The Nation Newspaper

Tag: bakassi

  • Jonathan sets up committee to review judgment on Bakassi

    Jonathan sets up committee to review judgment on Bakassi

    President Goodluck Jonathan has set up a committee to look at the option of appealing the judgment of the International Court of Justice on the Bakassi peninsula.

    The decision was reached at a meeting between the President, the leadership of the National Assembly and other stakeholders at the State House in Abuja.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the meeting which started late Wednesday night ended in the early hours of Thursday.

    Cross River State governor, Liyel Imoke, told State House correspondents after the meeting that the committee would also consider how to take care of the displaced people of Bakassi.

    Imoke, who did not disclose the composition of the committee, said it would work within a specified time.

    NAN reports that Nigeria has an October 10 deadline to appeal the ICJ ruling which ceded the oil-rich Bakassi peninsula to neighbouring Cameroon in 2002.

    Imoke said Jonathan had shown great leadership quality by convening the meeting and standing firm on some of the decisions taken.

    Speaking also, the Senate President, Senator David Mark, said the executive arm of government and the lawmakers were now on the same page on the Bakassi issue.

    He said they would work together to achieve results.

    A former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Bola Ajibola, who was at the meeting, said the federal government had shown candid concern on the Bakassi issue.

    He commended the move by government to follow dialogue, the rule of law and diplomacy in ensuring that Nigeria gets justice and the people were not wrongly dealt with.

    Ajibola expressed optimism that the committee set up would handle the matter accordingly and in good time.

    NAN reports that the meeting was attended by Vice President Namadi Sambo, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Aminu Tambuwal, and some other principal officers of the National Assembly.

    Also in attendance were Akwa Ibom governor, Godswill Akpabio, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator Anyim Pius Anyim, and the Minister of Justice and AGF, Mohammed Adoke.

    Some leaders and representatives of selected groups from Bakassi, as well as presidential aides, were also in attendance.

     

  • Bakassi: Call for revision of icj judgment is ill-informed, misconceived

    Bakassi: Call for revision of icj judgment is ill-informed, misconceived

    The vociferous calls, especially in recent times, for the revision of the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the land and maritime dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria in respect of the Bakassi Peninsula and parts of the Lake Chad region is, at best, misconceived and, at worst, panders to fleeting political expedience. In my respectful view, however well-intentioned, it is ill-informed, distracts attention from the core issues and risks aggravating the plight of the Bakassi people.

    II. Background Context

    On October 10 2002, the ICJ delivered judgment in the contentious case between Cameroon and Nigeria (Equatorial Guinea intervening) to the effect, inter alia, that “sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula lies with the Republic of Cameroon.” The court further decided that “the Federal Republic of Nigeria is under an obligation expeditiously and without condition to withdraw its administration and its military and police forces from the territories which fall within the sovereignty of the Republic of Cameroon.” This judgment was the culmination of eight years of a legal tussle that began as far back as 1994 when Cameroon sought the Court’s intervention in a dispute between it and Nigeria over the Bakassi Peninsula (and later parts of the Lake Chad area).

    There was feverish anxiety and passionate expressions of nationalism and outrage over the outcome of the case, with several solidarity visits by representatives of the inhabitants of the affected areas to Aso Rock, Nigeria’s presidential villa, in the course of which their speeches were laced with pledges of allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    In my reaction, I faulted the judgment, decried its “Eurocentric” thrust and, inter alia, underscored the imperative need for critical legal scholarship with a view to purging international law of its colonial vestiges (see Dakas, International Law on Trial: Bakassi and the Eurocentricity of International Law (2003), at p. 114). In several journal articles and book chapters, I also examined the consequences of the decision, explored the options at Nigeria’s disposal, the lessons for Nigeria and offered policy and strategic prescriptions (see, for instance, Dakas, “The Decision of the ICJ on Sovereignty over Bakassi: Consequences, Options and Lessons” The Calabar Law Journal, Vols. VI-II (2002-2003), pp. 23-53; Dakas, “The Bakassi Conundrum: What Lessons for Nigeria?”, in D. A. Briggs (ed.), Nigeria in World Politics: Trends and Challenges – Essays in Honour of Major General Joseph Nanven Garba (2005), pp. 159-178; and Dakas, “Dokdo, Colonialism, and International Law: Lessons from the Decision of the ICJ in the Land and Maritime Dispute Between Cameroon and Nigeria”, in Seokwoo Lee & Hee Eun Lee (eds.), Dokdo: Historical Appraisal and International Justice (2011), pp. 91-122).

    The expressions of outrage that heralded the judgment of the Court reverberated on the floor of the Nigerian Senate five years later, on November 22, 2007, when Senator Bassey Ewa-Henshaw and twenty other senators jointly sponsored a motion entitled “Impending Crisis in and Uncertain Fate of the People of Bakassi”. The motion, inter alia, decried the outcome of the case and expressed regret that “[n]otwithstanding the widespread national disaffection and concerns expressed over the ICJ verdict, and despite his own earlier promise not to cede the territory to Cameroon, the former president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo…signed an agreement at Greentree, New York on June 12, 2006, in which he agreed to surrender the Peninsula to Cameroon.”

    In the intense debate that ensued, several senators bemoaned the plight of the Bakassi people, chided President Obasanjo for unilaterally ceding the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon without recourse to the National Assembly and further faulted the cession for having been effected without prior constitutional amendment given that Bakassi Local Government Area (covering the area in issue) is provided for in section 3 of the Nigerian Constitution and expressly listed in the first schedule thereto.

    Following the debate, the Senate resolved, inter alia, that “[t]he signing of the Agreement and cession of the Peninsula on August 14, 2006 to Cameroon was unilateral and against the provisions of Section 12(1) of [the Nigerian] Constitution” which predicates the force of law of an international treaty in Nigeria on its prior domestication vide an Act of the National Assembly. Accordingly, the Senate urged the federal government to “submit the agreement to the National Assembly for scrutiny without further delay” and forthwith stop any further transfer of territory in any part of the country to Cameroon unless and until the National Assembly takes action consistent with section 12 of the constitution.

    It is worth underscoring the fact that the claim that Nigeria could not cede the Bakassi Peninsula without prior domestication of the Greentree Agreement is, with due respect, untenable. The decision of the ICJ is enforceable in and of itself and is, therefore, not dependent on the Greentree Agreement, much less its domestication. Indeed, the Greentree Agreement does not purport to provide any legal basis for the enforcement of the decision of the court. As Article 7 of the Agreement acknowledges, its provisions “shall in no way be construed as an interpretation or modification” of the judgment of the Court. Instead, the Agreement “only sets out the modalities of implementation”.

    On the other hand, the assertion that the Nigerian government could not cede the Bakassi Peninsula without prior constitutional amendment is plausible. However, that argument has relevance only within the Nigerian polity, given that under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State is not at liberty to invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform its international obligations. Admittedly, Article 27 is without prejudice to Article 46 of the Convention. However, Article 46 is restricted to a situation where a State alleges that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties.

    Nigeria formally transferred authority over the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon on August 14, 2006 and relocated thousands of Nigerian nationals in the area to Nigeria. Two years later, on August 14, 2008, Nigeria finally ceded the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon. It is regrettable that this occurred in spite of a July 31 2008 Federal High Court order directing the parties (including the Federal Government of Nigeria) in a suit before it to “maintain the status quo.”

    Following Nigeria’s cession of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, the debate has now shifted to the issue of revision of the judgment, with both chambers of the National Assembly urging the President to ensure that Nigeria applies for revision of the Bakassi judgment.

    III. Why the Call for Revision of the Bakassi Judgment is Ill-Informed and Misconceived

    While the outrage exhibited by many Nigerians, including myself, is understandable, especially where it is driven by patriotic fervour, it must be tempered, as it should, by the sober realization and acknowledgement of the fact that under Article 60 of the Statute of the ICJ, the judgment of the court is “final and without appeal”. In other words, the ICJ is both a court of first instance and last resort. However, provision is made for revision of the judgments of the Court. Under Article 61(a) of the Statute of the ICJ, 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. Under paragraph (d), the application for revision must be made at least within six months of the discovery of the new fact, while paragraph (e) forecloses an application for revision after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment (i.e. October 9, 2012 in the case of the Bakassi judgment).

    Many of those who have called for the revision of the judgment have, with due respect, either not read it in its entirety, read it but not appreciated its import or appear to be oblivious of the stringent requirements of Article 61. Others have predicated their claim on alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Berlin Act (on the scramble for and partition of Africa); a claim which is, at best, a legal argument. Yet, others have anchored their claim on pre-independence historical facts which, they allege, the Court was not aware of. I have painstakingly examined those claims (which I am not at liberty to reproduce here because of space constraints) and come to the irresistible conclusion that they do not meet the threshold of Article 61. In any event, given that the case lasted eight years, would a diligent litigant not have discovered such facts during the pendency of the case? Is it also the case that these facts were discovered within less than six months ago? In which case they were discovered about ten years after the judgment and about eighteen years after the institution of the proceedings by Cameroon?

    More importantly, those calling for the revision of the judgment ignore the fundamental fact that the maritime component of the judgment (which relates to the Bakassi Peninsula) was not based solely on pre-independence historical facts. Instead, it was, in large measure, predicated on the 1975 Maroua Declaration; pursuant to which Nigeria, the Court held, acknowledged Cameroonian sovereignty over the area. As Judge Al-Khasawneh put it in his Concurring Opinion, “in the period leading to its independence…and since then till the early 1990s, Nigeria, by its actions and omissions and through statements emanating from its officials and legal experts, left no room for doubt that it had acknowledged Cameroonian sovereignty in the Bakassi Peninsula.”

    IV. Way Forward on the Plight of the Bakassi People

    First, the energy and enormous resources – especially in terms of legal costs – that would be dissipated or, more correctly put, wasted in pursuit of a futile attempt at seeking the revision of the judgment should be re-directed to alleviating the plight of the Bakassi people whose situation regrettably remains precarious.

    Second, Nigeria should ensure that Cameroon lives up to its responsibilities under the terms of the GreenTree Agreement; pursuant to which the latter is under an obligation to guarantee to Nigerian nationals living in the Bakassi Peninsula the exercise of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in international human rights law and other relevant provisions of international law. In particular, Cameroon shall: (a) not force Nigerian nationals living in the Bakassi Peninsula to leave the area or change their nationality; (b) respect their culture, language and beliefs; (c) respect their right to continue their agricultural and fishing activities; (d) protect their property and other customary land rights; (e) not levy in any discriminatory manner any taxes and other dues on Nigerian nationals living in the area; and (f) take every necessary measure to protect Nigerian nationals living in the area from any harassment or harm.

    Third, Nigeria can, and should, press for a UN-supervised plebiscite with a view to determining the wishes of the Bakassi people. As Judge Dillard succinctly put it in the Western Sahara Case (1975 I.C.J. 12, 122), “it is for the people to determine the destiny of [a] territory and not [a] territory the destiny of the people.”

     

    •Prof Dakas, a former Attorney-General of Plateau State, is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Head of the Department of International Law, Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.

  • Bakassi: The way to go, by lawyers

    Bakassi: The way to go, by lawyers

    With a few days to the deadline to seek a review of the judgment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the Bakassi Peninsula dispute, views are divided on how the government should handle the issue. With experts’ opinions, John Austin Unachukwu, Adebisi Onanuga, Eric Ikhilae, Joseph Jibueze and Precious Igbonwelundu suggest the way forward

    It is just about a week to the shutting of all doors against any move by the country to seek a review of the October 10, 2002 judgment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the dispute between Nigeria and Cameroun over the Bakassi Peninsula. And many seem unsure on the appropriate steps to be taken.

    This confusion results from the fact that since the decision, no serious effort was made against the seeming determination of the country to let Cameroun have the area, inhabited by about 300,000 Nigerians, although many were opposed to the verdict.

    Incidentally, the decision was not only given under a democratic government, with the Legislature in place to challenge any unpopular decision by the Executive. The Precedent Olusegun Obasanjo-government accepted the decision and proceeded to sign an agreement for its implementation, without any objection by the people’s representatives.

    Although there were opposition from some quarters, particularly those affected by the verdict, key institutions were silent. It was also not in public domain that key individuals like then Presidential aide on Legislative Matters Senator Florence Ita-Giwa objected to the manner the Presidency went about the issue.

    This is why, today, many are unsure what the actual motive of the major players on the Bakassi issue is. They are querying why the National Assembly waited till the wee hours of the day to pass resolutions urging the Executive, which is uninterested, to seek a review of the verdict handed out almost a decade ago.

    With the Executive and Legislative arms of government maintaining opposing views on how to proceed, the public are wondering whether a Nigeria, under the watch of a President from the Southsouth, will yield Bakassi, a Southsouth community, to Cameroun without exploring all available means of preventing such occurrence.

    The Bakassi crisis has been on for long. In 1981, the country almost went to war with Cameroun over Bakassi and another area around Lake Chad. There were armed clashes in the early 1990s. Apparently smarter than Nigeria, Cameroun went before the ICJ on March 29, 1994. And it took the court about 11 years to resolve the case in the plaintiff’s favour.

    In arriving at its decision, the court reviewed diplomatic exchanges over 100 years. Nigeria relied largely on Anglo-German correspondence as old as 1885 as well as treaties between the colonial powers and the indigenous rulers in the area, particularly, the 1884 Treaty of Protection.

    Cameroun, on its part, relied on the Anglo-German treaty of 1913, which defined spheres of control in the region, and two agreements signed in the 1970s between it and Nigeria – the Yaoundé II Declaration of April 4, 1971 and the Maroua Declaration of June 1, 1975.

    Both declarations outline maritime boundaries between the two countries following their independence. The line was drawn through the Cross River estuary to the west of the peninsula, thereby implying Cameroonian ownership over Bakassi. However, Nigeria never ratified the agreement, while Cameroon regarded it as being in force.

    The decision was greeted with condemnation by Nigerians, prompting the intervention by the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan, following which the two countries, with President Obasanjo for Nigeria and President Paul Biya for Cameroun, signed in New York, United States, an agreement – the Green Tree Agreement (GTA) on June 13, 2006 on ways to execute the judgment.

    By the agreement, Nigeria elected to withdraw its troops within 60 days and to vacate the disputed area completely within two years. The government also planned to resettle the residents of the area, who preferred to remain Nigerians.

    In keeping faith with the agreement, despite local opposition, the government began the withdrawal of troops on August 1, 2006 and rounded off that phase with a ceremony on August 14, marking the formal handover of the northern part of the peninsula. What was left of the area was to remain under Nigerian civil authority for two more years.

    The Senate, relying on the provision of Section 12 (1) of the Constitution, responded to the withdrawal with a resolution passed on November 22, 2007 declaring that the withdrawal from the Bakassi Peninsula was illegal. But, despite the Senate’s position, the government proceeded with its programme and on August 14, 2008 completed the handover of the Peninsula to Cameroun.

    Several years after, the noise now generated in the twilight of the Bakassi era has prompted many observers to ask: Why have the Nigerian authorities been complacent over this issue? Why was the Nigerian government eager to give away its territory and people without lifting a finger? Why did the Legislature fail to take steps other than mere resolutions?

    They also ask: Why did the government remain reluctant to explore existing opportunities to reverse the loss of its territory? How come years after the GTA, one of its key components – the resettlement of the affected Nigerians – has not been effected, despite the huge fund allocated so far? Has the country lost out eventually?

    Experts expressed varied views on what should be done, ruling out appeal. They argued that Article 60 of the United Nations Charter (under which the ICJ operates) prohibits appeal to any other court. They said the country could only seek a review of the decision on ground that it has unearthed fresh facts, within the last months, which it was oblivious of at trial.

    They also suggested that the country approach the UN Security Council, relying on the provision of Article 94(2) of it’s Charter allowing the winning party recourse to the Security Council for intervention where the losing party failed to abide by the judgment.

    Relying on the simple legal requirements of fairness and impartiality, which apply to all bodies vested with powers to decide the rights of parties who have submitted themselves to the decisions of the bodies, they argued that Nigeria can on this pedestal approach the Security Council, showing grounds why the judgment cannot be enforced.

    These, they said, could include grounds of palpable bias, lack of jurisdiction, grand conspiracy against Nigeria, failure to take into consideration the peculiarity of Bakassi and the people living there, history and the cultural affiliations of Bakassi people, among others.

    They also suggested that the country should insist that the UN gives effect to the people’s right to self determination by allowing them to decide, through a referendum, where they want to belong. Some have also suggested that the country deemphasize the legal solution and work at negotiating a buyout with Cameroun or applying force by going to war.

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), at the close of its 52nd Annual General Conference and Meeting in Abuja between August 26 and 31 this year, expressed displeasure over the maltreatment of Nigerians in Bakassi, despite the provision of the GTA. It urged the government to, “without further delay, apply under Article 61 of the ICJ statute of 1946, to the ICJ for a revision of what is an unjust judgment over Bakassi.

    The lawyers included Felix Fagbohungbe, SAN; Yusuf Ali, SAN, Sebastine Hon, SAN, Joseph Nwobike, SAN, Former Attorney-General of Plateau State and Head, Department of International Law, Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS), Professor Dakas C.J. Dakas, SAN, Mrs Nella Andem Rabana, SAN, Professor of International Law, Jurisprudence Akin Oyebode, and a lawyer Ahmed Adetola-Quasim.

    Fagbohungbe said the suggestion that the judgment be revisited was in the interest of those affected if the situation could still be salvaged.

    “I would implore the President to take wise counsel from the senators. Senators should, also, realise that they are the authentic representatives of Nigerians. So, they are the spokeperson for Nigerians; their resolutions should not be ignored particurlarly on this Bakasi issue.

    Ali argued that the country was in error to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ. He said since the government appeared unwilling to apply for a review of the judgment, the least it could do was to ensure that the Bakassi indigenes were resettled properly.

    “There are options under the law. Many countries of the world like the United States of America for instance, would not have submitted to the jurisdiction of ICJ on a matter like that when they are disputing on a land or any boundary.

    “All countries of the world do it. US even goes further to insist that none of its citizens will be tried by the International Criminal Court; that any citizen of hers who commits an offence anywhere in the world should be brought back to the US to be tried.

    “We should have done the same. If the ICJ had not made any pronouncement, the ceding of Bakassi would not have arisen.

    “The least the government can do is to ensure that they are relocated and settled well elsewhere, otherwise if they do not feel the presence of government, it could lead them to the kind of agitations they are embarking on. Government must do more to address the unfortunate development that made them to become refugees in their own country,” he said.

    To Oyebode, the resolution by the National Assembly at the eleventh hour seems an attempt to unscramble the egg. He said the country could only seek a review if it was sure of new facts.

    “There is a tragic blunder in the way we went about the matter and I believe it is because it is close to midnight, that is why Nigeria is panicking. What it seems the National Assembly is trying to do is to force Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to swallow his vomit having earlier promised to abide by all agreements entered into by his predecessors.

    “That notwithstanding, he is caught between a rock and a hard plain because he would not want to treat with indifference, the feelings of the National Assembly or have the reputation of the country at the international scene tarnished. Striking a balance between this dilemma is what I don’t know how he will achieve.

    “It is a matter that has legal, geo-political as well as geo-strategic dimension. For me, law might not be a fitting way to resolve the issue. We have to explore other options such as diplomatic or in the worst case military.

    “If you want me to talk very bluntly, we can negotiate with Cameroon on how to resolve the conundrum by way of making certain offers on the table, specifically, we can put a price tag on that peninsula, offer them money to buy the peninsula and it is without precedent. Exchange of territory is permitted.

    “Otherwise, the worst case scenario is to use military force to change the facts on the ground. In other words, Nigeria could take a decision to overrun the territory and confront the military forces of Cameroon that are well entrenched in the peninsula right now,” he said.

    Hon faulted the call for the country to apply for a review. He also faulted the argument that the non-ratification of the treaty ceding Bakassi to Cameroun by Nigeria makes it worthless.

    “It has been strongly canvassed that the British Government had written to the Nigerian Government indicating that the disputed peninsula belongs to Nigeria. I see a booby trap in this. If the document existed before the matter went to the ICJ, why was it not produced or tendered? If it existed after the judgment, why did it come out that late, when the whole world, including the UK, knew of the pendency of the matter at the ICJ? And, above all, no matter the source and timing of the document, can it be seriously argued that it supercedes the treaty voluntarily entered into by the parties?

    “I will rather strongly suggest that the Federal Government, as a matter of utmost urgency, should acquire the large swathe of virgin savannah between Odukpani Junction near Calabar and Ikom and resettle the Bakassi indigenes. I have also been informed that the Federal Government has voted and indeed released billions of naira for this resettlement project. Where then is the money? Over to you, EFCC,”Hon said.

    To Nwobike, since the judgment was not by the parties’ consent and the Nigerian government having not undertaken not to challenge it, the right to seek its review exists and should be exercised.

    “The possibility of success on appeal exists. The views expressed by some legal experts against the pursuit of the appeal should not discourage the government from pursuing the appeal in view of the extent of public support for it; particularly, the recent resolutions of the National Assembly and political implications of the judgment on the psyche of the Bakassi people,” he said.

    Dakas disagreed with the call for the revision of the judgment, arguing that “it is ill-informed, distracts attention from the core issues and risks aggravating the plight of the Bakassi people.”

    He suggested that the energy and enormous resources to be wasted on such exercise should be directed at improving the lot of those affected by the decision; that the country should ensure that Cameroun lives up to its responsibilities under the terms of the GTA, particularly as they affect the rights of Nigerians and that the country should press for a UN-supervised plebiscite with a view to determining the wishes of the Bakassi people.

    Mrs Rabana said: “I have taken the position that the Federal government should seek a revision of the ICJ judgment because of the continuing dehumanizing atrocities being inflicted on the Bakassi indigenes refusing to change their citizenship and of course because of the fresh facts discovered within the last six months which the ICJ should be given an opportunity to accept or reject.

    “Nigeria should borrow a leaf from China, USA or Britain in the way it defends its sovereign integrity and /or the rights of its citizens. The handling by China of the Diaoyu Islands is a live issue which we would all do well to study.

    “Nigeria by applying for a revision shall in some measure restore confidence in its citizenry while still complying with the provisions of the ICJ statute. Nigeria’s posture before and after the judgment has been that of compliance and image building .Maybe it is time to focus on its citizens for a change,” she said.

    Adetola-Quasim, who is the Director, Prisoners’ Rights Advocacy Initiatives (PRAI), said: “The ultimate decision lies with the president. I think it is only ideal that the president yield to the demand of the National Assembly as it is the reflection of the will of the people. Ideally the will of the people should supersede anyone’s will including that of the president.

    “Therefore, the request of the National Assembly is not out of place. Whether Nigeria will succeed or not is a different ball game. The judgment, in my opinion, has some political undertone considering the composition of the panel, coupled with the fact that we didn’t do our homework well.

    “What Obasanjo did was an illegal act as same is not valid under any law of the land. So, the Greentree agreement is inchoate. It has no status of a binding law. No nation dashes out territory on a platter of gold. Whilst I’m not encouraging disobedience of international laws, the issue of Bakassi should not be treated with kid gloves.”

     

  • Resurrecting Bakassi

    Resurrecting Bakassi

    The challenge now should be how to get the people on their feet again

    The clamour that Nigeria should appeal the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which ceded the Bakassi peninsula to Cameroun in 2002 is approaching hysteria. For those convinced on the need for Nigeria to seek a review of the judgment, the opportunity for appeal, which closes in a few days time must be explored, regardless of the chances of success. Many others however believe that there are no new facts to be put forward for the ICJ to review the judgment and as such the nation should come to terms with the loss of Bakassi. On our part, we are yet to see any compelling new evidence why the judgment of the ICJ could be upturned on appeal.

    The opportunity that was open to Nigeria under international law was to have refused, ab initio, to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICJ, considering the history of the peninsula. But of course, it is commonly believed that those who stood to gain materially gave all the assurances that the trial would be a walk-over, regardless of historical missteps. Having submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, and lost; we hope the new demand for a fresh legal battle is not to gift some Nigerians an opportunity to gain, while the country loses face in the international arena.

    More critically, in our view, is the failure of the Federal Government to keep her promise to protect and rehabilitate the people of Bakassi after the judgment was given in Cameroun’s favour. For us, and we guess many Nigerians, it is unacceptable that the promises made by the government to resettle the people have so far amounted to mere political hyperboles. We believe the people of Bakassi were shortchanged historically by trading their territory for gains for the country in the past; and it would amount to political perfidy to gloss over their present plight, as if it is a natural disaster, for which the country is helpless.

    Under international law, the people inhabiting that territory have a right to choose their future; whether to become Camerounians or remain Nigerians, or even become an independent state were the parameters realisable. But having been Nigerians all their lives, the people obviously prefer to remain Nigerians, even though no official plebiscite has been conducted. But by the implication of the judgment and that choice, they have turned to Nigerians living in a foreign territory, and this has seriously eroded their rights to engage in their main economic activity which is fishing within the waters abutting the peninsula.

    It is even more embarrassing that while Nigeria under the so-called Green Tree agreement, was working assiduously to hand over the territory affected by the judgment to Cameroun, it neglected to put in place a clear roadmap to protect the rights and interests of the people still living on the peninsula. Unfortunately, the people of Bakassi displaced by decisions beyond their control have become soft targets for Camerounian gendarmes, and that is totally unacceptable. In our view, Nigerians, wherever they may reside, deserve protection from their government; and while working out modalities for a permanent solution to the crisis, a strong and clear message must be sent to the Camerounian political authorities to rein in their security agencies.

    Unfortunately, many public figures in the region are using the crisis for political mileage. For them, what is important is that they are seen to be politically correct, even when their positions are untenable or even dubious. Again, some politicians or interests who are removed from the direct effects of the crisis are not disposed to treating the crisis as a national emergency, and tend to downplay the situation. As the nation swings between the two political extremes, the people of Bakassi are left to suffer the misjudgments of a political leadership that has shown lack of capacity to promote and protect its citizens in dire straits.

    We earnestly urge the Federal Government to immediately fulfill its obligations to the people of Bakassi. That obligation will include, adequately resettling them and providing a tenable environment for their economic activities. Again, their natural rights protected under international law must be respected by the Camerounians at a clear behest of Nigeria’s leadership. There is also the need to provide for adequate compensation and protection of their cultural rights, including retrieving physical totems where possible, for transfer to the new territory that will be provided for them.

    For us, it is important that the choice of the people of Bakassi to remain Nigerians does not lead to regret because of the nonchalant attitude of those in authority. As we await the actions of the Federal Government to protect the rights of the Bakassi people, we hope it will be guided by patriotic pragmatism.

  • House report asks govt to contest Bakassi judgment

    House report asks govt to contest Bakassi judgment

    The House of Representatives report has said Nigeria must contest the ruling of the International Court of Justice October 10, 2002 which led to the ceding of Bakassi and the commencement of the delineation of the boundaries between Nigeria and Cameroun from Lake Chad to the Seas.

    The report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Justice and Special Duties interactive meeting with experts on the maritime boundaries of Nigeria and the future of Bakassi, was laid before the House yesterday.

    The 10-page report, which has 10 findings and four recommendations said Cameroon obtained the judgment fraudulently.

    The report in its findings, states: “The foundation on which the International Court of Justice ruling was predicated was “ab initio” faulty and that the Bakassi Pennisula on the basis of indigenous ownership, historical consolidation and effective occupation had always belonged to Nigeria.

    “There is no concrete evidence of ratifications of the 1913 agreement on which the International Court of Justice ruling was predicated. The 1913 Anglo-German treaty which Cameroon rested its claim was not signed by both countries before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.

    “The memoirs of Prince Karl Max Lichnowsky, a former German Ambassador and a Principal negotiator of the 1913 proposed agreement was found. He was quoted to have regretted the non-entry into force of the Agreement. He said ‘The Treaty which offered us Extraordinary Advantages, a result of more than one year’s work was thus dropped. It would have been a public success for me.’

    All the subsequent agreements made between Britain and Germany, as well as France explicitly recognised that the Bakassi Pennisula had been effectively occupied by the Efik ethnic group of Nigeria.

    “After the World War I, Germany renounced all it’s territorial claims in 1919 and all the former territories controlled by Germany came under the mandate of the League of Nations.

    “A plebiscite was conducted on March 18, 1961, in Southern Cameroon to determine communities that either wanted to stay in Cameroun or join Nigeria. Communities such as Manfe, Bamenda, Kumba, and Victoria participated. Bakassi never participated in the exercise because it was never in contention that Bakassi was Nigerian. (see appendix 1 Southern Cameroun Gazette published by EUEA Authority 18th March 1961, Vol.7,no.14 showing the result of voting by plebiscite districts of the whole Southern Cameroun. “it is worthy of note that the people of Bakassi had always participated in Nigerian elections.”

    The committee said it “noted that the people of Bakassi have asserted unequivocally their unwillingness to and/or live under Cameroonian authority.”

    The report’s recommendations read: “The committee hereby recommends that the Nigerian Government should as a matter of urgency and necessity approach the International Court of Justice for a review of the 2002 judgment on the basis of the following assertions.

    (1) Article 61 of the International Court of Justice ICJ’s statute clearly defines the procedure to seek for review of its judgment. (see Appendix2.)

    Based on the fresh evidence that was not known to the ICJ and more importantly the 10year timeframe stipulated by this statute, the Nigerian Government should proceed immediately to file for a review. (October 10-2012 is the deadline)

    (2) The Green-Tree-Agreement entered into by the government of Nigeria and Cameroun as a result of the ICJ judgment which eventually led to the Nigerian government ceding Bakassi to Cameroun is a clear violation of Section 12(1) of the 199 constitution which states that “No Treaty between the federation and any other country shall have the force of law to the extent to which any such Treaty have been enacted into law by the National Assembly”. The implication is that the Gren-Tree-Agreement does not have the force of law.

    (3) Increasing security challenges and the threat to our territorial integrity was put on full glare as it was noted that there is decreased piracy activity in the Somalia-Eritrea region due to heavy UN presence on those waters and a transfer of the nefarious activities to the waters surrounding Nigeria as a result of skeletal (if any) presence of the Nigerian Navy on the waters of Bakassi owing to constant conflict between the Nigerian Navy and the Cameroonian Navy as to who owns the waters. Vulnerability of the Bakassi water ways poses a huge security risk as we battle insecurity on land and we are faced with insecurity on water.

    (4) The Nigerian government must realize that SELF DETERMINATION is a fundamental right to which Bakassi people can avail themselves of especially where a sovereign state abdicates her responsibility towards a constituent part of her territory. We must therefore do everything within our power to ensure that the people of Bakassi continue to feel,that they are part and parcel of their homeland.

    Given the short window period on the issue, the report which was jointly signed by the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Nnena Elendu-Ukeje, Chairman House Committtee on Justice, Ali Ahmad and Chairman of the House Committee on Special Duties, Bello Kaoje, is mostly likely to be given accelerated consideration and its recommendation adopted this week.

     

  • Soyinka on Bakassi: people must decide where to belong

    Soyinka on Bakassi: people must decide where to belong

    •79th birthday lecture for Braithwaite holds in Lagos

    Nobel Laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka yesterday flayed the Federal Government for trading off the disputed Bakassi Peninsula without regard for the wishes and interests of the people.

    He said the controversy has not ended because the inhabitants, who were not consulted, were seriously injured, pointing out that the United Nations has respect for the people’s dignity and  feelings.

    Soyinka also spoke on the evils of capitalism, berating the state, which he described as an entrepreneurial arm of the society, for creating inequitable relationship between workers and employers of labour.

    The eminent scholar delivered a lecture in Lagos titled: “Corporate gains and human deficits”. The public lecture organised by a non-governmental organisation, ‘Women Arise’, was part of activities marking the 79th birthday of the revolutionary lawyer, Dr. Tunji Braithwaite. The event, which held at the Oranmiyan Hall, Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja and chaired by Prof Akin Oyebode, was witnessed by former Kaduna State Governor Alhaji Balarabe Musa, former Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) President Mrs. Priscilla Kuye, National Chairman of the National Conscience Party (NCP), Mr. Yinusa Tanko, rights activists Debo Adeniran, Mallam Shetima Yerima, Mr. Kunle Ajibade, Mr. Femi Kuti and Yeni Kuti.

    Braithwaite, who was accompanied by his medical doctor -wife, Simisola, cut his birthday cake, amid cheers by well-wishers.

    Former University of Ado-Ekiti Vice Chancellor Prof. Oyebode hailed the decision of the group, led by Dr. Joe Okei-Odumakin, to honour Braithwaite, stressing that it is better to celebrate heroes when they are still alive. Paying tribute to the celebrator, the legal scholar observed that, despite his noble birth, he joined the struggle for the liberation of the masses.

    Dr. Okei-Odumakin described the celebrator as a great activist, legal surgeon, role model and lifewire of the rights movement, adding that he is a man of constant conscience.

    Soyinka revisited the Bakassi Peninsula controversy, saying that it is a testing ground for corporate integrity. He lamented that the disputed settlement in Cross River State was traded off between Nigeria and Cameroun.

    The retired university don doubted if the wishes, feelings and interests of the people were considered by the International Court of Justice sitting in The Hague, Netherlands. He said the attachment to the land by the displaced people superseded the government’s desire to trade off the settlement.

    Soyinka rejected the argument of stakeholders that military action could resolve the hurdle, warning that it could herald protracted litigations.

    He said: “There must be a plebiscite to decide where the people want to be. What the people of Bakassi want for themselves. Do they want to be Nigerians or Cameroonians. The people must be given a voice to express themselves”.

    The Nobel Laureate spoke on the evil of capitalism, which, he said, is characterised by the deadness of human feelings, adding that since it cannot put on a human face, its practice had led to upheavals and rupturing of the society.

    Alluding to the scenario in Pakistan where 200 workers who were locked up in a workplace to prevent work shift evasion died in a fire, he decried the societal laxity and penchant for accumulation which  made the system to thrive.

    Soyinka lamented the killing of the cottage industry in the North by smuggling, recalling that since the garment industry was shut down, unemployment had soared in the region.

    He said  unemployed youths have become willing recruits into armed robbery and extreme religious indoctrination.

    Soyinka juxtaposed the class division in capitalism with the apartheid experience in South Africa, noting that citizens whose psyche has been affected have never shown positive attitude to many who aided the historic liberation struggle.

    He said during these harsh times, the lowering of the unemployment ration, in Nigeria, South Africa, Namibia and other poor countries could boost security.

    The literary icon warned that danger would continue to loom as kidnapping has become a lucrative business undertaken by members of movements claiming to be fighting for genuine causes.

    Soyinka said it was also worrisome that sects indulge in using the name of God to inflict pains, agony and sorrow on fellow citizens, warning that Nigeria may be on the verge of disintegration.

    He berated the acts of “corporate terror”, which has manifested in increased activities of “the destroyers of Northern Nigeria”.

    Stressing that havoc had been wreaked on the country since the outcome of the last presidential election, Soyinka added: “Boko Haram targets the masses, okada men and children. Complacency is no more an acceptable virtue. Armed robbers stopped a moving bus and raped passangers, including children. NYSC members are killed by animals.

    “Boko Haram has not really waged war against the state, but against the populace. The sect is wasting human asset as it has manifested in attacks on universities.”

    Soyinka paid tributes to Braithwaite, saying that he is a stubborn, principled and great man.

    Oyebode, who spoke before the Nobel Laureate, said: “If Soyinka belongs to a wasted generation, then, I may belong to a lost generation because my generation came after his generation.”

    He hailed Braithwaite’s consistency, doggedness and commitment to a better Nigeria. He said his  notable and enviable contributions as a lawyer and radical politician who intended to exterminate rats and mosquitoes from the country since the Second Republic were worthy of recognition.

    Oyebode stresed: “He had a mission to exterminate rats and mosquitoes from Nigeria. What he meant by that were the ‘10 percenters’, and exploiters who had let Nigeria down. Although, the Nigeria Advanced Party (NAP) did not fulfill its mission, he made his impact. But rats and mosquitoes have continued to fester. Corruption is on the increase.

    “Common thieves found their ways into the corridors of power. Ibori could not be convicted in Nigeria. He escaped Nigerian justice, but he could not escape British justice.”