huxley:

Hello,

Very good questions - The first thing I would say is - Let's check the claim in law, history or any other sources that may validate the claim. If the Nigerian claims proves to be backed by these sources, I would whole-heartedly be in favour of handing the land over to Nigeria.


The Last LAST LAST thing I would even suggest is WAR.


WAR is for empty-headed people. The fact that MOST Nigerians are so much in favour of WAR suggests to me that MOST Nigerian are empty-headed. ( NOTE - I use the word "MOST" loosely, simply from the comments on this forum. It may in fact be the case that if the entire Nigerian population was surveyed, the majority may not be in favour of war)

huxley:


Hello Wirinet,

Nice to see you on this subject.  I wrote in this tone deliberately to provoke a reaction given the vitriol I had noticed on the other threat directed towards Cameroon.  It seemed to me that most Nigerians, instead of asking questions about the validity of the land claim, which would be the thing any reasoning people should do first, were rattling their sabres.  This post was really directed at those who are eager and trigger-happy to pull out the sword, rather than to engage their brain.

huxley:

Human beings are capable of being rational if we so desire or if we are conditioned to think rationally at all times. Whether this claim from Cameroon is frivolous or not, and in spite of what happened about Bakassi, this is not the time nor occasion to act emotionally. Rational thinkers do not resort to the slovenness of emotional over-reaction whatever the circumstance.

huxley:

Rationalism demands that we ask deep and search questions about ourselves and in this case, about the validity of the land claim. I was condamning the almost universal knee-jerk fashion by most people (particularly Nigerians and Cameroonians, I must say) to not engage their BRAINS, but to act rather emotionally.  Emotional rewaction is what usually drive people to WARS.  But if people learn to sit and ask the right questions first and formulate a policy and principle from their deliberation of such questions, they are more likely than not to come to a more rational and peaceful decision.

huxley:

Now, were you speaking about yourself as well when you said Nigerians are still traumatised from the loss of Bakassi?  If you are a rational person, why would that be, particularly if you are not directly connected with people or interests in the area?  For instance, if Cameroon were to cede 10000 hectares of land to Central Africa Republic, and if the inhabitants of this land are not going to be ill-treated and worse off in their new country, and if I have no direct interests there, I would NOT be bothered in the least.

Why are were you emotionally disturbed with Nigerian losing Bakassi to Cameroon?  Have you got connections there who may now find themselves in a different country?  What if these people and resettle in Nigeria and compensated for their loss of land and properties?

Man, put on your thinking cap and learn to think things throught rather than respond in the emotional fashion you have just done.

huxley:

I am very surprised and disappointed to see you make the above comment.  LAWS do not exist as an entity in nature - they exist as a result of a consensus within and between community to have a principle by which to rule and guide civil life.  Remember, LAWS are the outcome of some sort of universal consensus.  If you say things are not settle in courts, does it mean that Nigeria has not Court of Laws?  Or if it does, why does it need them?  Are all matters that are eventually settled in courts settled in an amicable fashion?

huxley:

Consider the case of a married couple going to court to settle their divorce, and supposing one of them feels particularly hard-done-by by the settlement.  And suppose divorce is granted in court amid all sorts of acrimony.  Should one or both parties continue to consider sheself/himself married because the court settlement was not done amicably?

Should an armed robber, caught in the act and found guilty in court consider himself innocent because he disputes the verdicts of the courts?
 
Your notion of the law would lead any society into chaos and incivility in a matter of seconds in people were to disregard the courts.  The fact that some countries, notably US and Israel, disregard the verdict of international courts does not mean that there are on the side of justice.  Far from it.

wirinet:

That should be expected, given the acrimonious conflict that arose due to the prologue Bakassi dispute, where some  civilians and soldiers lost their lives.  So another inkling of another conflict would trigger a very emotional response.

I disagree with the above statements. Human being are incapable of rationality at all times, especially when there is emotional attachment to the subject matter. That is why it is considered foolish for a Lawyer to handle his own case or for a doctor to operate a close family member. We are emotional creatures, and all our decisions  are in some way are controlled by emotions. The advertising sector preys on emotions so does religion.

Validity of Land claims is neither here nor there, if you go back far enough, it always boils down to Military or Political Conquests. Cameroon and Nigeria were not in existence 150million years ago, they were created as a result of Military and Political conquest by European nations. At that time we had a Benin Kingdom that reached former Dahomey. The Benin Kingdom was conquered and also divided up by the Europeans. So should be say that Benin Republic actually belong to Benin Kingdom? I strongly feel it was a crime against humanity the way we were carved up in Africa, where disunity and distrust was unnecessarily created between same people, while the Europeans enjoyed Ethnic Harmony and Homogeneity. That is the main Bane of Africa's development.

Land disputes are always an emotional issue, be it personal, tribal, national or international. People die every in family land disputes. I know because i am in the construction industry.

I said Nigeria as a country and as a people are still trying to recover from loosing Bakassi. It is an emotional topic and even the Nigerian Media avoids discussing it, and when it does you will hear lots of vitriolic abuses being aimed at the Obasanjo Government for ceding our land. Some groups have even threatened to take the former present to Nigerian courts for the action. Believe me when i say most Nigerians have not gotten over ceding of Bakassi, as is seen in the post your mentioned.

I am surprised, you are surprised by the comment. Maybe you did not take time to read the comment, considering i put it in bold letters so you do not miss it.  so here is it again. I said  Land Issues[b] Cannot Be Settled By International Law[/b].  Even though we have UN, Sovereign nations are still just that - Sovereign. So that means that the Laws of a sovereign state is supreme. If a country decides, not to sign any UN charter or treaty, that is that. The best other Sovereign states can do is to apply punitive measures or at best declare war. If Nigeria decides not to submit to World Court, there is little any one can do. And after, submitting to the World Court and got and unfavourable judgment, she can still decide to ignore the judgments  and await whatever consequences - others have done it before, so it would not be novel.

The above examples has no relevance to my statement, except you consider divorce and armed robbery part of international law.

huxley:

Hello,

Very good questions - The first thing I would say is - Let's check the claim in law, history or any other sources that may validate the claim. If the Nigerian claims proves to be backed by these sources, I would whole-heartedly be in favour of handing the land over to Nigeria.


The Last LAST LAST thing I would even suggest is WAR.


WAR is for empty-headed people. The fact that MOST Nigerians are so much in favour of WAR suggests to me that MOST Nigerian are empty-headed. ( NOTE - I use the word "MOST" loosely, simply from the comments on this forum. It may in fact be the case that if the entire Nigerian population was surveyed, the majority may not be in favour of war)

koruji:

@huxley
I guess by that measure everyone that ever had any historical claim to Cameroun land should begin checking the "history" books - the Bantus that were kicked off this area aeons ago are about to repossess their land, and the people of Cameroun can move into the world wide ocean.

How do you even define law, history or other sources as regards historical land occupation? On what basis do you set a point in time as the reference for laying claim to land? These questions apparently have no concrete answer and anybody that pretends otherwise either has submitted himself to someone else's decision or has a vested interest in their self-chosen date. In your case, the latter is very true.

The only sound basis for deciding on a disputed piece of land between nations is to conduct a time-relevant referendum on the issue. Given the protest raised by Bakassi residents OBJ should have argued for such a referendum before the UN rather than ignorantly sign away people's lives.

So, if Cameroun thinks there is a mumu next door who can be dragged through the mud of pseudo-arguments, begining with your half-baked deceit, then something else is coming. We will change the reference point for you - then we can talk.

huxley:

Hello,

Very good questions - The first thing I would say is - Let's check the claim in law, history or any other sources that may validate the claim.  If the Nigerian claims proves to be backed by these sources, I would whole-heartedly be in favour of handing the land over to Nigeria.


The Last LAST LAST thing I would even suggest is WAR.


WAR is for empty-headed people.  The fact that MOST Nigerians are so much in favour of WAR suggests to me that MOST Nigerian are empty-headed. ( NOTE - I use the word "MOST" loosely,  simply from the comments on this forum.  It may in fact be the case that if the entire Nigerian population was surveyed, the majority may not be in favour of war)

Faeb:

You are right, your logic is faultless. Most Nigerians would love to "discuss" the matter, stressing great points and like NNS Aradu, NNS Olokun and bomb trajectories to Younde. . .

[size=14pt]You dreamers will surely hear Nigerian bombs "discussing" in Younde and crushing Doula with the sound, "Ogudu!" "Ogudu!" "Ogudu!" "Ogudu!" [/size]

Very good questions - The first thing I would say is - Let's check the claim in law, history or any other sources that may validate the claim.  If the Nigerian claims proves to be backed by these sources, I would whole-heartedly be in favour of handing the land over to Nigeria

huxley:

Such a referandum has already been conducted in 1961 at the time the borders were being decided, and the people of Bakassi voted overwhelming in favour of joining Cameroon. This is an excerpt from the report I posted ealier. That decision cannot be made null and void by the fact that more Nigerians have over the years migrated and settled there.

Remember, Cameroon ceded a lot of land to Nigeria in the same period. Supposing that many Cameroonians have now settled in the land Cameroon ceded to Nigeria in the 60s, should we now conduct another referandum now to decide whether such land should remain Nigerian or returned to Cameroon?
:

=============================================================================
12. On February 11th and 12th 1961, a plebiscite was held to " clarify the wishes of the
people living in Northern and Southern Cameroons ". The population of Northern
Cameroons had earlier - in 1959 - "decided to achieve independence by joining the
independent Federation of Nigeria", while the population of Southern Cameroons, whose
plebiscite could not be done in 1959 for security reasons, now "decided to achieve
independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon" (General Assembly
resolution 1608 (XV) of 21 April 1961). Note that there were 21 polling stations on the
Bakassi peninsula itself and that 73% of the people living there voted to "achieve
independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon". (Note the blunder here.
By spelling it as "Cameroon", rather than "Cameroun", the UN created an opening for the
people of the "Southern Cameroons" to say they never voted to join "Cameroun" which is
the former French territory.


13. In 1962, the government of Tafawa Balewa exchanged diplomatic notes with
Cameroun acknowledging the fact that Bakassi was not Nigerian territory. General
Gowon was a T/Captain. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun,
following the results of the 1961 plebiscite.

huxley:

Such a referandum has already been conducted in 1961 at the time the borders were being decided, and the people of Bakassi voted overwhelming in favour of joining Cameroon.  This is an excerpt from the report I posted ealier.  That decision cannot be made null and void by the fact that more Nigerians have over the years migrated and settled there.

Remember, Cameroon ceded a lot of land to Nigeria in the same period.  Supposing that many Cameroonians have now settled in the land Cameroon ceded to Nigeria in the 60s, should we now conduct another referandum now to decide whether such land should remain Nigerian or returned to Cameroon?
:

=============================================================================
12. On February 11th and 12th 1961, a plebiscite was held to " clarify the wishes of the
people living in Northern and Southern Cameroons ". The population of Northern
Cameroons had earlier - in 1959 - "decided to achieve independence by joining the
independent Federation of Nigeria", while the population of Southern Cameroons, whose
plebiscite could not be done in 1959 for security reasons, now[b] "decided to achieve
independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon"[/b] (General Assembly
resolution 1608 (XV) of 21 April 1961). Note that there were 21 polling stations on the
Bakassi peninsula itself and that 73% of the people living there voted to "achieve
independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon". (Note the blunder here.
By spelling it as "Cameroon", rather than "Cameroun", the UN created an opening for the
people of the "Southern Cameroons" to say they never voted to join "Cameroun" which is
the former French territory.

3. During the Cameroon/Nigeria plebiscite of 1961, 21 polling stations were physically
located in the Bakassi peninsula. UN records clearly show that approximately 73% of the
people living there AT THAT TIME voted NOT to be administered under independent
Nigeria. This is fairly easy to confirm either from the UN itself or Ambassador BA Clark
who was Deputy Permanent Secretary External Affairs in 1970/71. The precise number
of polling booths and their exact locations is a matter of public record. It is fair to assume
that the vote was binding on future generations in the area. The question of whether it
could have been different - as was the case with Northern Cameroons - is one of the more
fascinating but unexamined aspects of Nigeria's history from that period. Whether the
vote meant that the people of Southern Cameroons should form their own country or be
fused with French Cameroun is another curious angle that has recently surfaced.

huxley:

If there are Nigerians out there who can read and have the faculty to understand and be rationa, please read this report (http://www.omoigui.com/files/the_bakassi_story.pdf)  in its entirety, or at least the excerpts below:

12. On February 11th and 12th 1961, a plebiscite was held to " clarify the wishes of the people living in Northern and Southern Cameroons ". The population of Northern Cameroons had earlier - in 1959 - "decided to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria", while the population of Southern Cameroons, whose plebiscite could not be done in 1959 for security reasons, now "decided to achieve
independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon" (General Assembly resolution 1608 (XV) of 21 April 1961). Note that there were 21 polling stations on the Bakassi peninsula itself and that 73% of the people living there voted to "achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon". (Note the blunder here. By spelling it as "Cameroon", rather than "Cameroun", the UN created an opening for the
people of the "Southern Cameroons" to say they never voted to join "Cameroun" which is the former French territory.

13. In 1962, the government of Tafawa Balewa exchanged diplomatic notes with Cameroun acknowledging the fact that Bakassi was not Nigerian territory. General Gowon was a T/Captain. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun, following the results of the 1961 plebiscite.

14. In January 1966, Major General Ironsi came to power in Nigeria. He committed his government to respect all prior international agreements made by the Balewa government. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun.

15. In July 1966, then Lt. Col. Gowon came to power in Nigeria. He too committed his government to respect all prior international agreements made by the Ironsi and Balewa governments. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun

16. In 1970, moves began to be made by independent Cameroun and post-civil war Nigeria to clarify their maritime border which was vaguely defined by the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun, but the offshore boundary was unclear since there was no detailed demarkation of the "navigable portion" of the approach channel to the Calabar estuary. Then Attorney General Elias correctly advised the Gowon government that post-colonial Nigeria had no legal basis for contesting the Bakassi peninsula itself, but that work to delimit the offshore boundary and
vague sections of the land boundary should proceed at full speed in accordance with the original Anglo-German Treaty of 1913. The technical problem thus became deciding exactly what part was "navigable" and what was not. It is this matter that was addressed on April 4th, 1971 at Yaoundé when Nigeria's General Gowon and Cameroun President Ahidjo, accompanied by large delegations, signed the "Coker-Ngo" Line on British
Admiralty Chart No. 3433 "as far as the 3-nautical-mile limit." The status of the Bakassi peninsula proper was not an issue for discussion. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun.

17. On June 1st, 1975, Gowon and Ahidjo signed the Maroua Declaration for the partial extension of the 1971 maritime boundary. Again, the status of the Bakassi peninsula proper was not even an issue for discussion. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun.

====================================================================================================


Now, if you did not know this,  ask yourself - Why is it you did not know this?

Were you not educated properly about the modern history of your country?  Did you not seek to educate yourself about your country's modern history? Have the media you your country failed to educate you about this?

OR are you just very simple-minded, dumb, stup1d, trigger-happy and plain ignorant, someone whom no amount of education could change your benighted?

12. On February 11th and 12th 1961, a plebiscite was held to " clarify the wishes of the people living in Northern and Southern Cameroons ". The population of Northern Cameroons had earlier - in 1959 - "decided to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria", while the population of Southern Cameroons, whose plebiscite could not be done in 1959 for security reasons, now "decided to achieve
independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon" (General Assembly resolution 1608 (XV) of 21 April 1961). Note that there were 21 polling stations on the Bakassi peninsula itself and that 73% of the people living there voted to "achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon". (Note the blunder here. By spelling it as "Cameroon", rather than "Cameroun", the UN created an opening for the
people of the "Southern Cameroons" to say they never voted to join "Cameroun" which is the former French territory.

huxley:

If there are Nigerians out there who can read and have the faculty to understand and be rationa, please read this report (http://www.omoigui.com/files/the_bakassi_story.pdf)  in its entirety, or at least the excerpts below:

12. On February 11th and 12th 1961, a plebiscite was held to " clarify the wishes of the people living in Northern and Southern Cameroons ". The population of Northern Cameroons had earlier - in 1959 - "decided to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria", while the population of Southern Cameroons, whose plebiscite could not be done in 1959 for security reasons, now "decided to achieve
independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon" (General Assembly resolution 1608 (XV) of 21 April 1961). Note that there were 21 polling stations on the Bakassi peninsula itself and that 73% of the people living there voted to "achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon". (Note the blunder here. By spelling it as "Cameroon", rather than "Cameroun", the UN created an opening for the
people of the "Southern Cameroons" to say they never voted to join "Cameroun" which is the former French territory.

13. In 1962, the government of Tafawa Balewa exchanged diplomatic notes with Cameroun acknowledging the fact that Bakassi was not Nigerian territory. General Gowon was a T/Captain. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun, following the results of the 1961 plebiscite.

14. In January 1966, Major General Ironsi came to power in Nigeria. He committed his government to respect all prior international agreements made by the Balewa government. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun.

15. In July 1966, then Lt. Col. Gowon came to power in Nigeria. He too committed his government to respect all prior international agreements made by the Ironsi and Balewa governments. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun

16. In 1970, moves began to be made by independent Cameroun and post-civil war Nigeria to clarify their maritime border which was vaguely defined by the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun, but the offshore boundary was unclear since there was no detailed demarkation of the "navigable portion" of the approach channel to the Calabar estuary. Then Attorney General Elias correctly advised the Gowon government that post-colonial Nigeria had no legal basis for contesting the Bakassi peninsula itself, but that work to delimit the offshore boundary and
vague sections of the land boundary should proceed at full speed in accordance with the original Anglo-German Treaty of 1913. The technical problem thus became deciding exactly what part was "navigable" and what was not. It is this matter that was addressed on April 4th, 1971 at Yaoundé when Nigeria's General Gowon and Cameroun President Ahidjo, accompanied by large delegations, signed the "Coker-Ngo" Line on British
Admiralty Chart No. 3433 "as far as the 3-nautical-mile limit." The status of the Bakassi peninsula proper was not an issue for discussion. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun.

17. On June 1st, 1975, Gowon and Ahidjo signed the Maroua Declaration for the partial extension of the 1971 maritime boundary. Again, the status of the Bakassi peninsula proper was not even an issue for discussion. Maps from that period show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun.

====================================================================================================


Now, if you did not know this,  ask yourself - Why is it you did not know this?

We you not educated properly about the modern history of your country?  Did you not seek to educate yourself about your country's modern history? Have the media you your country failed to educate you about this?

OR are you just very simple-minded, dumb, stup1d, trigger-happy and plain ignorant, someone whom no amount of education could change your benighted?

koruji:

@huxley
In other words Cameroun has being doing this over and over again since 1961. The question you need to ask yourself is why? Furthermore, you should look at your first item below more critically". There is something fishy with the plebiscite of 1961: 1) Security reasons prevented such a plebiscite in 1959 - what were these reasons and what changed 2 years later? ; 2) 73% voted to join Cameroon, but argued they never voted to join Cameroun - when was this Cameroon/Cameroun argument made? That should tell you something about what went down in 1961.  Whatever happened back then the truth is that Cameroun never took possession of Bakassi, neglecting it for 40 years while repeatedly making border claims - "serial border claimer"! As a result, the people never felt Camerounian and did not want to be part of Cameroun. It seems to me that 40 years from now the people living in Bakassi would continue to consider themselves Nigerians, and Cameroun would still be making border claims.

I disagree with the above statements. Human being are incapable of rationality at all times, especially when there is emotional attachment to the subject matter. That is why it is considered foolish for a Lawyer to handle his own case or for a doctor to operate a close family member. We are emotional creatures, and all our decisions  are in some way are controlled by emotions. The advertising sector preys on emotions so does religion.

If you conducted a referendum and "won", but failed to take possession of the land or secure it, whose fault is that? Why would you consider a plebiscite in 1961 relevant if conducting another one forty years later would give a different result.

Mind you, the statement "more Nigerians have over the years migrated and settled there" is not really valid. It was most likely the same group of people that grew in population over 40 years under Nigerian rule. They were neglected by Cameroun, and after 40 years of neglect their descendants simply didn't want to be Camerounians - that is the basis for a new plebiscite.

Cameroun and whoever is goading it should refrain from making any more silly claims. You can't just change people's nationality anyhow, wiping out identities they have built for themselves. Now that you have Bakassi, just make sure that 40 years hence the people would be able to proudly say they are Camerounians. Otherwise such useless land-grabbing may actually backfire if you continue to incorporate more nominal Camerounians, but actual Nigerians, in your nation. Incidentally, the write-up by Omoigui that you forwarded included this paragraph:

"Late President Ahmadou Ahidjo of Cameroun was a Fulani man whose father was originally from Kano in Nigeria. His mother was from Garoua in Cameroun. In fact Ahidjo grew up around Yola and Mubi in Nigeria and was a playmate of Senator Iya Abubakar. His former District Head in Nigeria, Ambassador Malabu, was made Ambassador to Cameroun to cement the relationship. It is said that every time late Alhaji Ahidjo saw late Alhaji Malabu he would genuflect."

The people of Bakassi voted to be independent and not join Nigeria, that did not mean they voted to join Cameroon. So because of that you people decided to twist logic by insinuation a no vote to join Nigeria means independence by joining Cameroon. Maybe Cameroon should also declare independence by joining France.


The main issue here is not Bakassi, that is settled, it is Obudu. It would be sensible not to reopen another conflict for now and besides you have not provided your reason why we should also cede Obudu to you, and after that where else?

huxley:

Are there no people today in Nigeria who are NOT neglected and marginalised by the Nigerian state? How about most of the peoples of the Delta regions, like the Ogoni - how about people in the far North West? There fact that government aid and influence does not reach them on a day-to-day basis, does the give other neighbouring countries the right to come in and claim them?

Remember, the question of Bakassi was not in dispute in 1975 and all the maps of the 60s and 70s showed Bakassi as belonging to CAmeroon. Does Cameroon need to do anything further to claim it, when it is already its territory?

wirinet:



Huxley, Huxley, Huxley. How many times did i call your name. You are twisting facts to beat a dead rat. Bakassi is in Cameroon as of today, so they is no need to lie and twist facts. We can read too you know. And thanks for providing the link, it has interesting stuff.

Your quote above makes no sense at all. How can you achieve independence by joining one independent federation instead of the other.

Below is the ACTUAL quote from the book;

The people of Bakassi voted to be independent and not join Nigeria, that did not mean they voted to join Cameroon. So because of that you people decided to twist logic by insinuation a no vote to join Nigeria means independence by joining Cameroon. Maybe Cameroon should also declare independence by joining France.


The main issue here is not Bakassi, that is settled, it is Obudu. It would be sensible not to reopen another conflict for now and besides you have not provided  your reason why we should also cede Obudu to you, and after that where else?

rethink:

@huxley
Just read below and see what a normal human being is saying. If all the lands of say the yorubas to determine an Odua or More vividly of the IGBO went to a vote to form a land and state called Biafra. Assuming the vote went in favour of Biafra even if it was Gazillion years ago so far there is proof that there was a vote the poster below says we can not respect a decision.

rethink:

Really so Nigeria should go to war to fight for the independence of Bakassi?

Is OBUDU part of Nigeria?

For some slowpoke to come to NL to say we lost Bakassi we shall lose Obudu Spiteful. I am sad that we "lost" Bakassi but it was never ours in the first place. The only reason why we are talking about it is that Obasanjo is involved.

So why did every last one of the indegenous people whose ancestral lands are in Bakassi[b] flee [/b] into Nigeria after the handover?

@rethink
It seems you are not thinking - and to think you call yourself rethink. No you don't have to respect a vote that happened a gazillion years ago, and note the following part of my argument, IF A SIMILAR VOTE AMONG PEOPLE ALIVE TODAY REJECTS THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE FROM A GAZILION YEARS AGO.

rethink:

@FAEB
Oh lord help. I cant use your brains to piss because I will urinate on my body geez. Because they fled to Nigeria makes bakassi Nigeria's? Please reason even with just your legs.

There are Nigeriens driving Okada in Nigeria does that make it the land of the Republic of Niger?

rethink:

@Kuri tio fe ji

With brains like yours I cant climb the steps or an elevator. You must be an Einstein in the Troglyditic times. I refuse to think the way you think take me to court, ,.,.,.,.,, Oh sorry you dont know what that means.