Despite the final ceding of Bakassi Penisula to Cameroon, the Federal Government has been advised to seek redress on the alleged violation of the rights of Nigerians living in the area.
A London-based law firm, TOALAW Group, which was consulted by the Federal Government on the issue, gave the advice.
It urged the government to approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the United Nations (UN) for justice on the abuse of the rights of Nigerians in the Penisula.
The firm said the Federal Government could join issues with Cameroon in ICJ and the UN on human rights abuses based on Article 36(2) of the ICJ.
The legal advice reads: “We understand that there are concerns about the violation by Cameroon of the rights of some of the persons resident in the Bakassi Penisula.
“We also understand that consideration is being given to the possibility of Nigeria bringing proceedings against Cameroon with respect to such violations of human rights.
“Both Nigeria and Cameroon have made declarations recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ under Article 36 (2) of the ICJ Statute.
“The combination of these declarations entitles Nigeria to bring cases against Cameroon before the ICJ (just as Cameroon brought the original ICJ proceedings against Nigeria.)
“Cameroon has made a general declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICJ, which is to say Cameroon has not excluded any matter from the scope of its acceptance of the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction.
“Nigeria has made some reservations on the matter, with respect to which Nigeria accepts the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction.
“The compulsory jurisdiction works on the basis of reciprocity. This means that though Cameroon has not excluded any matter from ICJ’s jurisdiction, Cameroon can invoke, as against Nigeria, any reservations that Nigeria has made in its declaration under Art. 36(2).
“A preliminary review of the Nigerian reservation suggests that none of them is likely to exclude the jurisdiction of the ICJ with respect to human rights matters.
“However, it is worth noting that Nigeria’s declaration excluded matters within Nigeria’s domestic jurisdiction. It may be argued on the principle of reciprocity that matters within Cameroon’s domestic jurisdiction are also excluded.
“Furthermore, it may be argued that the matters at issue are within Cameroon’s domestic jurisdiction. Some intricate issues of law and ICJ practice at play here would require more detailed attention. However, at first glance, it appears that ICJ’s jurisdiction is not excluded.”
The legal advice made references to treaties which Nigeria could invoke to call Cameroon to order on the violation of the rights of Nigerians in Bakassi.
It said: “Both Nigeria and Cameroon are parties to a number of multilateral human rights treaties. The most important are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights 1981 (AFCHPR), the Convention against Torture (CAT) 1984.
“In addition, Cameroon made some human rights commitments under the Green Tree Agreement between it and Nigeria. These treaties set out a number of rights and the documents sent to us suggest violation of some of the rights included in those treaties, including the right to life, the right to be free from torture and cruel and degrading treatment.
“The ICJustice has recently dealt with a number of inter-state cases in which it has pronounced on the violation of human rights treaties by the respondent state. These cases include: Question relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal, 2012); Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2010); Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda, 2005).
“In these cases, the court has found violations of a number of human rights treaties, including the ICCPR, the AFCHPR and the CAT.
“Admissibility of any Human Rights Claim – Issues of Standing: In addition to satisfying itself that it has jurisdiction to consider the case, the ICJ would also consider whether any particular claim is admissible. Questions may arise as to the standing of Nigeria to bring a claim of violations by Cameroon of the rights of persons who are in the territory that is presently considered to be Cameroonian territory (the Bakassi penisula). There are a number of grounds on which it can confidently be argued that Nigeria does have standing to bring this case.
“First of all, the persons whose rights have been violated remain Nigerian nationals though presently resident in Cameroon. It should be noted that under the Green Tree Agreement, Cameroon has committed not to require these persons to change their nationality. Under international law, a state is entitled to bring a claim against another state on behalf of its nationals.
“This procedure of diplomatic protection, with respect to human rights, was recently invoked by the ICJ in Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2010).
“Secondly, the Green Tree Agreement represents a bilateral commitment between both states and it is recognised that in cases of breaches by one side of a bilateral treaty, the other side has standing to bring a claim (Art. 42(a), International Law Commission Articles on State Responsibility 2001).
“Thirdly, some human rights treaties contain what are known as obligations erga omnes partes (obligations owed to all parties), such that every party to the treaty is entitled to invoke a breach by another party. “Where this is the case, a breach by one treaty party can lead to an ICJ case brought by any other treaty party, even if the breach was not to a national of the latter. It was on this basis that Belgium brought a recent case against Senegal with respect to violation of the Torture Convention: Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal, 2012)
“In summary, our preliminary view is that Nigeria would be able to utilise declarations made by both Cameroon and Nigeria.”
