The truth about Bakassi, Nigeria and Cameroun – Bola Ajibola
On September 29, 2012 · In Special Report
4:09 am


By Bashir Adefaka
Prince Bola Ajibola (SAN), former Nigerian Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation, was on the Panel of Judges, at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which decided on the issue of Bakassi between Nigeria and Cameroun.

The former Nigerian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom took time off his busy schedule, even at 78, to narrate to Saturday Vanguard at his Hilltop GRA home in Abeokuta recently how the ceding of Bakassi to Cameroun actually occurred. Excerpts:

You were not only a serving judge at The Hague when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave its verdict ceding Bakassi to Cameroun. What really happened and what do you say about the clamour for appeal that is presently going on?[/i]

To start with, there is nothing like appeal in our International Court of Justice (ICJ). There is nothing like that.

You see what I mean? An application can be made to review certain aspects of the judgment but not strictly speaking an appeal. So, an appeal does not lie to our court there.

All they are now doing is belated and overtaken by events. What they ought to have done is to have put their house in order before even independence and immediately after independence.

To be frank, when the situation became virtually what it is today, the Ministry of Justice, in those years in early 60s, sought for legal opinion on this matter and because of what happened in 1913 in the Anglo-German Agreement, it was since then that we have this uphill task because it was Britain that ceded the whole of that Bakassi area, well described in Article 21 and 22 of that agreement, specifically to Germany.

Germany, when it suffered defeat during the Second World War, was deprived of that area and Bakassi went to France and it was France that gave independence to Cameroun and that was how Cameroun got into it.

A lot of people have been saying a lot of things that are not really correct. In most cases, we ourselves as Nigerians bastardized our position because, as far back as 1961, we had written a note to Cameroun telling Cameroun that we Nigerians are aware of the fact that they own Bakassi!

Throughout all these 1960s and 1970s, our map of Nigeria was always indicating the excise of Bakassi out of our own land in Nigeria as part of what belongs to Cameroon. In fact, it has further been stamped by the fact that we agreed that our boundary is in Akwa Yafe as opposed to Rio del Rey. If we own Bakassi, the boundary would have been in Rio del Rey and not Akwa Yafe. We agreed to that! We Nigerians in Nigeria here.

And we even at a time asked Professor Valad in Britain to advise us on the matter and that professor told us clearly that we had an uphill task, that what we thought we owned had already been transferred to Cameroun through that treaty. That is the situation.

But there are still questions to be answered, which had already been ignored or decided against by the ICJ and you can read a lot of that in my ‘dissenting opinion’. Your see, the situation is far more than what a lot of people have been talking about.

It is what has happened beyond our time, before our time. We are now raking the misfortune of yesteryears and we are now the victims of the problems that arose before now. That was at the time of our independence.

From what you have said, where and how did General Gowon, General Obasanjo and you came into this controversy because it has been said that Gowon started it, Obasanjo gave it out and you sat on the panel that decided the case against Nigeria?[i]

No. It is wrong. They are not mentioning the names that they ought to mention, which really prejudiced our case before the ICJ. They ought to mention the name of our Minister of Foreign Affairs just immediately after our independence in 1961 that really in his note gave Bakassi to Cameroun. That should be mentioned.

We are just the unfortunate victims of what had happened before our time in Nigeria. And a lot of things happened advertently and inadvertently through our regular mistakes or misfortunes.

Then, how in the first instance, did the matter get to the ICJ?

Cameroun took us to ICJ. And let me say this, that in fact it was during the time of this litigation at the ICJ on the application by Cameroun that we started changing our map to include Bakassi (laughs).

That was the obvious and the judges are human beings. They are there equipped with evidence put in by Cameroun. It’s a case of an admission that we have taken on ourselves to cede all this area to Cameroun based even upon the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty and based on what we lawyers call pacta sunt savanda.

It is very, very unfortunate that a kettle is now calling a pot black. It ought not to be at all because the mistake or the problem started right from the beginning of our independence. Those who are now shouting ought to have started shouting at that time if they could get hold of all that we did.

But why do you think the Nigerian side appeared to be complacent over the judgment that they didn’t talk about it until now?

Let me say something here. Bakassi is not the beginning and end of the whole issue. What Cameroun took us to ICJ for was not only Bakassi. It had to do with the land in Lake Chad; the land boundary between the two of us, the land boundary between Nigeria and Cameroun from Lake Chad to the Sea as well as Bakassi and the maritime boundary. The maritime limit that they asked for and that is asking for virtually all the sea boundary of our present Nigeria.

Let me say that if they had succeeded in that, we would have been in the misfortune of having no more oil, at least the foreshore oil. We would not be so privileged any longer.

But that is not the most heinous part of the action that was taken by Cameroun. Cameroun took Nigeria to court on what we call ‘state responsibility’. It’s like a criminal charge against Nigeria. If they had succeeded in that one alone, we would have been thrown into endless debt that must be payable to Cameroun.

We never allowed that to happen because we counterclaimed against them on it, which saved us the internal slavery to Cameroun and being in perpetual penury in which we would have been till today and henceforth. We did not allow that to happen to us. But that wasn’t all.

Those who are criticizing should go and look into the judgment again and they will find out that virtually we gained generally rather than losing. Because the entire land that Cameroun had occupied in Nigeria, and we were able to ascertain that belong to Nigeria on the land boundary, far exceeded that which is now claimed in Bakassi. And we were able to claim it back from them.

Could you give a bit of the details of what we gained and what do you advise the agitators for return of Bakassi to Nigeria to do?[/i]

In Chad area, we knew that it was the ceding of the water that forced our people out of that place and since the water kept drying up, we got into that situation.

We moved out of that but they also moved out of the Southern part of that Chad which they occupied and which belong to Nigeria. But I think before they start doing anything, I mean those that are now talking, they should not look into Bakassi alone because, Bakassi is not a be-all-and-earn-all of the whole things involved in this dispute.

It is the land and maritime boundary. We gained extensively considering the claim of Cameroun against us on the maritime boundary. We gained extensively in that.

They must not be myopic, they must be objective and they must look into the whole judgment before passing any judgment further on what they may likely go back to the court for.

Again, the whole dispute had three phases, I have to say. It started with the preliminary objection on admissibility and jurisdiction.

We first of all told the court that, that action is misconceived and should not be entertained. We gave eight reasons for this but the whole thing was turned down by the court and the court rejected all those reasons .

Then the case on merit. Also, before that, there was also an application on …..on certain aspects of the case.

These people should go into our archives and be well informed and be well educated on this thing and in fact the antecedents before litigations.

They should look into it. And they should look again into the history of what is Southern Nigeria and Northern Nigeria and all that moved. Because the Northern Nigeria moved into Nigeria while part of Southern Nigeria went to Cameroun. So, we need to look into all that. We need to check our facts before we start talking.

Just before stop this discussion, let me quickly ask: Why is it that our Constitution still reflects Bakassi as one of the 774 Local Governments of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and yet we believe, as a system that Bakassi has been ceded?

Whatever may be the problem with implementing a decision of the court is the internal problem of Nigeria and that, in itself, is strictly domestic. All we need to do is to check the Section 12 of our Constitution and put our house in order.

The international community is not concerned about that. Internationally judgment has been given against us with regard to Bakassi and that, they are aware of.

As a matter of fact there are so many things that one needs not come out with in this matter that could have happened disastrously to what is called Nigeria. And as a matter of fact, if we had done something else, there would be no Nigeria by now and arms conflicts would have taken over and there are so many countries in this world that are so friendly with the position of Cameroun because they are of the view that Cameroun has Bakassi.

Meaning that even if the verdict hasn’t favoured Cameroun, it could have declared war against Nigeria believing there are so many world powers that would come to its aid?[i]

They could because so many powerful countries in the world are behind Cameroun on this matter. We have seen that and we have been told about that. We are aware of that and actions are already going on, on that. So, we must be very careful.

And I repeat that we must be very careful. We must think again and we must look into the history. Those who are talking now must first of all go into the history and look at all that happened before independence and immediately after independence.

You see what I mean? And they should look into all the powers exercised by the colonial masters and all the international agreements and treaties. It is worth looking at and, perhaps, they should read my Dissenting Opinion.

Showing comments by Nigerians

omokaro1

Prince Bola Ajibola is a fucking human being that needs to be ignore! If he is not a liar, why was the right of bakassi people not acknowledged by ICJ?

kelvin99

I'm so sorry but this guy sounds like a coward,now I know why we lost the case at Hague court.Imagine who represented us in such a sensitive case,shame.

NWA_Africa

It
is strange that Ajibola is talking like this; you and OBJ should be ashamed of
how you allowed Bakassi to go to Cameroun. Gowon and OBJ prepared and fought Biafra
but the same OBJ fears Cameroun because of their so called war power that will
assist them. This is arrant nonsense. Prince Bola, please tell us the war
France have entered and won? So the money our military is getting every month
is for what? If we fears Cameroun because of France then it is better that we immediately
disband our so called army as they are not worthy to called Nigeria Army. Tomorrow
Benin Republic we come and we will run away because of world power.



Onwuzurigbo

I have no pity for Bakassi. It was sold by the Hausa and Yoruba and abandoned by its own South South son.



tony

jesus!!no wonder jonathan keep mute on this matter..he is listening to this type of people all along..why do we have to chicken out because so called powerful countries are behind cameroundid argentina back off from their land tussle with britain simply because britain is more powerful and have powerful allies..prof achebe put it in the most simplest way..the trouble with nigeria is purely bad leadership..How can this ajibola be saying that treaties made by alien powers supersede the rights of indigenes of the placeif its true that nigeria started including bakkassi from 1961 why did gowon allow cameroun to man bakkassi area during the civil warmr ajibola said that nigeria failed to put their house in order at independence but refuse to say what exactly happened and what the status quo was before and after independence..cameroun was able to win bakkassi by doing what every land grabber does..they place their claims deep into nigeria and nigeria see themselves struggling to reclaim what rightfully belong to them ..I know that ajobode must have read prof ofonagoro's submission on this matter,i didnt see him rejecting the treaty between germany and britain,ofonagoro's stance was what make abacha to send troops to protect bakkassi..lastly why is OBj in a hurry to sign the green tree when he knows that there can be review??what is he afraid ofi have heard people said that nigeria will lose face if it ask for review..what face do nigeria have when they were beaten by little camerounwe have jerks and idiots as leaders..sorry i have to put it this way..

MORE FACTS COMING ON THE HEEL OF BAKASSI ISSUE AND THE NEED TO ASK FOR REVIEW OF THE ICJ RULING

Bakassi people rally as controversy trails Elias, Wachuku positions
On September 29, 2012 · In Headlines
12:54 am


By HUGO ODIOGOR
Displaced indigenes of Bakassi Peninsula will hold rallies in different parts of the world today to highlight the injustice that has been visited on them by the ceding of their homeland by the Federal Government without their consent.

With less than 10 days for the Jonathan led administration to take a second look at the October 1 2002 ,International Court of Justice judgment that ceded the Peninsula to Cameroon where there is apprehension as the Central African country tightens its grip.

Saturday Vanguard was reliably informed that the indigenous Bakassi population would hold rallies in Lagos, Abuja, Calabar, London, Germany, France, The Hague among others.

They said that the foundation for the ceding of Bakassi by the Federal Government was laid by a clause in an advise given to the government by the former Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Chief Taslim Oluwole Elias, during the Yakubu Gowon’s regime, that Nigeria should allow Cameroon take over the peninsula because of the country’s assistance to it during the Nigeria- Biafran civil war, wondering why some indigenous communities would be donated to another country based on such flimsy excuses.

Bakassi protesters Photo by Johnbosco Agbakwuru

Elias, had in his advise entitled ‘’Nigeria/ Cameroun Boundary Demarcation,” dated September 3, 1970 stated, ’The principle of good faith in international relations demands that Nigeria should not disavow her word of honour,” adding that ‘’every effort should be exerted on our side to ensure that Nigeria does not show ingratitude to a sister country that stood by us during the civil war.

Accordingly, I strongly urge that these recommendations of the Nigerian – Cameroun’s Joint Boundary Commission dated August 14, 1970 should be implemented expeditiously…”

The Jonathan administration seem not prepared to comply with Article 61 of the ICJ Charter by approaching the court to review the judgment obtained by concealment of vital facts from the world jurists by both Nigeria and Cameroon.

This is even as Cameroon is alleged to be massing troops in the borders just as the movement of indigenes of Bakassi into Nigeria is heavily monitored.

According to sources, Bakassi people are also cut off from streams of information while efforts have been intensified by Cameroon to force thousands of the natives to change their names and language to French and to leave the peninsula in violation of the Green Tree Agreement, GTA.

Mr. Ani Esin, a former local government Chairman for Bakassi Local Government told Saturday Vanguard that since the uproar in Nigeria, following the publications by the Vanguard Newspaper, the Cameroonian government has been emboldened by the reluctance of the Federal government to demand for a revisit of the ICJ rulings to send troops into the peninsula to expel the indigenous population; force them out of their territory and occupy their property.

He said “The people of Bakassi who had hoped that the Jonathan administration will revisit to issue have become dejected as it appears that those who gave away Bakassi would not want to be exposed for the injustice committed against us. This is why the Pirate confraternity has been mobilising the public for a mass rally while we explore the option of forming a government in exile to continue the struggle after October 10, 2012”.

It was learnt that in Yaounde, the Cameroonian authorities are in panic following revelations that ICJ was misled into believing that the moribund 1913 Anglo-German treaty and the unsigned 1975 Maroua declarations were the only legal documents that set the Land and Maritime boundaries between Nigeria and the Cameroun.

The Legal Opinion of Justice T.O. Elias

Meanwhile, the last may not have been heard of the administrative and legal tardiness that were employed to mislead the ICJ to concede Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.

Specifically, the legal opinion provided by Chief Elias and the Diplomatic Note written by Mr. Aja Wachuku as the External Affairs Minister have come up for scrutiny.

Some members of Nigerian defence team have continued to cite those documents as evidences that Bakassi Peninsula was part of Cameroon based on the 1913 Anglo German Treaty, which some claimed that Nigeria was obliged to uphold on attainment of independence on October 1,1960.

Prince Bola Ajibola SAN, who wrote a minority judgement at the Hague told Saturday Vanguard the Nigeria’s case was weakened ‘’because of what happened in the 1913 in the Anglo-German Agreement,” pointing out that, ‘’it was since then that we have this uphill task because it was Britain that ceded the whole of that Bakassi area, well described in Article 21 and 22 of that agreement, specifically to Germany.”

However, it has been discovered the agreement dated March 11, 1913 was not signed until Germany was defeated during the First World War, hence it was deprived of the Bakassi Peninsula as Bakassi was ceded to France, which thereafter, gave independence to Cameroun that now got involved in the boundary dispute.

Both Senator Ewah Bassey- Henshaw and Prof. Walter Ofonagoro told Saturday Vanguard that the documents cited by the Nigerian defence team were ‘’mischievously used to mislead those who are not familiar with the issues especially to achieve a predetermined goal.”

Senator Henshaw said that until recently, most Nigerian government officials have regarded the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty as a living document but it was fundamentally flawed by the fact that it was not signed before the outbreak of the First World War after which Germany was stripped of all its colonial territories, making the treaty useless.

It was of no effect because all German territories were transferred to the League of Nations. Hensahaw further said, “those who have been citing the Aja Wachuku Diplomatic note and Dr. T.O Elias legal opinion have substantially relied on the belief that the Anglo- Nigeria Treaty was a living document, but this is not true.”

Also, Nella Andem Rabana SAN who was part of Nigeria’s team to the Hague said nations do not concede territories on exchange of diplomatic note or on legal opinion that are outside the stipulations of the parliament, which was one of the key institutions on Nigeria’s attainment of independence in 1960. Bakassi Peninsula was recognised as part of the Nigerian territory in the 1963 Constitution and in the Cairo 1964 OUA summit, it was resolved that all colonial boundaries inherited at independence should be inviolated.

Furthermore, Prof. Ofonagoro said Nigeria and Cameroon decided to bind themselves with a document that was dead and had no force of law. He said “It is evident that Dr. Elias placed extra-ordinary weight on the work of the Nigeria/Cameroon Joint Commission which met at Yaoundé from August 12 to 14, 1970.

He said, ‘’The major decisions taken at that meeting, after considerable discussion”, was that the Joint Commission agreed to use the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty” as the basis for demarcating the boundary. It is obvious that this decision was made without seeking guidance from either the Attorney General, or the Honorable Minister of Transport through the office of the Head of State, otherwise, Dr. Elias would not be referring to decisions reached at the Yaoundé meeting of August 12-14, 1970.

The vital decision had been taken at that meeting of the Joint Commission, at which the most senior Nigerian official present was the Federal Director of Surveys. Once that decision had been taken, there was no escaping the implications of Article 20 of the Anglo-German Treaty of March 11, 1913, which stipulated that;

“Should the lower course of the Akwa Yafe so change its mouth as to transfer it to the Rio Del Rey, it is agreed that the area now known as the Bakassi peninsula shall remain German territory. In the said Legal Opinion, Dr. Elias further drew attention to “the exchange of notes between Nigeria and the United Kingdom on October 1, 1960 which binds Nigeria to honour obligations entered into on our behalf by the United Kingdom.

The implication of this statement is that the External Affairs Ministry considered the 1913 Agreement as one of the pre-independence treaties entered into by Britain on Nigeria’s behalf. The diplomatic Note which was cited as evidence that the Bakassi peninsula was based on the above assumption. Dr. Elias did not, however, make any pronouncement on the legal validity of that treaty.

He only referred to decisions already taken by the Yaoundé meeting of the Nigerian-Cameroon border commission to adopt the 1913 Treaty as the basis for their boundary demarcation negotiations.

The commitment had already been made in August 12-14, of 1971 and he was of the opinion that Nigeria was bound by it.In fact, the Nigerian legal team at the ICJ had this to say about the legal validity of the Anglo-German Agreement of March 11, 1913:

In relation to the Treaty of Versailles, Nigeria points out that Article 289 thereof provided for “the revival of pre-war bi-lateral treaties concluded by Germany on notification to Germany by the other party.” It contends that since Great Britain had taken no steps under Article 289 to revive the Agreement of March 11, 1913, it was accordingly abrogated.

‘’Former President Shehu Shagari was advised that the treaty was voidable by a Task Force that he appointed in 1981, to study the controversial 1913 Anglo-German Treaty. The committee concluded that the 1913 Agreement was voidable.

This was also the position reached by Professor Bassey Atte in a study of this subject saying that the 1913 Anglo-German Agreement “which purported to alter the status quo to Nigeria’s disadvantage, is subject to great controversy as to its legality.”

Prof. Ofonanagoro argued further that the opinion of Elias on the matter was limited by the fact that he was not at the Yaoundé Summit of the two Heads of State, on April 4, 1971, and that the famous Ngo/Coker, was first drawn to a 3-mile limit from the Akwa Yafe River, westwards to the channel of the Cross and Calabar Rivers, placing Bakassi on the Cameroonian side of this new boundary.”

“If Dr. Elias knew about this boundary by September 3, 1970, eight months before Yaoundé Summit, where the Ngo/Coker line was agreed , then it means that at the highest level of the Nigerian Government, the level of the Attorney General, and presumably, his boss, the Head of State, the decision had already been taken at that time, to ignore the provision of Article 21 of the Anglo-German Treaty of March 11, 1913, and draw the boundary to the west of the Akwa Yafe River.

”In practice, the navigable channel of the Akwa Yafe was invariably forced to flow to the Bakassi north shore, and East to the Rio del Rey, and the British stated this fact in Article 20: which stated that, “Should the lower course of the Akwa Yafe so change its mouth as to transfer it to the Rio Del Rey, it is agreed that the area now known as Bakassi peninsula shall still remain German territory. Even by Article 20 of this Treaty, Bakassi is not ceded to German Cameroon; the article simply says that Bakassi shall still remain German territory.

This means that it was already “German territory” before the date of the drafting of Article 20 of that treaty. That being the case, Cameroon still has to produce the documentary basis of Bakassi becoming “German territory” in the first place.

There must be some documentary basis of Bakassi becoming German territory between April 14, 1893 and March 13, 1913, since the language of the Treaty says that Bakassi shall still remain German territory, even when by the flow of the boundary, following Akwa Yafe to Rio del Rey, it finds itself on the British side of the boundary. This is most strange to treaty law.

”In 1907, when the British and Germans had agreed that the Boundary should progress inland from the Thalweg of the Akwa Yafe, the Germans had requested for the frontier to be continued out to sea after reaching the mouth of the Akwa Yafe, all the way to the middle of the channel of the mouth of the old Calabar River.

However, according to minutes recorded by Mr. Strachey of the Foreign Office, Britain refused this request and told the Germans the “line should follow the shore of the Bakassi peninsula along the thalweg of the Akwa Yafe when the actual mouth of the river was reached.

It is therefore clear that as far back as 1907, it was generally known by both powers, that the navigable channel of the Akwa Yafe could never put Bakassi on the Cameroonian side of the border, since that channel must lie to the east of the Calabar and Cross River channels.

The heavier flow of these two bigger rivers would always force the Akwa Yafe east to Bakassi shore and the Rio Del Rey. Most often, the channel disappeared altogether, and was extremely difficult to find.

More comments on Bakassi sell out

abiamone

Gowon was too young, too immature and very uneducated during the Nigeria-Biafra war. He was no match for Ojukwu in any way. So as head of state, afraid of losing a part of his country, he had every reason to do anything to win the war, and ceding Bakassi to Cameroon was one such option. After the war he went to Warwick University in England where he obtained a PhD. What is baffling Nigerians now is his total silence over this issue. Have we Nigerians no right to ask him to tell us what exactly happened?
We have never read or heard of a sovereign nation who happily gave away its territory. President Jonathan is older than Gowon when the latter was head of state. President Jonathan is more educated as at the time he became head of state. There is no break-away war facing Jonathan. Why, then, shouldn't Jonathan understand that Gowon gave away Bakassa under duress?

Naijaa

May be there wont be much to loot in Bakkassi

ogunjobi

Brothers and sisters the people should decide, the best solution is memo, nobody knows how much money our corrupt political leaders received and gave to Cameroun.what a shame

From Dr Prof Ogunjobi

Villageboy_75

It's a matter of legal principles! Nigerian counsels depended solely ab initio on the following three legal principles of international law to argue our case at the ICJ and are still relying on them as the fresh facts the Bakassi indigenes claim to possess show, (1) the principle of historical consolidation (2) the principle of effectiveness (effective & undisturbed administration) and (3) the principle of critical date; but unfortunately since the Burkina Faso v. Mali case of 1986 (see ICJ Law Reports 1986 p. 554) the court has permanently adopted the legal principle of "uti possidetis juris" informally called "the Burkina Faso Principle" (which states that agreements concluded by colonial powers in maritime delimitation and cession of parcels of land are legally binding on the colonies even after independence) to the 'nearly total exclusion' of other legal principles in land and maritime delimitation;

Cameroun relied heavily on the Anglo-German Agreement of 1913 to prove the "uti possidetis juris" principle and won! And by established practice the ICJ "can only" consider the other three principles of International Law as the basis of its judgement in the absence of the principle of "uti possidetis juris''! The only blunder we made was that our legal counsels should have been wise enough to advise the Federal Government not to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the ICJ and in this case the legal suit wouldn't have been filed initially unilaterally as before such cases are heard and determined the two states parties to the litigation in question must explicitly acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Court in delimiting their borders (see ICJ statutes); this is the same thing the then Ambassador of the UK told OBJ during the Press Conference in Abuja following the pronouncement of the judgement (reported by ThisDay Newspapers two days after the judgement in 2003) that Nigeria shouldn't have agreed to go to court in the first place and that now that the judgement has been pronounced that Nigeria doesn't have any other option than to comply else Cameroun may petition the Security Council which will be bad for our national image!

Our only weapon now is to prove that the Anglo-German Agreement of 1913 which the ICJ used as the basis of its "uti possidetis juris" principle to judge in favour of Cameroun was forged as the indigenes of Bakassi are now claiming, and if proved would secure us our victory and if not would be another national embarrassment for us!

PAPII

I will considered Jonathan Traitor if he fails to appeal this Judgement,The next thing he will make arrests and say the actions of the protesters are capable of causing unrest while at this point he refused to listen to reason even if he has conceded to give up Bakassi at-least he shld put up a fight by appealing and continue the process until a capable hand is voted in by 2015 because conceding Bakassi easily shows weakness and lack of direction as our leader . Nigeria should act now and avert this shame , all over the world Nigeria is a laughing stock deported at any little act and considered as rouges not minding our hardworking nature . We need a Passionate Leader a True Nationalists who loves Nigeria to Lead not the Weakling Jonathan whoes only agenda is how to return to Aso Rock by 2015 but time will tell nd history will remember him a the weakest leader in the world.

omokaro1

Inspite of these evidences that bakassi belong to nigeria, there is still no sign of reclaiming it back by jonathan. But if it were to be bayelsa for example, i suppose the president would have long acted with no delay.

omokaro1

Inspite of these evidences that bakassi belong to nigeria, there is still no sign of reclaiming it back by jonathan. But if it were to be bayelsa for example i suppose the president would have long acted with no delay.

pobiokor

The idea to cede Bakassi to Cameroun ultimately lies in the hands of the Bakassi people. Here is why.

Nigeria has played hide and seek with Bakassi on the heels of the British. The Caerounians seems enthusiastic about owning Bakassi but have been overly cautious because of the disenfranchisement of the Germans in World War II. But Nigeria, all along, was confused by the miasma of British colonialism with regards to Bakassi. So here is confusion! A confusion deeply ingrained in Nigeria's phychi about whether or not Bakassi should be a constitutional part of Nigeria. If that is the case, then Nigeria should make herself clear and move to close ranks with Cameroun on Bakassi at once. If not, Nigeria should announce it's lack of interest.

Too much is being said about Bakassi already. The question is what do the Bakassi people want? Nigeria, Cameroun, or total independence?

I don't think anybody, and certainly not the Bakassi people should be put in position of uncertainty. IT IS WRONG!!!


Yeswecan Collapse

Please can somebody explain to me why Aja Wachukwu's name is being bandied about here. Is he not from the East?


Haneah X

There is too much bukuru and legalese in these opinions. It is irrelevant. A portion of our territory was given away under false pretenses. Let's just get it back. For those in power who are being misguided, please remember that Bakassi is 4 times the size of Lichtenstein ( a country in Europe) and 10 times its population. It is rich in oil - much richer than Lichtenstein so their future is not limited to the options of either being in Cameroun or Nigeria. They could choose to be independent. The world has changed since 2002. Such a move for independence could be concluded very quickly even in the face of military incursion by Cameroon. Let's do the right thing.

3 Likes

@ op, only your post & 3 comments from you filled the whole space on nairaland. Why do you have to waste your free megabytes on other people‘s issue? Take ur time o...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAN2igqSXLE&feature=player_embedded

Bakassi hand-over was the height of 'Executive lawlessness' - Femi Falana

That is Nigeria for us. We v been battling with the syndrome-of-incompetence leaders since the deceased of Ersthwhile; Herbert Macaulay, Nnamdi Azikwe to mention few
NA GOD WE SAVE US O!