NOW that the ceding of the Bakassi Peninsula has again re-surfaced and is in the international domain, a lot of people have started to ask questions. They want to know why the various agreements entered into by Nigeria and Cameroun as well as the 2005 judgment of the International Court of Justice, (ICJ) at The Hague have failed to resolve the problem, stop the restiveness and the increasing agitation by the people of Bakassi. This renewed agitation is indeed posing a serious threat to the bilateral relations between Nigeria and Cameroon, as well as international peace and security.

Akin Oyebode, a Professor of International Law, with specialization in International Boundary Politics at the University of Lagos, has over the years been following the deteriorating situation in the Bakassi Peninsula. In this interview, he adduced reasons for the apparent breakdown of the Bakassi Accord and the frightening security situation in the Peninsula.

In his view, those agreements and ICJ decision failed to put the people of the Peninsula first and to that extent, all those legal documents have been of no effect in resolving the crisis.

“The issue of Bakassi seems to be like a re-current decimal because the inhabitants of that Peninsula felt short-changed by their state of nationality, Nigeria. Those who resided within the Peninsula are Nigerian citizens who, even before colonization, owed allegiance to the Obong of Calabar.

So, if they saw themselves as Efiks, they believed they deserve protection from their state of nationality.

Unfortunately, Nigeria has been toying with the destiny of the Peninsula. Way back in 1975 or there about, the then Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, in an acknowledgement of the support Cameroun gave Nigeria during the civil war, signed a document to which was attached a map, which altered the boundary by a few miles, between Nigeria and Cameroun. So, it is that document called Maroua Declaration that whetted the appetite of Cameroun to take over the entire Peninsula.

In May 1981, there was an un-provoked attacked by Camerounian gendarmes on Nigerian soldiers in which Nigeria lost some soldiers.

Alhaji Shehu Shagari, who was the Nigerian president, failed to declare war on Camerounian gendarmes to atone for the premeditated killing of Nigerian soldiers.”

On the implication of President Shagari’s failure to launch a reprisal attack on Cameroun.

Professor Oyebode said: “The Camerounians, after the unprovoked attack and failure of Shagari to launch a reprisal, now felt emboldened by the lukewarm or lackadaisical attitude by Nigeria over the Bakassi territory.

Cameroun followed up this when in 2002 it decided to approach the International Court of

Justice (ICJ) for a determination of ownership of the Peninsula. What was most baffling is that this was at a time when Cameroun did not even accept the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ.

Before any matter could be brought before the ICJ, the disputing parties must accept the jurisdiction of the court. Nigeria had way

back in 1965 accepted compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ in any dispute pertaining to Nigeria. Technically, that acceptance of jurisdiction should have taken place not less than 12 months before Cameroun could approach the court and before the court could accept jurisdiction over the matter.

Of course, Nigeria objected to this, but in shocking and questionable manner, the court threw out Nigeria’s objection.

In October 2002, ICJ ruled that Bakassi Peninsula belonged to Cameroun because Nigeria did not effectively establish its title over the Peninsula, basing its judgment on Anglo-German Treaty of 1913 as well as an agreement between the French and the British in 1931.

I must point out that before the ICJ decision, the then Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo got a strange invitation to Paris from the then

French President, Jack Chirac. Camerounian President, Paul Biya was also invited.

Obasanjo, in an act that showed no foresight, entered into an agreement that Nigeria would abide by the decision of the ICJ, which incidentally at that time was being presided over by a Frenchman.

People had expected that Obasanjo would have smelled a rat. So there were so many things that went against Nigeria”.

Though the situation appears tough for Nigeria because opportunities for review of the ICJ judgment is technically closed, there are, however, some cloudy window of opportunities for help and solution outside the ICJ, Olabode believes.

“The judgment of ICJ is binding on the parties. Article 94 of the UN Charter, makes it mandatory on parties to carry out judgment of the court, failing of which the UN Security Council can impose sanctions on violators. Again Nigeria, for reasons best known to former President Obasanjo, accepted the mediatory role of the former United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Anan.

Under this mediation, Obasanjo and Biya were again invited to Green-Tree in New York. Representatives of the UN Permanent members witnessed the mediation. The parties signed the Green-Tree Agreement that they would implement the judgment of the Court.

To me, the 2007 Green-Tree Agreement was a gratuitous agreement, because there was no compelling reason why Nigeria should enter into it. But in the light of recent developments in the Peninsula, I think the Green-Tree Agreement now has its own advantage for Nigeria. It now offers a leeway, because under the Nigerian Constitution the Treaty cannot apply, except and unless and only to the extent that such a treaty has been transformed into the Nigerian law.

Till today, there was no time the Green-Treaty

Agreement had been laid before the National Assembly. Since the Treaty has not been approved by the (Nigerian) National Assembly,

Nigeria cannot carry out the provisions of that Agreement. The treaty ought to have been transformed into Nigerian law before the

Nigerian government either ratifies it or implements it. I think that is why the residents of Bakassi feel aggrieved that the necessary measures had not been taken before their territory was transferred to a foreign country. They are now turned foreigners in their own country. I think this is a gratuitous insult on the people.”

On what precedent Nigeria would be laying if it fails to implement the document, the International Law Scholar noted that “If Nigeria had reneged or failed to apply the judgment of the Court, it would not be the first-time in the history of the world.

For instance, the United States did not feel impelled to respect the decision of ICJ in the case against Nicaragua in 1984.

In 1960, there was a case between

India and Portugal. Portugal won the case on the right of passage over Indian Territory of Goa, but India refused to oblige and heaven did not fall. I don’t know why Nigeria felt compelled and so much in a haste to implement a judgment that was going to create disaffection and abuse of rights of its citizens, which is now threatening the unity and sovereignty of the country.

In fact, some observers have so unkindly said that Obasanjo probably would not have done that if the territory in question was in Owu Kingdom.

The professor frowned at the action of the UN system that sought equity, but did not come with a clean hand.

“According to international practice, consent of people residing in the territory (by way of plebiscite), is a condition-precedent to any transfer or change in title over the territory that they occupy. Remember the wise saying by the late M.K.O. Abiola, winner of June 12, 1993 presidential election in Nigeria, that “You can’t shave a man’s head in his absence”. You would recall that when the fate of Northern and

Southern Cameroun were to be determined, a plebiscite was conducted in 1961, under which Southern Cameroun opted to join Cameroun, while Northern Cameroun opted to join Nigeria. That could be a case, which confirmed what is called Right to Self-Determination. Though the case of Northern and Southern Cameroun happened during the colonial period, I am of the view that it is still part and parcel of international best practices that inhabitants of the territory are consulted and allowed to make their own choice. I think the interest of the inhabitants ought to have been given greater resonance.

One other unintended good thing from the Green-Tree Agreement is that it provides that Cameroun shall not do anything untowards to Nigerians residing in the territory.

Under the Agreement, they have rights to carry out their daily activities, including their occupation, unhindered and unmolested. But information from the territory shows that Nigerians there are being molested and hindered by Cameroun gendarmes who have taken over the territory and turned it to a garrison. They are intimidating and terrorizing the few Nigerians who still summon up courage to stay there.”

When Cameroun on its own is breaching the Green-Tree Agreement by violating the rights of Nigerians residents there against the provision of the Agreement, what option is left for Nigeria?

He said: “Reports of intimidation and terrorizing of Nigerians in the Peninsula constitute what is called a material-breach of the Green-Tree Agreement. It is a sufficient ground for Nigeria to terminate the Green-Tree Agreement. That would be in conformity with Article 60, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty of 1959.

So, Nigeria can say that Cameroun has flagrantly violated the Green-Tree Agreement to add pep to the motion that the Green-Tree Agreement is not binding on Nigeria.”

On whether the ICJ judgment could be appealed against, the former Vice-Chancellor said: “Unfortunately, under the Rules of Procedure of the ICJ once a case has been determined, there is a tone of finality.

But having said that, if parties can bring up new facts, which were not available during the pendency of the matter; nothing stops the parties from re-visiting the case. I don’t know the new facts that Nigeria could place before the ICJ.

However, it could capitalize on the increasing violation of rights of Nigerian inhabitants of the Peninsula, the militarization of the place and the obstruction of lawful economic activities of the inhabitants. All these could serve as grounds of appeal, but I don’t think it is the ICJ that the appeal would go to, I believe the UN itself is the appropriate place to ventilate our grievances.

Also, the inhabitants of Bakassi could invoke the provisions of the UN 2007 Declaration on Rights of Un-represented people to take their case to the UN. Nigeria can also appeal to the UN Security Council, complaining to it that the

situation in Bakassi is a threat to international peace and that the Council should take urgent action to ensure that peace does not break down in the Peninsula. There is also the option of buy-back; Nigeria could approach Cameroun to buy back the territory, if Cameroun would be willing to sell.

Of course, there is another option, which no one wants to talk about. That is the option of war with Cameroun over the Peninsula, by taking action to protect and defend Nigerian citizens whose rights have been imperiled because of acts of violence committed by Cameroon against Nigeria.

Quote

That could be a case, which confirmed what is called Right to Self-Determination. Though the case of Northern and Southern Cameroun happened during the colonial period, but I am of the strong view that it is still part and parcel of international best practices that inhabitants of the territory are consulted and allowed to make their own choice. I think the interest of the inhabitants ought to have been given greater resonance.http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=98325:why-law-cannot-resolve-the-bakassi-crisis-&catid=42:law&Itemid=600