Bakassi: House of Reps Summons Adoke

11 Oct 2012
Font Size: a / A

Mr. Mohammed Adoke


By Onwuka Nzeshi and Jude Okwe

The House of Representatives Committee on Treaties and Agreements Wednesday summoned the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed Adoke (SAN), over the status of treaties and agreements signed between Nigeria and other countries.

Speaker of the House, Hon. Aminu Tambuwal, dropped the hint of the summon while declaring open a public hearing on the Amendment of the Treaties Act, organised by the House Committee on Treaties and Agreements.

Adoke’s summon came on the heels of the controversy trailing the Green Tree Agreement (GTA), in the aftermath of the 2002 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ceding Bakassi to Cameroun.

The Federal Government, despite public clamour, on Monday had ruled out seeking a review of the ICJ judgment that made Nigeria to cede Bakassi to Cameroun.

Adoke cited weak fresh facts for the action, noting that should the government bow to public pressure to seek a review of the judgment, Nigeria was bound to lose.

However, the Cross River State Government, in whose domain the oil-rich peninsula is located, faulted the Federal Government's submission just as lawmakers from the state House of Assembly marched on the streets of Calabar, the state capital, to show their grievances over the decision.

The state Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Attah Ochinke, said the state gave the Federal Government new information that could have assisted in reclaiming Bakassi.

The Federal Government’s refusal to utilise the window for a review of the judgment, angered Bakassi indigenes who are now considering teaming up with the Efik in Cross River State to form an alliance with South-west Cameroun as a prelude to seceding from Nigeria.

Tambuwal, represented by the Deputy House Leader, Hon. Leo Ogor, said Adoke needed to brief the committee on the status of all bilateral and multilateral treaties pending at the presidency.

“I think that besides the agreement on Bakassi, there are several treaties before the Attorney General of the Federation that have not been domesticated and without them been ratified by the National Assembly in line with section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, they will not have the force of law. So, the committee must engage the AGF in the course of the public hearing on the treaties pending before us,” he said.

Chairman of the committee, Hon. Ekundayo Alebiosu, said the public hearing was designed to seek the views of stakeholders on how to make a more robust guiding treaties and agreements.
Sponsor of the bill to amend the Treaties Act, Hon. Emmanuel Jime, said Nigeria needed a better Treaties Act to protect its national interests.

Bakassi indigenes, who are unhappy with the loss of the campaign for the Federal Government to reclaim their oil-rich peninsula from Cameroun, yesterday pondered on their future, which they believe does not lie within the Nigerian territory.

They are considering teaming up with their Efik kinsmen to seek an alliance with South-west Cameroun for the formation of a new country.

The protest over the Federal Government’s decision continued yesterday, as thousands of black-armband-wearing Bakassi indigenes assembled at the Calabar Cultural Centre ground from where they staged a protest march through major streets of the state capital, over the ceding of the peninsula.

The protesters, who carried placards with various inscriptions, said the forum was a “gathering of sons and daughters of Efik to seek the way forward for the Bakassi struggle”.

Their placards read: “Return Bakassi to Nigeria; Shame on those who sold Bakassi; Donald Duke Betrayed Bakassi, Our leaders do not cede our heritage away to a foreign land", and "Abacha, our hero” among others.

Those who addressed the forum said the battle to reclaim their ancestral home had just begun.

The Obong of Calabar and Grand Patriarch of Efik Kingdom, Edidem Ekpo Okon Abasi Otu (VI), in whose territory Bakassi is situated, said the land belongs to Efik Kingdom.

He said that the Efik Kingdom “will not rest on its oars until the time ownership of the area is ascertained”.

The Obong was represented by the Chairman, Etubom Traditional Council (conclave of kingmakers), Etubom Bassey Oko Bassey Duke.
Otu said the treaty for the ownership of Bakassi as an Efik entity was signed by the Obong of Calabar in the 1890s.

“Bakassi is truth. Today, the truth is being buried, it will germinate and grow again,” he said.

In his contribution, Senator Bassey Ewa Henshaw said: “Today (yesterday) October 10, will be marked as Bakassi Day annually. We will continue to mark it until the people of Bakassi are returned to their original home.”

He regretted that the whole issue surrounding the ceding of Bakassi was “fraudulent because we provided enough evidence and very soon, we will release it to the entire world to see. The people of this land will not rest until we find justice”.

The Federal Government’s refusal to utilise the window for a review of the judgment, angered Bakassi indigenes who are now considering teaming up with the Efik in Cross River State to form an alliance with South-west Cameroun as a prelude to seceding from Nigeria

Wereh kpe:
Politics / Re: Bakassi: C-river Challenges Adoke, Says ‘we Presented New Facts’ by Wereh kpe: 1:16pm On Oct 10
This is the MOST IRRESPONSIBLE GOVT i have ever heard of or seen.

U have 10 (TEN) years to prepare an appeal then at the last minute you shout "NO TIME". Rather pathetic and lame excuse for an ineffective govt

IF GEJ gave a directive to prepare an appeal. I think it should be followed to the letter. If it is not, then it means his subjects do not respect him and he has NO control over those he appoints. A weak president.

But things i do not understand are
(1) Falana claims the Nigerian government pays monthly allocations to the Bakasi people (who also claim they are Nigerians). So who is collecting these monies? Or does the govt pay the money to the Cameroonian govt? There MUST account for all these monies too then.

(2) Why did Cameroon not raise any issue during the Nigerian military regimes. I recall Abacha ordering troops there to secure the land and ordered "shoot anything there even if it is a fly carrying a Cameroonian flag". why dint Cameroon say a thing then? The obvious reason to me is dat Abacha was a ruthless leader (like any other military ruler). Very unlike the WEAK sorry ULTRA WEAK president u have now.

Such a land will not be given up by USA or Britain when they know it has oil. The Falkland island off the coast of Argentina is a good point of reference here.

But Ita-Giwa is also a major culprit in this whole affair. I suspect she has collected money (when she was in charge of the Bakassi affair under Obasanjo) to "sell" Bakassi to Cameroon. Knowlingly OR unknowlingly

Again, i wont be surprised if the French and British have simply used us to play tapaleh (draughts). The British just perhaps compensating the French by making Nigeria foolishly give Cameroon (Franco-phone country) Bakassi.

Well, like I ALWAYS say, and like Festus Keyamo, Fela Anikulapo, said WE MUST MAKE THESE LEGISLATORS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS even if it means mass riots and protest.

When u think of the fact that the Bakassi people are claiming Nigeria and the Federal Govt is denying them, I am forced to agree with the Ibos, Ojukwu and the Biafra state breakaway. after all if the country called Nigeria cant protect you or fight for your interest then why should you remain a part of it.

Such actions by the Fed Govt only sends out a wrong signal to different ethnic groups who may become agitated to break away especially at a time when the polity is getting tense

On Thursday, October 4th, barely five days to the close of the ten-year window for review, the President appeared to have had a rethink and set up a committee to examine the fresh evidence that could be taken to the Court for review and possible reversal of the verdict.


"Evidence from many members of the committee suggest there was no real meeting nor commitment by the Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Adoke, to do as the President said. Instead he issued a statement saying Nigeria would not revisit the case, as the time to do so was too short and going there would “hurt” Nigeria’s diplomatic image! Then he hinted at the possibility of a “buy-back” option."

To me, this strange fancy footwork from the Presidency amounted to a dribbling of Nigerians, and it was so shoddily done that the crass lack of will was there for all to see. We had all of ten years to seek for fresh facts. We woke up, five days to deadline, to discover time was too short! There were no fresh facts because the President and his teams were not interested in looking at what was being pushed under their nostrils. Otherwise, what did we have to lose, especially as seeking a review did not amount to disobeying the ruling of the court?