The Nation Newspaper

Tag: International Court of Justice (ICJ)

  • Senate directs Foreign Affairs Minister to submit Green Tree Agreement for ratification

    Senate directs Foreign Affairs Minister to submit Green Tree Agreement for ratification

    The Senate on Thursday directed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to immediately submit the Green Tree Agreement entered into between the Federal Republic of  Nigeria and the Cameroonian Republic on June 12, 2006 for ratification.

    The Senate also called on the executive arm of government to come up with a clear policy on the protection of indigenes in the Diaspora, including Cameroon.

    The Upper Chamber further called on the Cameroonian Government to respect the provisions of the agreement entered into with Nigeria on the ceding of the Bakassi Peninsula.

    This followed a six-point motion by Sen. Rose Oko (PDP-Cross River) and co-sponsored by five other lawmakers.

    The senate also vowed to investigate recent harassment of Bakassi indigenes in Cameroon, which led to the death  and return of some Nigerians living in Cameroon.

    While condemning activities of the Cameroonian gendarmes against Nigerians in the Bakassi Peninsula, the senate further called on the National Emergency Management Agency to immediately send relief to returnees.

    Presenting the motion, Sen. Oko, said the Bakassi indigenes of Cross River and Akwa Ibom States had resided in the geographic area known as the Bakassi Peninsula for generations.

    She added that following agreements and treaties from 1885 between Britain, Germany and France over the boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon and actions between the two governments on the ownership of the Bakassi Peninsula became contentious.

    According to her, Cameroon on March 29, 1994, took the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and on Oct. 10, 2002, the court ruled in favour of Cameroon.

    She stressed that following the judgment, the two countries signed the Green Tree Agreement with several provisions that would not affect Nigeria negatively.

    “The Green Tree Agreement provided that Cameroon would not force Nigerian citizens living in Bakassi Peninsula to leave the zone or change their nationality.

    “It also provided that Cameroon would respect the culture, language and beliefs of the Nigerian citizens as well as respect their rights to continue their agricultural and fishing activities.

    “The agreement  further provided that Cameroon would protect their properties and customary rights and desist from levying  in any discriminatory manner, any taxes and other dues on the nationals living in the zone.

    “Cameroon was also by the agreement asked to take necessary measures to protect the nationals living in the zone from harassment or harm,’’ she said.

    Oko lamented that in spite of the agreement, Nigerian citizens were being traumatised and treated as foreigners in their natural habitat.

    She further lamented that those that returned to Nigeria after the ICJ ruling were equally not properly settled, thereby living in makeshift accommodation for years.

    The lawmaker noted that recent reports had it that 97 Nigerians were feared dead following attack by Cameroonian gendarmes over failure to pay a discriminatory boat levy of N100,000.

    She said, “even if preliminary investigations have revealed as is reported in the media, that they were not killed but died in the sea, the fact remains that they were obviously fleeing from their host country in distress.

    “It is saddening that these things are happening despite the huge resources and benevolence of Nigeria to our African bothers.

    The lawmaker called on the need for the Nigerian Government to come up with a definite policy to protect its citizens in diaspora, particularly in Africa to stop growing attacks, killings and harassment.

    Supporting the motion, the Minority Leader, Sen. Godswill Akpabio, said the Nigerian Government must do everything possible to protect Nigerians living in Cameroon.

    He said in spite of the agreement entered into, Nigerians living in Cameroon were being subjected to several forms of torture.

    He also said that the Cameroonian gendarmes and other criminals had taken over the Bakassi Peninsula, where Nigerians lived, leading to serious security threat.

    He lamented that the Nigerian nationals in the area were being harassed in their natural habitat as a result of Nigeria’s ceding the area to Cameroon for the sake of peace.

    “We now have the Bakassi freedom fighters in the Bakassi Peninsula that are involved in all forms of criminal activities.

    “The area is now a den for criminals and nobody is allowed to fish unless they pay 100.

    “If you are not able to pay they throw you into the sea and as a result many of our people have died and many enslaved in their own land.

    “It is therefore important that we the representative of the people cry out.

    “Also, the Federal Government should do everything possible to compel the Cameroonian authorities to respect the agreement that we entered into.

    “The primary purpose of government as enshrined in Section 14(2b) is the protection of lives and property, so we have the obligation to protect our people.

    “We have realised that insurgents and militants are moving to the area,’’ he said.

    The lawmaker said Calabar that was known for peace was no longer peaceful as a result of the development.

    The President of the Senate, Dr Bukola Saraki, put the prayers of the motion to voice vote and they were unanimously adopted.

  • 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.