The Nation Newspaper

Tag: bakassi

  • Ita-Giwa urges FG to quicken resettlement of displaced Bakassi people at Dayspring

    Ita-Giwa urges FG to quicken resettlement of displaced Bakassi people at Dayspring

    Sen. Florence Ita-Giwa, popularly known as “Mama Bakassi” has renewed an appeal to the Federal Government to expedite action on resettling the displaced people of the area at Dayspring Island.

    Dayspring is said to be owned by communities in Calabar.

    Ita-Giwa, a former Presidential Adviser on National Assembly Matters, made the call on Tuesday at the Akwa Ikot Edem Primary School in Akpabuyo Local Government of Cross River.

    She said that the people also needed tents for shelter as the school where they were at the moment would resume classes in a couple of weeks.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the school is temporally serving as a refugee camp for Nigerians who were allegedly evicted by Cameroonians on March 7.

    Ita-Giwa said that the only way to remedy the recurring Bakassi problem permanently was proper resettlement of the displaced people.

    Ita-Giwa, who also provided the refugees with tanks of water, called on good spirited Nigerians, government and the international community, to urgently assist the displaced persons by providing them with basic amenities.

    NAN also reports that the State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) had presented some relief materials to the people at the camp.

    NAN recalls that the Federal Government recently set up a committee on the resettlement of the Bakassi people.

    Meanwhile, the Paramount Ruler of Bakassi, Dr Etim Okon Edet, has also urges the government and international community to assist the people and hasten the process of proper resettlement .

    Mr Saviour Nyong, the member representing Bakassi constituency in the State House of Assembly, wants the Federal Government to urgently resettle the displaced persons.

    A Cameroon/Nigeria liaison officer, Prince Aston Joseph, claimed that Nigerians living in the ceded peninsula were constantly being harrassed by the Cameroonian gendarmes.

    Meanwhile, another baby has been born at the Akwa Ikot Edem Primary School in Akpabuyo, temporally serving as a camp for Nigerians who were allegedly evicted by Cameroonians on March 7.

    The baby, born to Mrs Mary Archibong, on March 30, 2013, would be the third to be delivered since the displaced persons found refuge in Akpabuyo.

    Red Cross officials told NAN on Tuesday that apart from the new born baby, there were close to 30 babies in the camp.

    The officials, who pleaded anonymity, said they were worried by the poor sanitary condition in the area.

    They also complained about the lack of potable water, which they said, could lead to the outbreak of an epidemic.

  • Bakassi: FG protests maltreatment of Nigerians

    Bakassi: FG protests maltreatment of Nigerians

    The Federal Government on Thursday protested to Cameroon over maltreatment of Nigerians living in Bakassi Peninsula, which was ceded to the Francophone country in August 2008.

    But Cameroon swiftly responded by claiming that it is not harassing Nigerians in the Peninsula.

    The country’s government said its hospitality to the Nigerians in Bakassi Peninsula has led to massive requests from them to obtain Cameroonian nationality.

    The Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN) lodged the Federal Government’s protest at the 30th session of the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission (CNMC).

    The session was presided over by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for West Africa, Amb. Said Djinnit, who is also the chairman of the Mixed Commission.

    But Adoke insisted that Cameroon should take measures to investigate the maltreatment of Nigerians in Bakassi to address these concerns of the Federal Government.

    He said: “Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate my earlier representation to the 20th meeting of the Follow-Up Committee that the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is concerned about reported cases of maltreatment of its citizens in the Bakassi Peninsula. As I reiterated on that occasion, while Nigeria would continue its international obligations, the government is concerned about this situation and its possible effect on the work of the CNMC.

    “The effect of these allegations and the political pressure they engender cannot be over-emphasized as they impact profoundly on the level of public confidence between the government and its citizens.

    “We therefore, call on the Cameroonian authorities in the spirit of Article 4 of the Green Tree Agreement and other international Human Right Instruments to which our two countries are signatories, to urgently investigate and take measures to address these concerns.

    “This is important as it would provide the enabling political environment for the activities of the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission (CNMC) and the Follow-Up Committee, as well as strengthen the hand of government in its resolve to faithfully implement the ICJ judgment.

     

  • Abuja court strikes out Bakassi suit

    A Federal High Court,Abuja, yesterday struck out the suit by some indigenes of Bakassi in Cross River State, seeking to void the Green Tree Agreement which Nigeria signed with Cameroun in 2006.

    The agreement followed the ceding of the oil rich peninsula to Cameroun in 2002 by the International Court of Justice, Hague, Switzerland.

    In a motion ex-parte by their counsel, Festus A. Ogwuche, the applicants sought an order of mandamus that would compel the Federal Government to repossess, occupy and take full legal and administrative control of the Peninsula.

    The suit was endorsed by nine executives of Free Bakassi Association, Prince Imoh Ukpa Imoh; Godwin Ukpong; Chritian A. Umoh; Anthony Achibong Ukong; Kingsley Edu; Etim Ekpeyong Ndong; Offiong Anying Ekpeyong; Bassey Okon Osua and Bassey Ikoedem Antiga.

    Delivering ruling on the motion ex parte, Justice Gabriel Kolawole held that what the applicants were seeking for were more of political considerations.

    He said it was clear that the applicants’ counsel had a misconception of what he was pleading for.

    The judge added that the grounds stated by the applicants were not that of public administration but of politics.

    Justice Kolawole further held that the exparte brought by the applicants was not supported by any affidavit and this made the application incompetent.

    He held further that the reliefs pleaded in the application bordered more on political doctrine rather than that of public policy.

    According to him, “applicants’ motion ex parte is incompetent because issues brought are political which this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain.

    “The application is hereby struck out for lack of jurisdiction.”

    The applicants are seeking an order of mandamus, compelling the Federal Government, President Goodluck Jonathan and the Attorney General of the Federation, to “unilaterally resile from, withdraw, rescind, repudiate and/or revoke Nigeria’s obligations under the Green Tree Agreement entered into between Nigeria and Cameroun in Green Tree, New York, USA on June 12, 2006

    The applicants, argued that the ICJ gave its judgment based “on archaic and anachronistic colonial declarations, and communications between colonial officers.”

  • Nigeria opens dialogue with Cameroon on Bakassi

    Nigeria opens dialogue with Cameroon on Bakassi

    Senate President David Mark yesterday said Nigeria will initiate discussion with Cameroon on the ceding of Bakassi Peninsula.

    Mark spoke with reporters at the 127th Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) conference in Quebec , Canada .

    The conference’s theme is “Citizenship, identity, linguistic and cultural diversity in a globalised world.”

    The Senate President said the Nigerian delegation would engage their Cameroonian counterparts at the conference to iron out knotty issues so as to create a forum for broader dialogue on the Bakassi issue.

    He said the discussion would focus on whether to revisit the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision on Bakassi or to ensure that the rights of Nigerians who live in the oil-rich peninsula are fully protected.

    The Senate President noted that the National Assembly recognised that there is a subsisting judicial decision on Bakassi.

    He insisted that once there is a judicial decision on any matter, “you must be careful.”

    The judicial decision hanging over Bakassi, he said, made it imperative for Nigerian delegation at the IPU to open dialogue with their Cameroonian counterparts at the conference on the future of Bakassi.

    He said, “Bakassi is a different story entirely. For Bakassi, there is a judicial decision and once there is a judicial decision you must be careful.

    Revisiting the judicial decision on Bakassi whether it will bring any more profit or whether we should ensure that Nigerians who are in Bakassi have their human rights fully protected and that they are not maltreated in any way by Cameroonians, is one of the issues we will sit down and discuss with Cameroonian parliamentarians who are here too.”

    In his address at the conference, Mark told the Union of the need for parliaments world over to protect and guarantee minority interests.

    He said, “The National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not just in total support of raising the stakes in management of diversities in a globalised world, we are already taking steps to ensure that every minority interest within the Nigerian State is well protected.

    “We are working to remove all obstacles that hinder unity and harmonious co-existence.”

    Harping on the ongoing constitution review by the National Assembly, Mark said that cardinal among the issues on the constitution review agenda is to revisit some constitutional issues which seemed to contradict one another and the spirit of the constitution on the rights and privileges of Nigerians.

    In particular, he said that the National Assembly will take another look at the issue of “state of origin” as against “state of residence.”

    Some parts of the 1999 Constitution, such as Section 147(3), he said, makes it compulsory for certain political offices to be for indigenes (not residents) of the benefiting States.

    Such discriminatory tendencies, Mark insisted, tend to ignite indigene-settler rows.

    He said that Nigerians feel that the problem can be best addressed by replacing the “State of Origin “ provision with “State of Residence .”

    He assured that the National Assembly would work to actualise the replacement of “State of Origin “ provision with “State of Residence “ to enhance the rights and privileges of every Nigeria in any part of the country, irrespective of his or her state of origin, language, ethnicity and religion.

    Apart from institutionalising “State of Residence “ he said that the National Assembly is working to ensure that “our women and other minority interests are well secured by entrenching in the constitution provisions that advance their course.

    Mark noted that more than ever before, humanity has come to understand, both by reason and compelling needs of interdependence, that though language, ethnicity, culture, race, religion, gender, political inclination and economic status may differ “it is in brotherhood that we can all make progress.”

    He posited that proper management of citizenship, identity, linguistic and cultural diversities in a globalising world is an international challenge, but with local solutions.

    For him, if every nation plays its role creditably in the management of diversities within their local environment but with global outlook enshrined in various international treaties, declarations and conventions, “we would have made an impressive progress towards this end.”

     

  • Nigeria to discuss with Cameroon on Bakassi – Mark

    Nigeria to discuss with Cameroon on Bakassi – Mark

    Senate President, Senator David Mark, on Tuesday declared that Nigeria will initiate discussion with Cameroon on the vexed issue of Bakassi.

    Mark stated this in a chat with journalists at the 127th Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) conference in Quebec, Canada.

    The conference has the theme: “Citizenship, identity, linguistic and cultural diversity in a globalised world.”

    The Senate President said that Nigerian delegation would discuss with their Cameroonian counterparts at the conference to iron out knotty issues so as to create a forum for broader dialogue on the Bakassi issue.

    He said the discussion would focus on whether to revisit the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision on Bakassi or to ensure that the rights of Nigerians who live in the oil rich peninsular are fully protected.

    The Senate President noted that the National Assembly recognised that there is a subsisting judicial decision on Bakassi.

    He insisted that once there is a judicial decision on any matter “you must be careful.”

    The judicial decision hanging over Bakassi, he said, made it imperative for Nigerian delegation at the IPU to open dialogue with their Cameroonian counterparts at the conference on the future of Bakassi.

    He said, “Bakassi is a different story entirely. For Bakassi, there is a judicial decision and once there is a judicial decision you must be careful.

    “Revisiting the judicial decision on Bakassi whether it will bring any more profit or whether we should ensure that Nigerians who are in Bakassi have their human rights fully protected and that they are not maltreated in any way by Cameroonians is one of the issues we will sit down and discuss with Cameroonian parliamentarians who are here too.”

    In his address at the conference, Mark told the Union of the need for parliaments world over to protect and guarantee minority interests.

    “The National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not just in total support of raising the stakes in management of diversities in a globalised world, we are already taking steps to ensure that every minority interest within the Nigerian State is well protected.

    “We are working to remove all obstacles that hinder unity and harmonious co-existence,” the Senate president said.

     

  • 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.

  • Bakassi: Cross River Assembly protests

    Bakassi: Cross River Assembly protests

    •Imoke: Justice can still be done

    The Cross River State House of Assembly yesterday accused the Federal Government of being part of an international conspiracy to frustrate Cross River and Bakassi people.

    It asked the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Adoke, to resign.

    This follows the government’s position not to seek a review of the 2002 International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment, which ceded Bakassi to Cameroon.

    The 25 members of the Assembly marched in protest from the Assembly Complex to the Governor’s Office to register their grouse.

    Speaker Larry Odey, who led the protest, was diplomatic.

    Odey said they only came to find out from the governor, if there was any positive development in the direction of the review, but other members were more direct in expressing their bitterness.

    Mr. Saviour Nyong (Bakassi Constituency) said: “We are very perplexed that the Federal Government, with the mandate of Nigerians and by extension, the mandate of the people of Cross River State and Bakassi, to defend us, has only played politics with the people of Bakassi.

    “One therefore wonders if Nigeria is an independent nation, because no nation in the history of the world has given out its own territory on a platter of gold.

    “We have heard of other ICJ judgments that have been given more than three to four decades ago, yet, no Green Tree Agreement has been reached, talkless of its implementation.

    “So one wonders the haste in the ceding of Bakassi. In my own words, I term it to be an international conspiracy against the people of Bakassi and Cross River State, which was made possible because our leadership was part of it.”

    Mr. John Gaul Lebo (Abi Constituency) said: “This shows clearly that there is a conspiracy by the Federal Government. First by the President’s setting up of a shadow presidential committee less than three days to the expiration of the 10 years we had to seek a review.

    “Two, it is not for the AGF to say that documents presented before him are no fresh and credible facts. He is not the court. The ICJ provision under Article 33 provides that every new evidence must be presented before the ICJ. The ICJ has the jurisdiction to determine whether that evidence is credible or not. As AGF, it is a conspiracy against the people of Nigeria for him to say to the press that that evidence is not a fresh and verifiable evidence.

    “It is not the business of Cross River State or the people of Bakassi because we are only a part of the Federation. We have no locus standi to go to the ICJ.”

    Mr Agbiji Agbiji (Ikom 1) said: “Nigerians have called for a review. If the president fails to carry out the mandate of the people, the constitution says no treaty can be implemented without the resolution of the National Assembly. So the question is which constitution is the president upholding? Which constitution is he operating?”

    Mr. Jake Enya (Boki 2) said: “The Federal Government should listen to the voice of the majority of the people which says that this ICJ judgment must be reviewed.

    Mr. Joseph Bassey (Calabar South 2) said the legislators will embark on a hunger strike and prayers, so that everyone involved in the ceding of Bakassi should die.

    Governor Liyel Imoke said: “The very intractable problem of Bakassi is a problem which I have been careful to manage, so we do not politicise it because there are a number of humanitarian considerations, security issues and of course being a part of a country, Cross River State on its own has no locus to file an action at the ICJ.

    “So what is important is that the authorities at the federal level understand the pain the people here feel and the consequences of the judgment on the people.

    “There are a lot of grievances, pain and hurt, and we can only appeal to everyone at this time to remain calm and understand that there are processes and procedures that are followed in cases of this nature.

    “All hope is not lost. We may have reached the end of one stage of this struggle but I believe there is still an opportunity to address some of the real challenges that the ceding of Bakassi has brought upon the people.

    So, yes, we may not meet the deadline for a review. I hope we do and we still have a few hours to be considered, but in the event that we do not, I believe very strongly that there are still other opportunities which we will pursue to ensure that justice is done.”

     

  • Bakassi: Why Nigeria won’t appeal ICJ verdict, by govt

    Bakassi: Why Nigeria won’t appeal ICJ verdict, by govt

    Failed case will be diplomatically damaging, says Attorney-General

    Advocates of a fresh legal action over Bakassi lost the battle last night.

    The Federal Government last night declared that it will not appeal the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the ceding of the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.

    The decision was communicated in a statement by Attorney General of the Federation Mohammed Adoke.

    The nation’s number one law officer said after consultations locally and with an international firm, he decided not to explore the window of appeal because “an application for a review is virtually bound to fail.”

    Besides, a failed application for review by Nigeria “will be diplomatically damaging to Nigeria”.

    The government’s position reflects The Nation’s exclusive story last Friday that the government had decided not to appeal the ruling. It was a day that many newspapers reported that government had decided to appeal the judgement.

    Government said yesterday that it did not have any new evidence to enable it successfully challenge the judgment.

    The full text of the Attorney general’s statement is as follows:

    “It will be recalled that on 10th October 2002, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered judgment in Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, which covers about 2000 kilometres extending from Lake Chad to the Sea. It will also be recalled that before the judgment was delivered, President Olusegun Obasanjo, GCFR of Nigeria and President Paul Biya of the Republic of Cameroon gave their respective undertaking to the international community to abide by the judgment of the Court.

    “The commitment and undertakings given by both Heads of Government were confirmed by the establishment of the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission (CNMC) pursuant to the Joint Communiqué adopted at a Summit Meeting on 15 November 2002 in Geneva. The CNMC is composed of the representatives of Cameroon, Nigeria and the United Nations and is chaired by the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for West Africa.

    “The CNMC has held 29 Sessions since its inception and has peacefully, amicably and successfully:

    (a) brought Cameroon and Nigeria back to negotiation table;

    (b) supervised the handing over of 33 ceded villages to Cameroon and 1 to Nigeria in December, 2003 and received 3 settlements and territory in Adamawa and Borno States Sectors from Cameroon in 2004;

    (c) initiated the Enugu-Abakiliki-Mamfe-Mutengene Road project as part of the confidence building measures between the two countries;

    (d) supervised peaceful withdrawal of Civil Administration, Military and Police Forces and transfer of authority in the Bakassi Peninsula by Nigeria to Cameroon in 2008 in line with the modalities contained in the Greentree Agreement signed by Cameroon and Nigeria in 2006 which the United Nations, Germany, USA, France, UK and Northern Ireland witnessed; and

    (e) commenced the emplacement of boundary beacons/pillars along the land boundary and initiated final mapping of the whole stretch of the boundary. It is instructive to note that about 1800 kilometres of the boundary have so far been assessed for Pillar Emplacement leaving only about 220 km to complete the assessment of the entire boundary.

    “The Greentree Agreement was also signed by H. E. Paul Biya, and President President Olusegun Obasanjo GCFR, on 12 June, 2006, in Long Island, Greentree, New York, USA; reaffirming their willingness to peacefully implement the judgment of the ICJ. The Agreement contains the modalities for withdrawal and transfer of authority in the Bakassi Peninsula by Nigeria to Cameroon in pursuance of the ICJ Judgment.The Follow-Up Committee comprising representatives of Nigeria and Cameroon wasestablished to monitor the implementation of the Agreement and settle any dispute regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Agreement. Nigeria handed over the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon in 2008.

    “The Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that the Judgment of the Court is final and without appeal. However, following the resolutions of both Houses of the National Assembly calling on the Executive to take steps to apply for a review of the judgment, President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan called a Stakeholders meeting comprising the leadership of the National Assembly, the Governors of Akwa Ibom and Cross River States, the Members of the National Assembly from both States, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Director General, National Boundary Commission to review the situation.

    “The Stakeholders Meeting after due deliberations constituted a Committee comprising the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Attorney General of the Federation, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Director General, National Boundary Commission and Members of the National Assembly namely: Senator Victor Ndoma Egba, Dr. Ali Ahmed and Nnena Ukaje to examine the issues in contention and available options for Nigeria including, but not limited to the application for review of the ICJ Judgment, appropriate political and diplomatic solutions.

    “Although the judgment of the ICJ is final and not subject to appeal, the ICJ Statute provides for circumstances under which its judgment can be reviewed. The relevant provisions are:

    (a) Article 61 (1) which provides that the Court can review its judgment upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was due not to negligence;

    (b) Article 61 (4) which stipulates that application for revision must be made at least within six months of the discovery of the new fact, and

    (c) Article 61(5), which provide that no application for revision may be made after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the judgment.

    “The implication of the above provisions of the ICJ Statute is that a case for revision of the judgment of the court can only be successful if:

    (a) the application for revision is based on the discovery of a new fact;

    (b) the fact must have existed prior to the delivery of the judgment;

    (c) the newly discovered fact must be of a decisive nature; and

    (d) the party seeking revision (Nigeria) and the Court, must not have known of the fact at the time of the delivery of the judgment.

    “The Committee proceeded to examine the case for revision against the requirements of Article 61 of the ICJ Statute and was constrained to observe from the oral presentations made to it by the proponents of the revision that the strict requirements of Article 61 could not be satisfied. This is because theirpresentation was unable to show that Nigeria has discovereda decisive fact that was unknown to her before the ICJ judgment, which is capable of swaying the Court to decide in its favour.This is more so as most of the issues canvassed in support of the case for a revision of the ICJ judgment had been canvassed and pronounced upon by the ICJ in its 2002 judgment.

    “The Federal Government also retained a firm of international legal practitioners to advise on the merits and demerits of the case for revision. The firm after considering all the materials that were placed at its disposal against the requirements of Article 61 of the ICJ Statute came to the reasoned conclusion that “an application for a review is virtually bound to fail” and that “a failed application will be diplomatically damaging to Nigeria”.

    11. In view of the foregoing, the Federal Government is of the informed view that with less than two days to the period when the revision will be statute barred (October 9, 2012), it would be impossible for Nigeria to satisfy the requirements of Articles 61(1) -(5) of the ICJ Statute.Government has therefore decided that it will not be in the national interest to apply for revision of the 2002 ICJ Judgment in respect of the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria.

    “Government is however concerned about the plight of Nigerians living in the Bakassi Peninsula and the allegations of human rights abuses being perpetrated against Nigerians in the Peninsula and is determined to engage Cameroon within the framework of the existing implementation mechanisms agreed to by Nigeria and Cameroon in order to protect the rights and livelihoods of Nigerians living in the Peninsula. Nigeria will also not relent in seeking appropriate remedies provided by international law such as the invocation of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ; Petitioning the United Nations Human Rights Council and good offices of the United Nations Secretary General which has played pivotal role in ensuring the peaceful demarcation and delimitation of the boundary between the two countries and other confidence building measures and calls on the United Nations to continue to provide assistance to the affected populations.

    “Finally the Federal Government wishes to assure all Nigerians especially the people living in the Bakassi Peninsula of its determination to explore all avenues necessary to protect their interests including but not limited to negotiations aimed at buying back the territory, if feasible, the convening of bilateral meeting of the Heads of State and Government to ensure protection and development of the affected population.In the meantime, we call on all well meaning Nigerians in the Bakassi peninsula to be law abiding and to allow the various initiatives being undertaken by the Federal Government to bear fruitful results.”

     

  • ICJ judgment on Bakassi: The ‘fresh facts’

    ICJ judgment on Bakassi: The ‘fresh facts’

    Barely few days before Nigeria loses her right to appeal the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula, the legal climate still remains cloudy on the issue. .

    On October 10, 2002, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) sitting at The Hague entered a judgment in the case of the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon V. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening).

    The ICJ Judgment definitively delimited the frontier between Cameroon and Nigeria from Lake Chad to the sea.

    In the Bakassi section, the Court decided that the boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria in Bakassi is delimited in accordance with the Anglo-German Agreement of March 11, 1913 and that the sovereignty over the peninsula lay with Cameroon.

    However, arising from the reports of gross violations of the rights of Bakassi population, and the increased agitation and restiveness of the said population, the National Assembly took interest in the matter and consequently passed a resolution urging the Executive to explore ways and possible appeal grounds on the matter.

    As a result, the Presidency organised a consultative meeting with all stakeholders in the Bakassi matter. The two Governors of the affected States of Cross-Rivers Governor Liyel Imoke and his Akwa Ibom State counterpart, Godswill Akpabio were present at the meeting.

    Nigeria’s former Judge of the ICJ, Judge Bola Ajibola (SAN) was also invited by the Presidency along with four other experts to address the meeting on the matter and the possibility of Nigeria’s success on appeal. Other experts invited by to address the meeting include the Chief Judge of Imo State, Justice Benjamin Njemanze, former Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in Cross River State, Nella Andem Rabana (SAN) and Prof. Bakindo

    The principle of res judicata as enshrined in Article 60 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) makes judgments of the Court final and without appeal.

    The exception, however, is contained in Article 61 which recognises a party’s right, within 10 years from the date of a judgment, to make an application for its revision based upon decisive facts which were unknown to the Court and the party claiming revision.

    Reliable sources at the meeting held at the Presidential Villa informed The Nation that after listening to the various perspectives on the matter, the President directed the leadership of the National Assembly to put a legal team together under the leadership of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN) to work night and day to make sure that Nigeria beats the deadline to appeal on the matter.

    As a result of this, a committee was set up comprising Adoke, Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Anyim Pius Anyim, Senate Leader Victor Ndoma Egba (SAN), Dr. Ali Ahmed, Nella Andem Rabana (SAN) among others. The committee agreed to meet in the house of the Senate Leader Victor Ndoma Egba on Friday.

    Unfortunately, the proposed meeting did not hold as some of the members could not agree or reconcile the mandate of the committee with what others believed to be the intention of the Presidency. They however agreed to seek clarification from the appropriate authorities before reconvening this week.

    The Nation reliably gathered that the Bakassi Movement Group has briefed an international legal expert to assist them with the appeal while waiting for the government to put its act together.

    The group is of the view that an application for revision is in compliance with the ICJ Statutes. It drew attention to the fact that the Nigeria’s position before and consistently after the judgment, was that of strict compliance.

    It therefore submitted that the nation would be discharging its constitutional responsibility if it took steps to protect the rights of its citizens by taking advantage of the opportunity available in Article 61 of the ICJ Statute.

    “The anguished cries of the Bakassi people are real, true and ongoing,” is said, adding that only recently they had discovered decisive fresh facts which on their behalf the Nigerian Government could present to the ICJ for revision.

    ICJ rules provide that any fresh facts must have been unknown to the Court and country seeking the review. The fact must be decisive, cogent and compelling enough to warrant a revision. The court must be satisfied that the facts presented could not have been discovered, even if a thorough search had been undertaken at the time of the proceedings.

    In other words, the failure to present those facts even when they existed at the time of the proceedings is not attributable to lack of diligence on the part of the party seeking revision.

    The facts must have been discovered not earlier than six months from the time of applying for the revision.”

    Bakassi indigenes believe they have such fresh facts. They said that these facts were discovered within the last eight weeks when indigenes of Southern Cameroon communicated to the people of Bakassi.

    These facts were then made available to His Eminence, the Obong of Calabar and grand patriarch of the Efik Kingdom who set up a Palace Committee on Bakassi made up of Efik sons and daughters with diverse cognate experience to investigate and research the matter.

    “From the totality of the information and facts two new facts emerged. The federation which ought to have resulted from the Union of Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun to become the Federal United Cameroon Republic in accordance with the signed and published agreement between the Southern Cameroons and Republique du Cameroun witnessed by the United Nation and international community which contains the conditions for ‘achieving independence by joining’ was never complied with.

    “Evidence to show that the required Constituent Assembly comprising members of both countries i.e. Republique du Cameroun and Southern Cameroons for the purpose of drafting a constitution for the Federal United Cameroon Republic never took place.

    “Consequently, it became evident that the proposed amalgamation of the two Independent States on equal footing as contemplated by their Pre Plebiscite Agreement was never consummated.

    “It therefore means that the Post Plebiscite State had not legally completed the process of unification and had no locus to argue a matter which involved the other territory.

    “The Second Fact was the fact that the Anglo-German Agreement of 1913 was never signed and never ratified by the German Government. Research revealed that no Treaty made in 1913 was ratified by the German Parliament until outbreak of the world war in 1914.”

  • US, UK, France oppose review of ICJ judgement on Bakassi

    US, UK, France oppose review of ICJ judgement on Bakassi

    • Send solidarity messages to Cameroun

    • Pro-review groups yet to submit fresh documents

     

    Three world powers- the United States of America (USA), United Kingdom (UK) and France are in solidarity with Cameroun on the Bakasi issue amidst pressure on the Federal Government by some interest groups to appeal against the ceding of the Bakasi Peninsula to Yaounde.

    The three countries, according to diplomatic sources, have assured Cameroun of their continued support on the decision of the International Court of Justice (IJC) on the peninsula and their commitment to the Green Tree Agreement.

    The US, UK and France ambassadors in Cameroun, it was gathered, met that country’s Minister of External Affairs at the weekend to express their strong opposition to any attempt by Nigeria to initiate a review of the ICJ ruling.

    The Western nations are all members of the influential Security Council of the United Nations.

    One source said: “We have got diplomatic report of the closed-door session between the ambassadors of the three countries and the Minister of External Affairs of Cameroun.

    “We are aware that they insisted on the Green Tree Agreement at the meeting. This has justified our decision to weigh all options on the latest demand for a review of the judgment.

    “Beyond sentiments, we are looking at the diplomatic implications especially the likelihood of sanctions on Nigeria by the UN Security Council if we seek a review of the judgment.

    “We have a challenge of not being trusted as a nation that respects agreements or treaties. These are all the sides to the matter.”

    There were indications last night that the government has finally foreclosed filing an application for a review of the IJC ruling because there are no fresh facts or documents to support such.

    Nigeria has up till October 10 to file an appeal based on fresh facts.

    Although President Goodluck Jonathan had said government would not appeal the decision of the IJC, scores of groups and individuals have been piling pressure on government to reconsider its position.

    The President, apparently bowing to the pressure, last Wednesday constituted an eight man committee to strategise on the possibility of an appeal by Nigeria.

    But none of the pro-appeal groups or individuals including the Cross River State government has so far volunteered fresh information or document to the office of the Attorney General of the Federation/Justice Minister as directed by the committee.

    At a session on Thursday night at the residence of the Senate Leader, Mr. Victor Ndoma-Egba (SAN), the Federal Government committee mandated Cross River State and others canvassing for review to make new facts or documents available to it.

    Members of the committee are the AGF, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief Anyim Pius Anyim, the DG of the National Boundary Commission, Senator Ndoma-Egba, a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, two members of the House (Ahmed Ali and Nnenna Ukeje) and another Senator.

    Sources close to the meeting said: “Contrary to reports, the meeting was held at Ndoma-Egba’s residence and not at the Office of the Attorney-General as being insinuated. Only the representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was absent at the session.

    “When we asked for documents to support new argument for a review of the ICJ judgment, the counsel hired by the Cross River State Government, Mrs. Nella Andem-Rabana (SAN) and the AGF of the state came to make verbal submissions.

    “Mrs. Andem-Rabana even told the committee that the review is being sought based on four factors. But she could only discuss three factors with her argument based mainly on the Anglo-German Treaty Agreement of 1913. It was the same Treaty she had canvassed as a member of the Federal Government Team at ICJ in The Hague in 2002.

    “When asked if the ceding of Bakassi was not caused by negligence, they had nothing to say.

    “We asked them to get all relevant documents and submit these particulars for evaluation by the AGF in line with Article 61 of the ICJ statute.

    “We have been waiting all day for new pleadings and documents without anything from pro-review side.”

    Asked what would become of the agitation, the source said: “It is apparent that the Federal Government will not seek a review of the ICJ judgment because we formally handed over the territory in 2008.

    “It is laughable that nine years, 11 months and 26 days after the ICJ judgment, we are seeking a review. And those agitating for it have not been able to come up with documents to meet the conditions stated in Article 61 of the ICJ statute.

    “What we have is a situation where they are running helter-skelter at the last minute looking for documents.

    “We have also mandated the aggrieved state and groups to come up with a compilation of alleged violations of human rights of Nigerians resident in Bakassi Peninsula.

    “If these violations are established by the committee, we can forward the list to the UN Committee on Human Rights to consider. Yet, they have not given the committee any example.

    “Most members of the committee felt disappointed that there have been noise all over without documents to back up the agitation. We cannot make ourselves a laughing stock before the international community.”

    Article 61 says: “An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.

    “The proceedings for revision shall be opened by a judgment of the Court expressly recording the existence of the new fact, recognizing that it has such a character as to lay the case open to revision, and declaring the application admissible on this ground.

    “The Court may require previous compliance with the terms of the judgment before it admits proceedings in revision. The application for revision must be made within six months of the discovery of the new fact.

    “No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment.”

    Meanwhile, the Federal Government was shocked that barely 72 hours after inaugurating the eight-man committee some highly-placed people have personalized the Bakassi issue by sponsoring attacks on the AGF, who is the chairman of the committee.

    A source said: “The President made the AGF the chairman of the committee because the matter involved is directly under his portfolio.

    “Government is surprised to read about personal attacks on the AGF on a matter being looked into with transparency. Members of the National Assembly are in the committee and the AGF has not imposed his views on any person or group so far.

    “We hope that those behind these attacks will allow the committee to do its work without distraction.”