, it is clear that the territory of Old Calabar was not regarded as a terra nullius but a politically and socially organized community which was recognized as such and which entered into a treaty relationship with Great Britain, a treaty Great Britain felt able to raise against other European States.
16. The foregoing is the correct conclusion which the Court would have reached had it taken the proper approach of interpreting the Treaty with respect to the territory of Old Calabar. Such examination would have shown that the Treaty precluded Great Britain from ceding the territory in question. It would also have revealed that Britain was not entitled to cede Bakassi under the terms of the Treaty. Such a finding would have been founded in law. It is common knowledge that territorial titles were acquired by European States in Africa by treaties of cession, but in the case of a protectorate treaty the sovereignty which inhered in the local ruler would be split in such a way that the protector State would exercise rights of external sovereignty in favour of the protected entity whilst the internal sovereignty would continue to be exercised by the local kings and rulers. In this regard, some African protectorate treaties, such as the 1884 Treaty with the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, were expressed in nega­tive clauses, which imposed restrictions on the contracting rulers as far as exercising their external sovereignty is concerned. Under such a treaty, the Kings and Chiefs undertook not to enter into treaties with other Powers, not to maintain relations (including diplomatic intercourse), not to go to war with such Powers, and, most importantly, not to cede territory. Thus, the clause prohibiting transfer of territory to "other" European Powers was considered the most important within the framework of the protectorate. In the case of the 1884 Treaty between the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar and Great Britain, Great Britain was not authorized in the international relations of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, or otherwise, to act in their name and on their behalf, nor did the Kings and Chiefs give up their right and power to make treaties and agreements with foreign States, but agreed that they would do so only after having first informed the British Government and having obtained its approval.
17. In my view, the position with regard to protectorates is correctly stated in the latest edition of Oppenheim. According to the author:"An arrangement may be entered into whereby one state, while retaining to some extent its separate identity as a state, is subject to a kind of guardianship by another state. The circumstances in which this occurs and the consequences which result vary from case to case, and depend upon the particular provisions of the arrangement between the two states concerned.Protectorate is, however, a conception which lacks exact legal precision, as its real meaning depends very much upon the special case . . .The position within the international community of a state under protection is defined by the treaty of protection which enumerates the reciprocal rights and duties of the protecting and the protected states. Each case must therefore be treated according to its own merits . . . But it is characteristic of a protectorate that the pro­tected state always has, and retains, for some purposes, a position of its own as an international person and a subject of international law." (Opprnhfim's International Law, Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts (eds.), 9th ed., Vol. I, pp. 267-269; emphasis added.)
18. It was against this background and on this basis that the Court should have looked at the 1884 Treaty, a treaty of protection which specifies the terms of protection and the rights and obligations, which did not include authority to alienate territory. Bakassi was part of the territorial scope of the 1884 Treaty of Protection and could not have been changed without the consent of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. Thus, to the extent that evidence of such consent was not provided, there was no basis even under the applicable law at that time for Great Britain to be able to determine its boundaries with Germany in respect of Bakassi, and to the extent that such determination was detrimental to the interests of Old Calabar it should have been declared invalid by the Court. The Judgment did not make it clear what the Court had in mind by saying that Great Britain was in a position to determine its boundary in 1913, because the primary question is whether Great Britain was entitled to alienate the territory which included Bakassi in 1913. And since the answer to this question has to be in the negative, the 1913 Anglo-German Agreement could not and cannot be regarded as valid.
19. It follows from the above that I cannot agree with the Court's findings that the maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria lies to the west of the Bakassi Peninsula and not to the east in the Rio del Rey. Nor can I accept that the maritime boundary between the Parties is "anchored" to the mainland at the intersection of the straight line from Bakassi Point to King Point with the centre of the navigable channel of the Akwayafe River in accordance with Articles XVIII and XXI of the 1913 Anglo-German Agreement. The Court reached these findings on the basis of the 1913 Agreement which, as I have already demonstrated, is invalid as far as those of its provisions relating to Bakassi are concerned. This invalidity alone should have prevented the Court from reaching the aforementioned conclusions (ex una causa, nullitas) or (ex injuria non oritus jus).
Historical consolidation

20. Another aspect of the Judgment which has given me much cause for legal concern is the Court's refusal to assess Nigeria's evidence relat­ing to historical consolidation, which was one of the main grounds of it's claim to territorial title to Bakassi and with respect to some villages which had grown up around Lake Chad, and the Court's treatment with regard to the concept itself. Nigeria claimed that historical consolidation, which is founded upon proven long use, coupled with a complex of interests and relations which, in themselves, have the effect of attaching a territory, constitutes a legal basis of territorial title.
21. With reference to the established villages around Lake Chad, Nigeria cited various elements of local government administration in support of its claim of historical consolidation and effectivites including: legal jurisdiction, taxation, authority of traditional rulers and the fact that the settlements were populated by Nigerian nationals.
22. With reference to the Anglo-German Agreement of 1913 and despite its invalidity in relation to the 1884 Treaty between Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, Nigeria argues that the weight of evidence suggests that there was no German occupation or administration of Bakassi, and no significant pattern of German activities there, in the period between March 1913 and May 1916. It pointed out that the realities of administrative development in the peninsula between 1913 and 1916 showed that Bakassi continued to be administered as part of Nigeria and that the administration and governance of the area came virtually exclusively from Nigeria. Nigeria also stated that, as far as local government was concerned, the British in 1922 introduced a system of indirect rule, using "Warrant Chiefs", and that in 1933 the system of indirect rule was superseded by a native authority system introduced by the Native Authorities Ordinance of 1933. Nigeria explained out that in 1950 this overburdened system of local government was rationalized by the Eastern Region Local Government Ordinance No. 60 of 1950, leading in 1955 to the three-tier system of local government which was later replaced by a two-tier system under the eastern regional local government law.
23. As far as legal jurisdiction was concerned, Nigeria pointed out that native courts were established in the first years of British rule under their system of indirect rule and that the Native Authorities Ordinance of 1933 introduced new native courts organized along similar lines to the local native councils. The Court was also informed that the people of the Bakassi region were paying taxes to the Calabar and Eket authorities, and that these divisions within Nigeria were collecting the taxes. Further evidence was that a Methodist school was established at Abana on Bakassi in 1937 and that a census was conducted in the area under the auspices of the Eket Division in 1953. Ties with the traditional authori­ties of Old Calabar continued uninterrupted and public order was main­tained with the investigation of crime. There was also evidence of the exercising of ecclesiastical jurisdiction as well as the delimitation of elec­toral wards and the citizens participated in parliamentary elections and were enumerated in the census. Public works and development adminis­tration were carried out as well as the exercising of military jurisdiction. Thus a considerable amount and volume of evidence was presented to substantiate the claim of historical consolidation including education, public health, the granting of oil exploration permits and production agreements, the collection of taxes, the collection of custom duties, the use of Nigerian passports by residents of the Bakassi Peninsula, the regulation of emigration in Bakassi, and that the territory itself had been the subject of internal Nigerian State rivalry.
24. Nigeria maintained that there was acquiescence to all these activi­ties, some of which had been carried out over a long period. It contended that acquiescence in this respect had a threefold role: (1) as a significant element in the process of historical consolidation of title; (2) that it con­firms a title on the basis of peaceful possession of the territory concerned; (3) that it may be characterized as the main component of title. Nigeria submitted that the Government of Cameroon acquiesced in the long-established Nigerian administration of the Bakassi region and to most of the aforementioned activities until 1972 onwards when there were various Cameroonian initiatives, and in particular the project of renaming vil­lages, which clearly demonstrates the previous absence of Cameroonian administration. Nigeria submits that at no stage did Cameroon exercise peaceful possession of the peninsula and that from the time of independ­ence in 1960 until 1972, the Government of Cameroon failed to challenge the legitimate Nigerian presence in the region.
25. Responding to the claim of title based on historical consolidation, the Court, in paragraph 65 of the Judgment, stated that apart from in the Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) case "[this] notion . . . has never been used as a basis of title in other territorial disputes, whether in its own or in other case law" — and that nothing in the Fisheries Judgment suggested that the "historical consolidation" referred to allowed land occupation to prevail over an established treaty title. The Court also stated that "the established modes of acquisition of title . . . take into account many other important variables of fact and law" (ibid.), which are not taken into consideration by the "over-generalized" concept of "historical consolidation".
26. In my view, the categories of legal title to territory cannot be regarded as finite. The jurisprudence of the Court has never spoken of "modes of acquisition", which is a creation of doctrine. Just as the Court has recognized prescriptive rights to territory, so there is a basis for historical consolidation as a means of establishing a territorial claim. Nor can the concept of historical consolidation as a mode of territorial title be regarded as "over-generalized" and alien to jurisprudence. Both munici­pal and international law including the Court's jurisprudence, recognize a situation of continuous and peaceful display of authority — proven usage — combined with a complex of interests in and relations to a ter­ritory, which, when generally known and accepted, expressly or tacitly, could constitute title based on historical consolidation. The "important variables" of the so-called established modes of acquisition, which the Court did not define, are not absent in historical consolidation. If any­thing, they are even more prevalent — the complex of interests and rela­tions being continuous and extending over many years plus acquiescence. Historical consolidation also caters for a situation where there has been a clear loss or absence of title through abandonment or inactivity on the one side, and an effective exercise of jurisdiction and control, continu­ously maintained, on the other (see Fitzmaurice, "General Principles of International Law", Recueil des cours de I'Academie de droit interna­tional de La Haye, 1957, p. 148).
27. Failure of a State to react to a claim may, under certain condi­tions, not amount to acquiescence, though in most cases it will. In the Minquiers and Ecrehos case, France pleaded that it was impossible to keep under surveillance the activities of the United Kingdom with respect to the islets. Responding to this argument, Judge Carneiro replied that France was obliged to keep the disputed territory under surveillance and failure to exercise such surveillance and ignorance of what was going on on the islets indicate that France was not exercising sovereignty in the area (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 106). In the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, the Court held that Great Britain, being a maritime Power traditionally concerned with the law of the sea, with an interest in the fisheries of the North Sea could not have been ignorant of Norwegian practice and could not rely on an absence of protest, relevant in proving historic title (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 139). Thus a passive course of conduct involving failure to protest may be taken into account in determining acquiescence in a territorial dispute. If the circumstances are such that some reaction within a reasonable period is called for on the part of a State, the latter, if it fails to react, must be said to have acqui­esced. "Qui tacet consenlire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset."
28. Regarding the length of time required to prove title on the basis of historical consolidation, every material situation calls for its own solu­tion, based on the balancing of competing claims and depending on the area. Title may be proved even without reference to the period of time during which sovereignty had coalesced over the territory in dispute. In paragraph 65 of the Judgment, the Court stated that "the facts and cir­cumstances put forward by Nigeria . . . concern a period of some 20 years, which is in any event far too short, even according to the theory relied on by it". While proven long usage is an important element to con­solidate title on a historical basis, however, and depending on the area, that period may sometimes be shorter. What is required is an assessment of all the elements to determine whether the facts presented establish the claim.
29. With reference to the matter at hand, the evidence of original title on which Nigeria bases its claim to Bakassi can be found in the admin­istration of Bakassi on the part of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar before and after the conclusion of the 1884 Treaty with Great Britain, the exercising of authority by traditional rulers, the Efik and Efiat toponymy of the territory, its ethnic affiliation with Nigeria but not with Cameroon, the long-established settlement of Nigerians in the territory and the mani­festation of sovereign acts, such as tax collection, census-taking, the pro­vision of education and public health services. The acquiescence of Cam­eroon in this long-established Nigerian administration of the territory, the permanent population, the significant affiliations of a Nigerian character, do substantiate a claim based on historical consolidation and which in turn militates in favour of territorial title and stability. The claim to territorial title to Bakassi and to the Nigerian settlements around Lade Chad was thus adequately substantiated and there is no legal justi­fication to cast doubt on its legal basis and integrity.
30. Since the basis of the Court's finding on Bakassi has relied mainly on its evaluation of the Anglo-German Agreement of 1913, I cannot help but point out that even in the Court's jurisprudence, conventional title is only one way of establishing title to territory. The Chamber of the Court in the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali) case makes the following observation:
"The Chamber also feels obliged to dispel a misunderstanding which might arise from this distinction between 'delimitation disputes' and 'disputes as to attribution of territory'. One of the effects of this distinction is to contrast 'legal titles' and 'effectivites'. In this context, the term 'legal title' appears to denote documentary evidence alone. It is hardly necessary to recall that this is not the only accepted meaning of the word 'title'. Indeed, the Parties have used this word in different senses. In fact, the concept of title may also, and more generally, comprehend both any evidence which may estab­lish the existence of a right, and the actual source of that right. The Chamber will rule at the appropriate juncture on the relevance of the evidence produced by the Parties for the purpose of establishing their respective rights in this case. It will now turn to the question of the rules applicable to the case; in so doing, it will, inter alia, ascer­tain the source of the rights claimed by the Parties." (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 564, para. 18; emphasis added). This position was further confirmed by another Chamber of the Court in 1992 in the case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening):"The term 'title' has in fact been used at times in these proceedings in such a way as to leave unclear which of several possible meanings is to be attached to it; some basic distinctions may therefore perhaps be usefully stated. As the Chamber in the Frontier Dispute case observed, the word 'title' is generally not limited to documentary evi­dence alone, but comprehends 'both any evidence which may estab­lish the existence of a right, and the actual source of that right' (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 564, para. 18)." (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 388, para. 45.)Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is regrettable for the Court to have made the 1913 Anglo-German Agreement the main basis of its finding, since this Agreement, in my view, was patently unjust.
31. To sum up my position, by denying the legal validity of the ISM Treaty whilst at the same time declaring valid the Anglo-German Agree­ment of 1913, the Court decided to recognize a political reality over the express provisions of the 1884 Treaty. The justification for this choice does not appear legal to me. It would not be justified for the Court, given its mission, if it were to be regarded as having consecrated an act which is evidently anti-legal. I regret this situation and it explains my position in this matter.
(Signed) Abdul G. Koroma