The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Aftermath

  • Nasarawa’s botched impeachment and aftermath

    Nasarawa’s botched impeachment and aftermath

    Following the failed impeachment move against Governor Umaru Tanko Al-Makura, Assistant Editor, Blessing Olaifa, puts in perspective various issues connected with the political development in Nasarawa State and their implications for the build-up to the 2015 elections.

    For several weeks, moves by members of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly to impeach the incumbent governor, Umaru Tanko Al-Makura, dominated Nigerian media. The lawmakers needed two-thirds of members of the State House of Assembly to carry out their self-imposed task. And more importantly, they needed to explore all constitutional provisions and procedures as spelt out in the 1999 Constitution before they could successfully impeach the governor.

    Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended spelt out the constitutional provisions and procedures needed for the Assembly members to carry out impeachment of any sitting governor.

    Buoyed by these provisions, the Assembly members, 20 of who were members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) embarked on impeachment exercise against Governor Al-Makura. Of the 24 member-strong Assembly, only four belonged to the party of the governor, the All Progressive Congress (APC).

    So on July 17, 2014, after series of deliberations, the Assembly members published a Notice of Impeachment in some national newspapers, accusing the governor of gross misconduct in the discharge of his duties. The lawmakers said in the notice that Al-Makura had committed 16-count charges bordering on “a grave violation or breach of the provisions of the constitution” and committed misconduct punishable by impeachment. Thus, the stage was set for impeachment moves against the governor.

    On July 23rd, 2014, the Speaker of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly, Ahmed Musa Mohammed, wrote a letter to the Chief Judge of Nasarawa State, Justice Suleiman Dikko, mandating him to set up a seven-man panel to investigate the governor. So, on July 25, the Chief Judge replied the letter by appointing a seven-man investigative panel to carry out the assignment.

    The letter sent to members of the panel read: “By virtue of the powers conferred on me by section 188(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and the letter from the Hon Speaker of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly with reference NSHA/MM/166/Vol1/XXXVII, dated 23rd July 2014, requesting me to appoint a seven-man panel to investigate the governor, I do hereby appoint you: Yusuf Shehu Usman, Mohammed Sabo, Joel A Galadm, Abdu Usman, Samuel Chaku, Daniel Chaga and Muhammad Abdulhamid Liga as members of the panel”. Yusuf Shehu Usman was appointed as Chairman and Muhammed Abdulhamid Liga was appointed as Secretary.

    The panel members swung into action and had their first sitting at the Conference Hall of the Nasarawa State Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs on Thursday 31st July. But no sooner had the names of the panel members appointed by the Chief Judge of the state hit the airwaves than the 20 members of the State Assembly who belong to the PDP in the state kicked against the composition of the membership, alleging that majority of the members are card carrying members of the two dominant political parties in the state.

    Specifically, the spokesperson for the Assembly members, Hon Mohammed Baba Ibaku, said Rev. Joel Galadm is a staff of the State Christians Pilgrims Welfare Board. He added that there were two card carrying members of PDP and four card carrying members of the ruling party, the APC, in the panel. He said the House has no confidence in the panel and called for its disbandment.

    The panel issued a six page statement detailing guidelines for its proceedings and appearances of witnesses and principal actors. Governor Al-Makura, on his part indicated his willingness to appear before the panel and did appear on August 4, 2014.

    The governor denied all the allegations levelled against him, saying he had done nothing wrong while discharging his responsibilities.

    “I must state, Mr Chairman and panel members that making this appearance in person and for the records, I want to say I was not served any notice by the House of Assembly. I am appearing in response to the hearing notice served on me by the panel and my appearance is to defend myself and clear my name against these spurious and unfounded allegations made against me”, Governor Almakura said.

    At the sitting, Al-Makura’s counsel, U. N. Udechukwu, SAN, drew the attention of the panel to the absence of the lawmakers, saying he also noticed that they failed to send their representatives to the panel. He urged the panel to dismiss the impeachment notice served on the governor as it was evident that the lawmakers were not prepared to appear before the panel to prove the allegations levelled against the governor.

    Udechukwu, SAN, who led eight other legal practitioners, including Olufunke Aboyade, SAN, to defend the governor, further submitted that it was evident that the lawmakers could not substantiate or prove all allegations preferred against the governor and therefore urged the panel to dismiss the impeachment notice served on the governor for want of evidence.

    But the panel chairman, Yusuf Usman, said it was only fair and just to give the lawmakers time to come and prove their allegations against the governor and therefore adjourned the matter till Tuesday, August 5, 2014.

    When the panel reconvened on Tuesday, a six-man legal team, representing the lawmakers, turned up and demanded that the panel disband considering the fact that the State House of Assembly had said so.

    The lead counsel to the lawmakers, Ocha Ulegede, said the panel was made of partisan politicians and a civil servant. He said they had turned up to ask the panel to disqualify itself from carrying on with the assignment.

    However, the panel chairman noted the observation of the lawyers, but insisted it had no power to disband itself. At this point, the lawyers said they were withdrawing from further participation in the case. The lawyers representing Governor Al-Makura did not object to their withdrawal, so the panel granted the request.

    Following the withdrawal, Al-Makura’s lawyers urged the panel to dismiss the case for want of evidence. Udechukwu, SAN, cited, among others, Supreme Court Judgments as well as section 280 of the Criminal Procedure Act to buttress his point. He argued that it is well known in law that when a case is called for hearing and the prosecution fails to make appearance, the court is at liberty to dismiss the case.

    He further cited paragraph 7 (c) of the panel’s guidelines, which says “where the House of Assembly fails or neglect to appear and lead evidence in proof of the allegations, the panel, upon proof of service, may dismiss the allegations”.

    At this point, the panel adjourned for two hours to consider the submissions of the two parties.

    Immediately the panel reconvened, its Chairman, Yusuf Usman, announced the dismissal of all the allegations in accordance with paragraph 7 (c) of the guidelines. Usman took his time to read out all the 16- count allegations and dismissed them accordingly, saying that the prosecution had failed to enter any proof of evidence on each of them.

    Said the panel’s Chairman: “it is important to note that this panel had carried out its duties in compliance with section 188 (8) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    “The panel had taken notice of the appearance in protest by the counsels to the Nasarawa State House Assembly on grounds that the panel is illegal. Though the panel is not a court of law, it would report the presentation of the views of the parties to the Speaker of the State House of Assembly.”

    Ulegede told journalists after appearing that “we are not ready to be part of the breach of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which they (House) sworn to uphold. The power given to the Chief Judge of Nasarawa State is not absolute, they are subject to certain conditions”.

    But the lawyers representing Al-Makura praised the ruling of the panel, saying that the good people of Nasarawa State had been served justice. Olufunke Aboyade, SAN, who spoke on behalf of the lawyers contended that the panel had taken painstaking efforts to undertake its assignment.

    Also, Enoch Ali Maku, the spokesperson for the Chief Judge of Nasarawa State, Suleiman Dikko, said it was now up to the committee to submit its findings to the House as required by the law and that the Assembly is at liberty to take any action they deem fit.

    “The CJ has done his part. The panel has done its own. If the Assembly feels otherwise, it is their own problem, not the CJ’s”, Maku told reporters.

    The Assembly’s spokesperson, Mohammed Baba Ibaku, however said everything the panel did amounted to illegality, adding that the Assembly would reconvene to know the next line of action.

    But House Minority Leader, Tanko Maikatako, a member of the APC, urged his colleagues to swallow their pride, return to Lafia and resume work in order to move Nasarawa State forward. He said any attempt to drag the matter any farther would be at the detriment of the people.

    The news of the failed impeachment was greeted with jubilations in Lafia, the state capital, as scores of youths stormed the Government House in solidarity with the governor. The Nation also observed that the state capital, Lafia and its environs remained largely calm after the panel made its pronouncement.

    Some of the youths who had monitored proceedings of the panel via radio and television immediately rode their motor bikes to Government House, shanting “Sai Al-Makura, sai Al-Makura.” The Nation gathered that Al-Makura became the political darling of the people for his humility, especially as demonstrated during the proceedings of the panel.

    The fact that the governor set aside his immunity, the first governor to do so in the country, by appearing in person before the panel smacks of exemplary leadership, accountability, and transparency. This endeared him to the masses during the period, The Nation further gathered.

    However, the failed attempt to remove the governor has thrown up fresh challenges for parties involved in the political quagmire the state had found itself. Al-Makura, who described the botched attempt to remove him as a victory for democracy, extended an olive branch to the legislators, asking them to join hands with him to move the state forward.

    But the reactions of the leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the state to the development showed that the battle may not be over yet. Even though in the heat of the crisis, the National Publicity Secretary of the PDP, Olisa Metuh, had asked Al-Makura to leave the party alone and stop accusing it of being the mastermind of the impeachment, the state branch of the PDP was neck deep in the move to oust Governr Al-Makura from office.

    Chairman of the House of Assembly Committee on Information and Security, Baba Ibaku, rejected the decision of the panel. He said as far as they are concerned, the panel’s sitting amounted to an illegality.

    He explained that the legal representatives sent to the panel had the mandate of the House to appear in protest and to draw their attention to the illegality of their sitting. Ibaku said the House would resume sitting to deliberate on the next line of action, insisting that it was not over yet.

    According to Ibaku, members of the Assembly could seat anywhere they deem necessary to take actions on the political future of the state. He told journalists in Lafia that the 20 lawmakers (PDP) pushing for the impeachment of the governor are determined to see it to its logical conclusion.

    Besides, The Nation gathered that the PDP was planning to stage rallies in Lafia, and some parts of the state to denounce the panel’s ruling and garner support for its leadership in its self-assigned task.

    But the Special Adviser to Governor Al-Makura on Media and Public Communications, Abdulhamid Kwarra, told The Nation that the move to impeach the governor was politically motivated. He said the Peoples Democratic Party is bent on stealing the mandate freely given to Governor Al-Makura through the back door. He added that all the noise made by the PDP lawmakers are calculated attempts geared towards the 2015 election.

    Kwarra alluded to the fact that had the impeachment option succeeded, the state Deputy Governor, Mr Dameshi Barau Luka, who is a PDP member, would have been sworn in as governor of the state. He expressed disappointment in the actions and utterances of the deputy governor, alleging that he had betrayed not just the governor, but the people of Nasarawa State. The Nation learnt that the deputy governor cross-carpeted to the PDP in March this year.

    However, The Nation gathered that some PDP stakeholders and bigwigs in Nasarawa are also conscious of the implications of impeaching Governor Tanko Al-Makura as it would jeopardize their political interests in the build-up to the 2015 election. Sources told The Nation that Solomon Ewuga, a former Minister, and Labaran Maku, the current Minister of Information are both eyeing the governorship seat in the state in 2015.

    And should Al-Makura fall to impeachment, the deputy governor will take over and consolidate his hold on power. Former governor, Akwe Doma, is also said to be eyeing the gubernatorial seat, notwithstanding his age.

    However, some sources further hinted that some of the lawmakers, who are pushing for Al-Makura’s impeachment risk losing their seats in 2015, especially for their failures to heed the call of President Goodluck Jonathan, the national leader of the party, who enjoined them to go back to Nasarawa and sort out their problems with the governor in the interest of the people.

    “What this has shown is lack of respect for the President. It also shows that there are extraneous interests and lack of discipline at the state level of the party,” the source added.

    However, in the build-up to the 2015 election, the leadership of the All Progressive Congress (APC) in the state is already counting its gains, following the failed attempt to impeach the governor. The State Chairman of the APC, Phillips Tatari Shekwo, told The Nation in an interview that, the failure of the opposition (PDP) to impeach Governor Al-Makura and the landmark achievements of the governor since he assumed office were morale booster for the 2015 race.

    He said the party would not only consolidate on its achievements by providing the dividends of democracy to the people, but by adding values to governance through the charismatic leadership of Governor Tanko Al-Makura.

    Similarly, Abdulhamid  Kwarra said Nasarawa State has re-written the story of impeachment in the country for good. He maintained that the outcome of the impeachment move against the governor at a time election was around the corner had put paid to the strategy of the opposition party and increased the chances of the ruling party in all the local government councils of the state.

    “Besides the achievements of my Governor, His Excellency Umaru Tanko Al-Makura, this failed impeachment move have garnered more support and sympathy for the ruling party, and believe me, the party will record a landslide victory in the 2015 elections in the state”, Kwarra asserted.

  • Emergency aftermath

    Emergency aftermath

    •Internally displaced persons in areas where emergency rule has been declared deserve assistance

    Humanitarian crisis has been reported in parts of Borno State where President Goodluck Jonathan last week announced the imposition of emergency rule. In parts of Maiduguri, the state capital where 24-hour curfew was imposed last Saturday, residents are reported to be in dire need of food supply, while shortage of water supply in the neigbourhoods is said to be causing pains. The streets are deserted and the markets closed down.

    This has added a new dimension to the refugee crisis provoked by the Boko Haram crisis. Over the past week, thousands are said to have fled border areas of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states where emergency measures were introduced on May 14. Some of the internally displaced persons have fled the country to war-torn Niger Republic, which has been facing shortages caused by political conflicts in recent times.

    Others are said to be flocking to neighbouring Bauchi, Gombe and Taraba states where there are no plans to accommodate them. This is coming about a year after the floods that ravaged most parts of the country last year, sacking entire communities and depriving the people of their means of livelihood. The people of these states are at the most vulnerable moments.

    Before the Federal Government took “extraordinary measures” to root out the Boko Haram insurgents, it ought to have put in place a policy to protect the innocent people who are now being made to bear the brunt of the conflict. Women and children have been reduced to beggars and sentenced to starvation.

    Even before the latest development that compounded the situation, the director of Action Aid Nigeria, Dr. Husseini Abdu, had decried the absence of a policy framework to protect innocent victims of communal, political and religious crises in Nigeria. In the wake of last year’s flood devastation, millions of Nigerians were internally displaced and the country was described as the worst hit by the scourge on the African continent. Now that war has been literally declared across three states, the problem could only be compounded.

    We call on the government to immediately commence the process of enunciating the right policies. In the interim, well-equipped camps should be set up in states bordering Borno, Adamawa and Yobe.

    It must also be pointed out that there is a dire need for the Federal Government to ensure that the troops deployed keep strictly to the rules of engagement while also assuring the populace that they have nothing to fear.

    It is the duty of all, including the military, to ensure that normalcy returns to the three states as soon as possible. In doing this, support of the state governments, local governments and other democratic institutions that share the burden of the conflict should be enlisted in a bid to bring the situation under control and secure the civilian population.

    Just before the presidential proclamation, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Mukhtar, had told judges and Kadhis at a workshop in Abuja that the situation was becoming alarming and called for concern. She said: “These people are forced to flee their homes, ancestral places of abode and places of business due to no fault of theirs. Now, these internally displaced persons are often referred to as refugees in their own countries.”

    It must be noted that conflicts are rocking all countries that border Nigeria in the North-Chad, Niger, and Cameroon. Yet, the terrified population is likely to be driven to those insecure territories where they could be affected by the wars.

    The primary duty of the government of Nigeria is to ensure that the welfare of the people is guaranteed. The innocent victims of this conflict, in particular, deserve to be protected and catered for. The National Emergency Management Agency, Red Cross International, Red Cross Nigeria and International Commission on Human Rights should all be immediately mobilised to wipe tears from the faces of these children and mothers who have become victims of a war they most likely do not understand.

     

  • Aftermath of the 1914 Amalgamation

    Aftermath of the 1914 Amalgamation

    Lord Lugard arrived in Lagos in 1912 as the first Governor General of the British colony of Nigeria. He introduced the so-called amalgamation of the colonial territory in 1914, and left the country finally in 1918. In effect, he had only four years to give effect to the amalgamation and introduce a central administration which was claimed to be the central objective of the amalgamation. He failed dismally in this respect. He had limited time for the task. But he also had some preconceived and erroneous ideas about how the ethnically diverse people of the territory were to be ruled. This undermined the basic objective of his administration.

    First, he did very little to bring the territory under a single central administration. The territory continued to be governed separately as the colony of Lagos, and the Northern and Southern Protectorates. There was no serious attempt to bring the huge territory under a single central administration. Lugard did not have the financial and human resources he needed for this purpose. In addition, the First World War that started in 1914 diverted attention from British colonies in Africa. And then in 1939, another world war broke out. It was not until after the Second World War that Britain began to turn its attention to its African colonies, particularly Nigeria, the largest. From amalgamation in 1914 until 1946, there was no political or administrative interaction among the various peoples of Nigeria. The three colonial territories continued to be governed separately as if they were three countries. It was only in 1946, under the Richards’ Constitution, that a feeble attempt was made to bring representatives of the various administrative units together at an assembly in Lagos.

    But then the new Constitution also created regional councils for the three provinces in colonial Nigeria. Richards justified his regionalism on the ground that the North wanted little or nothing to do with the South. So no Northern members were elected to sit in the Legislative Council in Lagos. This moved Margery Perham, the Oxford don and friend of Lord Lugard, to complain that ‘British colonial officials had become more northern than the northerners, fostering the local sense of difference, even of superiority towards the South’. The Lagos meeting was a disaster and broke up with all sides protesting British administrative style in Nigeria. It was at this meeting that the Northern leader, Ahmadu Bello, protested that ‘the mistake of 1914 has come to light”. His sentiments regarding the amalgamation were shared by his Southern colleagues, including the Lagos educated elite, once dismissed contemptuously by Lugard as ‘the trousered natives’. In those 32 years after amalgamation the various territories had diverged a lot making any form of political unity more difficult.

    Secondly, Lugard had extended to the entire territory his obnoxious system of indirect rule, which was strongly opposed in the Southern Protectorate. The situation he met in the North was considerably different from that which he had left in 1906 as Governor of the Northern Protectorate. Under the decentralising influence of his successors in the North, the British Residents had become autocratic within their semi-autonomous Emirates. There had grown in Whitehall a mistaken feeling that the classical pattern of native administration in Africa had been discovered; a sort of magic formula outlining an organic relationship between indirect rule and semi-feudal African political institutions. But the circumstances associated with the foundation of the Southern Protectorate and its problems were far different from those of the North. The South had been penetrated gradually, not by conquest as in the North, but by treaties, most of which were actually obtained under duress and false promises. With its proximity to the coast, the South had for long been subjected to Western influences. Even before the acquisition of Lagos in 1861, there were already educated natives there. Christian missionary schools had been established in the South for well over fifty years before amalgamation. Southern Moslems had free access to these missionary schools. The CMS Grammar School, Nigeria’s oldest secondary grammar school, had been founded in 1859 by the Anglican missionaries. The products of this missionary education disliked the extension of indirect rule to the South. There was no unifying religion in the South, such as Islam, which could transcend tribal loyalties. The powers of the Chiefs and Obas in the South differed profoundly from those of their Northern counterparts. In certain cases, particularly in the Southeast, society was lacking in a strong, highly centralised political organisation. As Lugard saw it, in this respect, ‘the first step is to find a man of influence as Chief, and then group under him as many villages or districts as possible”. This is the origin of the ‘warrant chiefs’ in the Southeast. It was to prove an administrative disaster, the consequences of which are still with us today.

    Lugard considered the Yoruba Obas as overlords of centrally organised Kingdoms like the Northern Emirates, ideally suitable for his indirect rule system. Furthermore, since indirect rule had developed in the North among the despotic Emirs, he concluded that a powerful chief was indispensable to the system. There was thus a tendency to create chiefs when they could not be found, or to exalt them where they did not seem sufficiently powerful. In effect Lugard and some of his successors as Governors General committed the folly of seeking to make, as it were, a crown or a king at the top and then try to find something underneath on which it might appropriately be placed. This was a monumental error as it was to lead to semi-autocratic rule and lack of accountability by post-colonial governments in Nigeria. For instance, Abeokuta had in 1893 established a semi-independent state by treaty with the British. Lugard was opposed to this. Determined to remove this anomaly, Lugard took advantage of disturbances in 1914 over direct taxation in Egbaland to abrogate the 1893 treaty with the Alake who had requested for British colonial troops. In the East, the introduction of direct taxation under the system of indirect rule led to a rebellion which Lugard put down brutally with the death of some 500 protesters.

    Before British colonialism in Nigeria, neither the Obas nor the Emirs enjoyed such autocratic powers as they did later under British colonial rule. There were checks and balances in both before colonial rule, after which they were elevated to the status of semi-gods. Of course, colonial rule was itself autocratic. It was not based on checks and balances. The essence of indirect rule, through the Emirs and Obas, was that loyalty to a tribal chief must be given unhindered and be free from outside interference. This practice led to the creation of feudal monarchies that actually had no place in pre-colonial Nigeria. This was what our current political leaders inherited, and it explains their lack of commitment to the rule of law and public accountability. In effect, the 1914 amalgamation in Nigeria destroyed an indigenous political and administrative system that was far more democratic and accountable, and replaced it with a colonial system of government that was wholly undemocratic and lacked any kind of accountability. It laid the foundation for autocratic government in Nigeria, virtually without any checks and balances in the system. While in traditional society there were means of checking and curbing abuses by the Emirs and Obas, indirect rule tended to encourage illiterate, conservative, and often autocratic Emirs and Obas. One critic of the system observed that ‘the Emirs today are maintained by British bayonets, so that there are men holding these positions who would not last one week once these bayonets were to cease’ Dr. Miller, the noted Christian missionary in Zaria, condemned British colonial rule in Nigeria for its failure to use the system of indirect rule as an instrument of progress in the North. Lord Lugard’s administration was hostile to the Christian missions and schools in the North for fear that their ‘revolutionary’ ideas might create a body of opinion to challenge British colonial rule and the authority of the Emirs. This is the source of the existing wide gap in education between the North and the South in Nigeria with profound political and economic implications for the country. Boko Haram is a direct consequence of this lapse.

    In the long run, the question we should ask is where amalgamation and the consequent system of indirect rule were supposed to lead. Lord Lugard and British colonial rule in Nigeria gave little or no thought to this question. As a means of leading the people of Nigeria to self-rule, the system was a total failure. Feudal chieftaincies created by the system were not compatible with a modern progressive state. In her study of British colonial rule in Nigeria, titled ‘The Colonial Reckoning”, Dame Margery Perham, the distinguished colonial historian and Oxford don, came to the conclusion that British colonial rule did some good in Nigeria, but that it did some harm too, not least of which was its failure to adequately prepare Nigeria for future development as a united, democratic and progressive modern state. This is why I think we should mark the 1914 amalgamation and not spend a whole year celebrating it. It was, at best, a partial success. The indirect rule system that followed amalgamation remains the major source of ethnic and tribal politics in Nigeria today.

  • Bakassi: Aftermath of the 10th anniversary of the icj judgment

    Bakassi: Aftermath of the 10th anniversary of the icj judgment

    The 10th anniversary of the judgment of the International Court of Justice on October 10, 2012 is a watershed in Nigeria’s loss of the Peninsula to Cameroon. The song of nunc dimitis echoed in Cross River State prompting bitterness, anguish, sorrow, and other forms of emotional outburst to envelop the land. It is time for stakeholders to consider options available to Nigeria (and the Bakassi people) in the light of the ultimate reality – that Bakassi Peninsula is part and parcel of Cameroonian territory. I do not want to accept that there are no remediation measures, hence we should study and implement some or all of the options suggested in this piece.

    Nigeria should invoke the relevant provisions of the Green Tree Agreement in order to protect the fundamental human rights of Nigerians staying in the Peninsula and present a catalogue of violations of this bilateral treaty to the Nigeria-Cameroon Mixed Commission during their next meeting and follow them up for remediation.

    Nigeria should propose to Cameroon to purchase the Peninsula just as the United States purchased Alaska from Russian Empire in 1867 (This option has remote possibility of success because such purchases are rare in modern times especially where the place in question contains oil, the black gold).

    Nigeria should make representations to the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) and the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the human rights situation of the Bakassi people in Cameroon.

    The Bakassi people should be properly settled in Day Springs 1 & 2, Kwaa Islands, and Akpabuyo L.G.A. of Cross River State in line with the position of Senator Florence Ita Giwa. The Federal Government should build a new city for the people and cause President Jonathan to visit them in their Resettlement Camp in Akpabuyo L.G.A. and assure them that even though they have lost a substantial part of their territory, Nigeria will provide adequately for their welfare and security as provided for in section 14 (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution.

    The National Assembly should propose and pass a Bill known as Bakassi People Welfare Bill, 2012 that will empower the Executive to provide a special interventionist programme similar to the Amnesty Programme so as to divert the energy and anger of the people to positive ends.

    Nigeria should request for Advisory Opinion from the ICJ pursuant to section 65, Chapter IV of the ICJ Statute, on the vexed issue of whether there should be a Plebiscite in Bakassi to determine their preference whether to be with Cameroon or Nigeria just as it was done in Southern Cameroon in 1961.

    Recently, the Republic of Kosovo sought and obtained an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ on the legality of its unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008. The Court advised that the independence declaration did not violate general international law. But this is not to say that Bakassi people should declare independence but that Nigeria should approach the ICJ for Advisory Opinion. The circumstances of Bakassi and that of Kosovo are entirely different. Any attempt by Bakassi people to declare independence from Cameroon may suffer a still birth like the case of Northern Cyprus, which, with the connivance of Turkey, declared unilateral independence from Cyprus, and the same was declared illegal by the United Nations Security Council in 1983.

    Recalling that the ICJ upheld Cameroon’s reliance on uti possidetis juris (that is, possession of territory based on colonial boundaries as established by treaties) as against Nigeria’s reliance on historical consolidation of title as regards the ICJ judgment in the Nigeria and Cameroon Land and Maritime Dispute ceding Bakassi to Cameroon. Therefore, a re-visitation of that judgment would have failed woefully.

    Bakassi, in the circumstances, has limitations to press its case as it has not satisfied the attributes of a State under international law as provided for in the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (1933), which are that a State should possess:

    • A permanent population (Bakassi people are supposedly less than 60,000 people in population. They speak Efik and they can be said to have a permanent population);

    • A defined territory (For a long time, the delimitation of their territory had not materialised. But with the ICJ Judgment and the assistance of the United Nations to the boundary commissions of Nigeria and Cameroon, it is easier now to say that it has a defined territory but under international law, Bakassi may not successfully canvass this position of having a defined territory);

    • Government (This head does not favour Bakassi people because it was only the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria that created Bakassi as a local government and this is not sufficient to conclude that Bakassi has a government that can be a player in the international domain);

    • Capacity to enter into diplomatic relations with other States (Certainly, Bakassi scores zero on this point. It does not have even the remotest capacity to enter into diplomatic relations with other States).

    These attributes are conjunctive and not disjunctive.

    It will, therefore, amount to day-dreaming to think that Bakassi, under the prevailing circumstance, can rely on the right to self-determination contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Education, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Declaration on Right to Self-Determination, and the UN General Assembly Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to win back their territory from Cameroon regard being had to the overriding principle of territorial integrity of States under international law. So, the best way forward is for Nigeria to effectively rehabilitate the Bakassi people quartered in Camp in Cross River State, ensure the protection of the fundamental human rights of Nigerians still resident in the Peninsula through diplomatic manoeuvring and proceed to the International Court of Justice for an Advisory Opinion, a measure not caught up by the 10-year time bar for which ICJ judgments are susceptible to. In this manner, Bakassi would have been lost and won.