Rattled by the resolution of the two chambers of the National Assembly that Nigeria should appeal the International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment on the ceding of Bakassi to Cameroun, the Federal Government is considering raising a committee to advise it on the matter.
This is a shift from the government’s position that there is no going back on the judgment delivered in 2001, following which an agreement was signed between Nigeria and Cameroun to implement the ICJ’s decisions.
This is, in spite of Article 61 of the ICJ Statute, which makes provision for a review of its judgment if an appeal is launched within 10 years.
Following the resolution of the House of Representatives that Nigeria should appeal the decision, the Senate on Wednesday said an appeal must be filed before October 10- the 10th anniversary of the ICJ ruling.
A government source, who pleaded not to be named because he is not authorised to speak to the media on such matter, said the Presidency was awaiting the Senate’s resolution.
The source said: “We respect the resolution of the Senate. We will look into it and we will respond to it, based on competing arguments.
“The Federal Government will set up a committee to look into all issues, especially fresh arguments raised by the Senate and relevant documents, before arriving at a final decision.
“As I am talking to you, we have not received a copy of the resolution from the National Assembly. Normally, the resolution ought to be sent through the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief Anyim Pius Anyim, to President Goodluck Jonathan.
“But we have to look at the resolution against the backdrop of international conventions and diplomatic norms. Can a nation like Nigeria go back on its words after making international commitment to respect a judgment? This is a moral and diplomatic challenge we all need to address.
“It will amount to an aggression against a sovereign state to renege on an agreement. That is one of the challenges we are facing.”
Responding to a question, the top source added: “By Article 91 of the statute, the enforcement mechanism is well-provided and the consequences.”
Although Article 61 of the Statute of ICJ provides for a revision of its judgment, there is a caveat – that a country seeking a revision of any judgment must first comply with the judgment before its appeal can be heard.
The article 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, recognising 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 at latest 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.”
Article 98 -100 of the Rules of ICJ also reads: “In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of a judgment, any party may make a request for its interpretation, whether the original proceedings were begun by an application or by the notification of a special agreement.
“A request for the interpretation of a judgment may be made either by an application or by the notification of a special agreement to that effect between the parties; the precise point or points in dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment shall be indicated.
“If the request for interpretation is made by an application, the requesting party’s contentions shall be set out therein, and the other party shall be entitled to file written observations thereon within a time-limit fixed by the Court, or by the President if the Court is not sitting.
“Whether the request is made by an application or by notification of a special agreement, the Court may, if necessary, afford the parties the opportunity of furnishing further written or oral explanations.
“A request for the revision of a judgment shall be made by an application containing the particulars necessary to show that the conditions specified in Article 61 of the Statute are fulfilled. Any documents in support of the application shall be annexed to it.
“The other party shall be entitled to file written observations on the admissibility of the application within a time-limit fixed by the Court, or by the President, if the Court is not sitting. These observations shall be communicated to the party making the application.
“The Court, before giving its judgment on the admissibility of the application, may afford the parties a further opportunity of presenting their views thereon.
“If the Court finds that the application is admissible, it shall fix time-limits for such further proceedings on the merits of the application as, after ascertaining the views of the parties, it considers necessary.
“If the Court decides to make the admission of the proceedings in revision conditional on previous compliance with the judgment, it shall make an order accordingly.
“If the judgment to be revised or to be interpreted was given by the Court, the request for its revision or interpretation shall be dealt with by the Court. If the judgment was given by a Chamber, the request for its revision or interpretation shall be dealt with by that Chamber.”
“The decision of the Court, or of the Chamber, on a request for interpretation or revision of a judgment shall itself be given in the form of a judgment.”
