₦airaland Forum

Green Tree Agreement: Bakassi indigenes drag FG to court

Embattled indigenes of Bakassi in Cross River State, on their part yesterday dragged the Federal Government before a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja with a view to securing an order quashing the Green Tree Agreement that Nigeria entered with Cameroon in 2006.The suit was endorsed by nine executives of Free Bakassi Association, Prince Imoh Ukpa Imoh, Mr Godwin Ukpong, Mr Chritian A. Umoh, Mr Anthony Achibong Ukong, Mr Kingsley Edu, Mr Etim Ekpeyong Ndong, Mr Offiong Anying Ekpeyong, Bassey Okon Osua and Bassey Ikoedem Antiga.

In a motion ex-parte that was moved in court yesterday by their counsel, Mr Festus A. Ogwuche, the applicants, sought leave for an order of mandamus that would compel the Federal Government to by any means available to it, repossess, occupy and take full legal and administrative control of the Bakassi Peninsula.

The motion was filed

pursuant to section 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights(Enforcement and Ratification Act Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, as well as Order 34 Rules 1(a), 3(1) and (2) of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2007.

Contending that the controversial judgment of the International Court of Justice, ICJ, which in 2002, ceded the oil- territory to the Republic of Cameroon, amounted to a nullity being contrary to the fundamental principle upon which the court was established, the applicants, adduced 95-legal grounds why Nigeria should forthwith appeal the verdict.

Besides, they sought leave for an order of mandamus, compelling the Federal Government, President Goodluck Jonathan and the Attorney General of the Federation, who were all joined as respondents in the suit, to “unilaterally resile from, withdraw, rescind, repudiate and/or revoke Nigeria’s obligations under the Green Tree Agreement entered into between Nigeria and Cameroon in Green Tree, New York, USA on the 12th day of June, 2006, for its being invalid and in breach of Articles 1, 2, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 1(2) of the UN Charter, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of indigenous peoples, and being inconsistent with sections 1-3, 2(1) and (6), 13, 14(1) and (2)(b), 17(1), (2)(b), (c ) and (d), sections 19(a) and 9d0, 21(a) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).”

The applicants, argued that the ICJ gave its judgment on the protracted dispute over ownership of the oil rich Bakassi Peninsula, based “on archaic and anachronistic colonial declarations, and communications between colonial officers.”

Meanwhile, presiding Justice Gabriel Kolawole adjourned ruling on the application till October 9, saying he needed time to carefully peruse the court processes in view of “weighty national issues raised therein.”

Specifically, it is the contention of the Bakassi indigenes that the ICJ, “in reaching its decision, relied on: (a) Henderson-Flerichau Exchange of Notes of 1931, (b) The Anglo-German Agreement of 11th March and 12th April, 1913 and (c) The British Order-in-Council of 2 August, 1946.

“The ICJ gave the decision as though the territory is occupied by wild animals without any rights under municipal or international law, and treated the colonial declaration and communication as conferring absolute proprietary rights and obligations to the territory to persons or entities outside the people who for centuries lived and existed therein and of which the territory is their homeland.

“The treaty, signed years before Nigeria came into existence as a sovereign entity was a “Treaty of protection” conferring limited “protectionist” rights on Britain and cannot by any shade of imagination translate to sovereignty or absolute power of transfer of title, sufficient to extinguish the rights of the kings and chiefs to the traditional over lordship of the territory and/or give Britain an absolute right to alienate their rights and interests unilaterally without the free prior consent and authority of the chiefs and kings.

“The respondents are hereby given notice to produce the said treaty of 10th September 1884 which the applicants put in their possession upon the proceedings in the ICJ.”

More so, the applicants said they were neither consulted nor was their consent sought before former President Olusegun Obasanjo endorsed the Green Tree Agreement, saying they were totally kept out of the picture of things prior, during and even after the execution of the Agreement.

“The applicants only got notice of the Agreement via media reports and grapevine, and upon contact with their representatives in the state and National Assemblies, were told that nobody was either consulted nor was aware of such agreement.

“ Before the applicants could realize what is happening, they were told that for them to remain as Nigerians, they are required to vacate their ancestral home and move into settlements to be built, constructed and maintained by the respondents, or else, if they opt to remain in their fatherland, they should be prepared to remain as Cameroonians.

“The applicants are scattered in different parts of the country, as in Delta State, Bayelsa, Rivers State, Akwa Ibom, etc, living under the basest form of human degradation embodying all the pains and sufferings that could be experienced by man, existing in makeshift pre-civilization abodes having only trees as cover against rain and shine, and other vagaries of the weather, which are most times inclement.

“The members of the applicant community are dying in their numbers everyday from afflictions of disease, poverty, malnutrition, squalor, etc, and there is no end to their suffering, humiliation, degradation of their human essence and homelessness.

“The Cameroonians changed the names of their communities and altered every existing tradition structure or monument which they could not destroy to suit their whims and purposes and destroyed and obliterated the very essence of their origins.

“The applicants do not have direct access to the ICJ , as by virtue of the statute of the ICJ, only states are recognizable parties before it, and have employed all existing measures to prevail upon the respondents to go back to the ICJ and undo the havoc they have caused in their lives, all to no avail.

“The applicants’ dehumanization is worse than animals, more humiliating than slavery, and degrading to the basest form of inhumanity, and is unpalatable and unacceptable in a 21st century world.

“The applicants are under the direct traditional authority and suzerainty of the Obong of Calabar and are forever subjects to the Royal Office and paraphernalia of the Obong’s stool, which is also their cultural and spiritual guardian and guidance; the applicants cannot in any way be extricated from their historical cultural roots which are tied inextricably to their kiths and kin in Cross Rivers State, Nigeria.

“Furthermore, the applicants cannot have their land in one country and be citizens of another country, and the respondents cannot impose their nationality on them as their right to a nationality is guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“By the failure of the ICJ judgment to conform to this basic principle of justice, renders it null and void, and thus, the ceding of the applicants homeland to Cameroon is anchored on nothing and is bound for the ground.

“Under international law, the 1st -3rd respondents do not have any obligation to obey the ICJ judgment, and is not bound by the Green Tree Agreement to take the territory belonging to the applicants to the Republic of Cameroon without their free, prior and informed consent, hence the need for the 1st -3rd applicants to quickly return to the Hague to untie what they have intricably and unlawfully knotted,” they added.

Finally, the only option left for Nigeria now is to buy back Bakaasi frm the republic of Cameroon.

The last has not been heard of this Bakassi saga, now we know Ministerial cabal numero uno- Adoke, AGF:

The spontaneous excitement that trailed the announcement of the formation of a team by President Goodluck Jonathan to work towards the review of the International Court of Justice ruling on the Bakassi peninsula is being cut short following alleged frantic attempt by a top government functionary to stall the work of the committee.

Saturday Vanguard gathered that since the formation of the committee to review the ICJ’s ruling some top government functionaries opposed the review have refused to attend any meeting where moves to ask the ICJ to review the ruling would be concretised

Tagged: Cameroon, Central Africa, Governance, Nigeria, West Africa
3 OCTOBER 2012http://allafrica.com/stories/201210041144.html
Comment
Prof Walter Ofonagoro in this segment argues that the Law No.126 of 1954, placed Bakassi in Nigeria, and not in Cameroon, at independence. This shows that Rio del Rey has remained the Boundary since 1893.

The Boundary Law No. 126 of 1954. Let us return briefly to the Boundary law No. 126 of 1954. That law referred to the Southern Boundary of Eastern Nigeria as the "Sea".

There is, therefore, no doubt that the Sea referred to in that boundary law was the Sea at the South shore of Bakassi Peninsula. The border is on the Western bank of the Rio Del Rey, and that entire Western bank is the Ports limit.

That law is still in force. What this means in effect, is that Britain never passed on any Bakassi inheritance to the Cameroons. Britain had simply returned Bakassi to its original owners before leaving Nigeria.

Consequently, Nigeria is the one with the title to Bakassi. Therefore, under the principle of the inviolability of inherited Colonial boundaries declared by the OAU Resolution AHG/Res. 16 (1) of the Organization of African Unity, in Cairo, Egypt, on July 21, 1964, the Uti Possidetis, Ubi Possidetis, so far as the Rio Del Rey boundary is concerned, belongs to Nigeria. Definition of the "Sea" as the Southern Border of Eastern Region of Nigeria, in the Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria, 1960; and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1963.

We have noted that the Boundaries Definition Law No.126 of 1954, defined the southern boundary of the Eastern Region of Nigeria as "the Sea". Article 134 (6) of the Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria, 1960, states that "the continental shelf of the Region shall be deemed part of that Region."

This same provision is repeated in Article 140 (6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1963. At independence, Nigeria was a true federation, and Law No. 126 of 1954 defined the territories of the Federation of Nigeria, in terms of the territories of its component units.

The only territory belonging to the Federal Government of Nigeria under the 1960 and 1963 Constitutions as defined by the Boundaries Definition Law No.126 of 1954, was the Federal Capital Territory of Lagos. Thus, the continental shelf of Eastern Nigeria, in 1960, included the land under the seas off-shore Bakassi Peninsula.

That was why the Eastern Region, and after 1967, its successor littoral states of south-eastern Cross River, Akwa Ibom, Rivers and Bayelsa, have continued to enjoy off-shore oil derivation revenues from the Federal Government. This constitutional confirmation, makes Bakassi part of the territory of the Eastern Region, and part of the territory of Cross River State, because the east end boundary of Eastern Nigeria at the Rio del Rey is right on the Bakassi Peninsula.

Thus, clearly, the Law No.126 of 1954, placed Bakassi in Nigeria, and not in Cameroon, at independence. This shows that Rio del Rey has remained the Boundary since 1893.

In a recent advertisement in The Punch Newspaper of August 3, 2012, the Government of Cross River stated, in connection with the matter of the 76 oil wells dispute with Akwa Ibom State: "The dispute over the 76 oil wells is simple.

The territory and oil wells have always been in Cross River State as part of Bakassi, Akpabuyo and Calabar South Local Government Areas. Because Bakassi has been handed over to Cameroon, Akwa Ibom State now wants to take over this portion of Cross River State which did not go to Cameroon".

The Nigerian Supreme Court, without waiting for parliamentary ratification of the Agreements, on the basis of which the ICJ made its controversial ruling, has already implemented it by ruling that Cross River State is no longer a Littoral State.

The significant point here is that the Federal Government signed into international law, the Ngo/Coker line of demarcation of sea frontiers between Nigeria and Cameroon, since June 1, 1975, and the Yaoundé I and II Declarations of August 14, 1970 and April 4, I971, ignoring the Nigerian International Border which we inherited at independence, which had been there since 1893, and allowed Cameroon to be drilling Nigerian oil, even at the cost of destroying the old Calabar River Navigable Channel since 1971.

Calabar river navigable channel

What this means is that Nigeria has been maintaining two international boundaries since 1970-75, the one, at Rio Del Rey is the legal one. It is inviolable, and therefore not nullifiable, by an established principle of international law. The other is, the Ngo/Coker line, drawn and signed by General Gowon himself, on the advice of his Director of Surveys, at the Yaoundé meeting, where he reached an agreement with his Cameroonian counterpart, Alhaji Ahmadu Ahidjo, who also signed.

Some scholars, both Cameroonian and Nigerian have stated that during their one-on-one meeting in April 1971, President Ahidjo asked his surveyor to produce a map, and stop arguing, and turned to his Nigerian guest, and asked him to indicate the spot on the map where the Thalweg of the Akwa Yafe River should start, to draw out the three mile line which should indicate where the maritime demarcation should begin. Surveyor Coker pointed to a spot and General Gowon drew the line.

It turned out not to be the center of the navigable channel of the Akwa Yafe River, which the Treaty of March 11, 1913 stated, must be wholly to the East of the Navigable Channels of the Cross River and Calabar River:

"The line that General Gowon drew, on the advice of Chief Coker, was not the Navigable Channel of the Akwa Yafe River, instead, it ran into a ridge, and cut across the Navigable Channels of the Cross and Calabar Rivers, which the British had intended, (with German agreement), to be completely on the Nigerian side, west of Akwa Yafe channel".

Drawn out to its nautical limit of 18 miles, it gave away to Cameroon a huge area of the seas off-shore Cross River State, and brought Cameroonian oil drilling platforms right into the navigable channel of the Calabar River, since April 1971. What did Nigeria do?

She went right in there and sank her own drilling rigs. In 1972, the Nigerian Ports Authority was instructed by Commodore Wey, to dredge a new Navigable Channel for Calabar Port, this time, more to the West of the old one.

The only problem is that the new one is dangerously close to the Ibeno Springs, a whirlpool area, in the Sea, close to the Ibeno shore, which has been pronounced a hazard to shipping. Every Head of State, including General Gowon, has rejected and denounced that line, and that includes General Muritala Mohammed, General Obasanjo (1977), President Shagari, President Babangida, and General Abacha.

The Supreme Military Council refused to ratify it in 1971 and 1975, but because it had been signed, Nigeria was caught! It was on that line, trickishly extorted from General Gowon by Alhaji Ahidjo that the World Court decision has been based. It was not drawn as stipulated in Article 21 of the "dead" Agreement of March 11, 1913, "due wholly East of the Calabar and Cross River Navigable channels".

Instead, it was drawn West across the two channels of Calabar and Cross River. It destroyed them both for the purposes of Marine Navigation. Can the Ngo/Coker line be therefore said to have been established as stipulated in Article 21 of the Treaty of March 11, 1913? Certainly not.

(Reuters) - Nigeria's President Goodluck Jonathan on Thursday ordered a review of an international ruling that handed the oil-rich Bakassi peninsula to its neighbor Cameroon a decade ago.

His decision came a week after Nigeria's Senate called on him to appeal the 2002 ruling made by the International Court of Justice that Bakassi belonged to Cameroon. The appeal period expires in a few days, the statement from the presidency said.

Nigeria finally gave up Bakassi in 2008, after years of political disputes, legal skirmishes and violence that killed dozens of people.

"The president has set up a committee to look at the option of reviewing the ruling," the statement said, adding that this had been concluded after talks with Vice President Namidi Sambo and Senate President David Mark.

Nigeria has dozens of committees, which often to do not lead to significant action.

Senators had argued that the judgment was unfairly based on an agreement between the British and local chiefs in 1881, and it should therefore be subjected to a referendum monitored by the United Nations.

The two African countries, which nearly went to war over Bakassi on several occasions, seemed to have put the issue behind them of late, and had even agreed to work together to explore for oil in the region.

Around 90 percent of the population of the peninsula, estimated at 200,000 to 300,000, regard themselves as Nigerian fishermen and their families who do not want to be Cameroonians.

A movement called the Bakassi Self-Determination Front in August declared independence from Cameroon, hoisting a flag and setting up an FM radio station. It is not clear how big the movement is or what it is capable of.

(Writing by Tim Cocks; Editing by Alison Williams)

Nigeria president to revisit Cameroon Bakassi dispute


inShare
Share this

Email
Print
Analysis & Opinion
Nigeria resumes haj trips to Mecca, ending row over unaccompanied women
Related Topics
World »
United Nations »
ABUJA | Thu Oct 4, 2012 9:05am EDT
(Reuters) - Nigeria's President Goodluck Jonathan on Thursday ordered a review of an international ruling that handed the oil-rich Bakassi peninsula to its neighbor Cameroon a decade ago.

His decision came a week after Nigeria's Senate called on him to appeal the 2002 ruling made by the International Court of Justice that Bakassi belonged to Cameroon. The appeal period expires in a few days, the statement from the presidency said.

Nigeria finally gave up Bakassi in 2008, after years of political disputes, legal skirmishes and violence that killed dozens of people.

"The president has set up a committee to look at the option of reviewing the ruling," the statement said, adding that this had been concluded after talks with Vice President Namidi Sambo and Senate President David Mark.

Nigeria has dozens of committees, which often to do not lead to significant action.

Senators had argued that the judgment was unfairly based on an agreement between the British and local chiefs in 1881, and it should therefore be subjected to a referendum monitored by the United Nations.

The two African countries, which nearly went to war over Bakassi on several occasions, seemed to have put the issue behind them of late, and had even agreed to work together to explore for oil in the region.

Around 90 percent of the population of the peninsula, estimated at 200,000 to 300,000, regard themselves as Nigerian fishermen and their families who do not want to be Cameroonians.

A movement called the Bakassi Self-Determination Front in August declared independence from Cameroon, hoisting a flag and setting up an FM radio station. It is not clear how big the movement is or what it is capable of.

(Writing by Tim Cocks; Editing by Alison Williams)

Bakassi’s Forgotten Children: Charity Lends its Gifted Hand

04 Oct 2012
Font Size: a / A

Ita-Giwa flanked by celebrities during the children of Bakassi Red Ball in Lagos ......... Recently


The loss of a rich heritage and the continued struggle for survival in Bakassi communities of Cross River State perpetually expose children to circumstances that threaten the foundation of the future they are struggling for. But a charity organisation takes up the challenge of giving Bakassi children a future. Ebere Nwiro writes


Bakassi is popular, but not for its children. It is for the lost land. The lost land will come back may be, but to lose its children, Florence Ita-Giwa says “will be shattering and dearly painful, for it will be irreparable”.

In Bakassi, Children not only struggle to put food in their mouths, there is an extension of their struggle; it is a struggle to go school.
In each of the villages that make up the Bakassi, children are struggling for survival. They walk miles daily to farm to support the family. Eight years ago The Children of Bakassi Foundation was formed with a vision to radically improve the sense of self-worth of the children of Bakassi through exposure to qualitative education, improved living condition and enhanced social interactions. To wit, the person behind it is Senator Florence Ita-Giwa.

She grew up in Bakaasi and she knows the future of the children is threatened, “I am preparing them for the world so that at the end of the day, they have the opportunity to rise to any level in this country,” she said.

Annually, the Red Ball has been the principal fund-raising vehicle for the Children of Bakassi Foundation, which provides for hundreds of displaced Bakassi children. Since the ceding of parts of Bakassi to Cameroun, the plight of the children has further worsened. This year, the event was tagged “Middle East African Fusion” to draw more light on the needs of these Children.

Senator Ita-Giwa, Chairperson Bakassi Trust Fund and founder of Children of Bakassi Foundation and Women in Action, at the recently held annual Red Ball in Lagos declared the purpose of the Ball, “It is to harness and utilise all resources towards ensuring the foundations’ clear goals and objectives are met without compromising on professionalism.”

“Our aim is to give back to the community a group of academically sound and proud professionals capable of transforming the profile of Bakassi for the actualization of Bakassi’s and indeed Nigeria’s socio economic and political emancipation”, she said.

The Red Ball is noteworthy for its social goals to provide succour for the children of Bakassi through renovation and construction of schools and clinics as well as provision of drugs for the children who suffered deprivation and neglect by successive government.

Ita-Giwa helps brings to the city the plight of the forgotten, that is, the people of Bakassi who are more or less refugees in their own land. The Foundation, Ita Giwa says embarked on distribution of relief materials to indigenes in the various places they were forced by circumstances to be squatters following the ceding of their land to neigbouring Cameroun.

Recently, Ita-Giwa popularly known and called mama Bakassi disclosed that she adopted three children who are not indigenes of Bakassi, but all hail from Cross River State. “The adopted children have all blossomed quite nicely and have been exposed to the very best in life. Each holiday period, they go for summer camps in one foreign country or the other. Apart from that the children always holidayed in Benin Republic where they undertake French language,” she stated.

Ita-Giwa said that in addition to going to Benin Republic for French language special lessons, the children also visited Dubai. “For all of them it was their first trip outside the African continent; the trip exposed them to a new country and no doubt left an indelible mark in their lives. It is the intention of the Foundation for the children to make summer visits to other of such destinations on a yearly basis.” She said.
She revealed that the Foundation is determined to nurture a new breed of Bakassi children equipped to take their place among their peers anywhere in the world. “Two of the older children who recently passed out of Access College, Calabar and are preparing to be admitted to the University have gone to South Africa on a technical exchange programme.

They were there with other young persons from different parts of the world learning about appropriate application of contemporary technology. If God has been good to you I think there’s the need to share it with others, which is what I have done with the Foundation of Children of Bakassi,” she said.

Explaining why she had to take the children who were destitute owing to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ceding of Bakassi to Cameroun, Ita-Giwa said one of the reasons is that by the time the children are between the ages of 12-14 years old some fishermen might impregnate the female children amongst them, while the male kids only qualify to go to the high sea for fishing because that is their occupation. “I want them to grow up and also marry the elite,” she declares.

Dr. Okoya-Thomas, in his keynote address, described Ita-Giwa as a worthy Nigerian and likens her to Princess Diana “of our time”.
“That is why you are still getting support from people. The bulk of the money spent on these children comes from your pocket. You came from a family of kings, you are learned; went into politics and you became an outstanding lady in politics among men; your background has helped you to think on what you are doing, nobody gave you the idea, the idea is yours and yours alone,” He said.

Performances at the Red ball included music, comedy, fashion show, and other side attractions. Among the music stars that performed included, Tiwa Savage, who rendered a special song Greatest Love for the Children of Bakassi. “I believe the children are our future, we need to really invest in our children,” she advised.

Multiple award winner, Tuface Idibia performed his award winning songs, the winner of 2007 West African Idol Timi Dakolo also thrilled audience with his magnum opus of a song. Mr. Dakolo a renowned vocalist in his class flushed out the soul in every song he sang. Also winner of the maiden edition of MTN Project Fame West Africa, Mr. Iyanya Mbuk performed his popular Hit song to the admiration of all.

With the duo of Ireti Doyle and Olisa Adibuwa anchoring the event, the Red Ball concert had lots of dignitaries that include representative of South Africa High Commissioner, representative of United States Embassy, captain of industries, among them were Chief Molade Okoya-Thomas, Chief Opral Benson, Director, Centre for Black African Arts and Civilisation (CBAAC), Prof. Tunde Babawale, Dr. (Mrs.) Doyin Abiola, Chairman, Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON), and former president of Performing Musicians Association of Nigeria (PMAN) Chief Tony Okoroji, Senator Ganiyu Solomon, Bright Opocha, a.k.a Basket Mouth, actors Victor Asiegbu, Emeka Enyiocha, Segun Arinze, Keppy Epeyoung Bassey and many others.

Nigeria: Bakassi - FG to Consider Appeal As Jonathan Summons Emergency Meeting Today
Tagged: Cameroon, Central Africa, Legal Affairs, Nigeria, West Africa
BY SONI DANIEL, 3 OCTOBER 2012
Comment
Abuja — Indications emerged yesterday that Nigeria might call for a review of the International Court of Justice, ICJ, ruling of October 10, 2002, which ceded the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula, to Cameroun.

The deadline for Nigeria to appeal the ruling expires on October 9, 2012, which is Tuesday next week.

Eminent Nigerians have spoken in favour of Nigeria's appeal against the ruling, arguing that there was nothing wrong in doing so, at least, to put it on record that it took steps to quash the judgment, as stipulated in Article 61 of the ICJ law.

Vanguard gathered that following mounting pressure from within and outside the country, President Goodluck Jonathan had decided to appeal the ruling, which he had earlier described as closed.

As a prelude to taking steps to review the ruling, President Jonathan is said to have summoned top government officials to what a source described as 'a crucial meeting' today to discuss the best way of going about it.

The source, who did not want to be named because he had not been authorised to speak on the matter, said the meeting, which would be presided over by President Jonathan, would review the new information said to have been put at the disposal of the government after the ICJ judgment.

Legal team

The meeting, it was learnt, would also consider a crack legal team to handle the appeal for Nigeria following the criticism that has attended the team that represented the country during the 2002 hearing.

Among those said to have been invited to the emergency meeting are; the Senate President, David Mark, House of Representatives Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, Cross River State Governor, Liyel Imoke, Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Adoke and Chairmen of the National Assembly Committees on Special Duties, Judiciary and Foreign Affairs.

Others are the Director General of the National Boundary Commission, Chairman of Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission and all members of the National Assembly from Cross River State.

It was also gathered that the Presidency had mandated the Senate and House of Representatives leadership to invite relevant committees of the National Assembly to the meeting, which is slated for 9pm today.

Last week, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution mandating the President to appeal against the ICJ ruling ceding Bakassi to Cameroun because of the new facts that had emerged over the matter.

The motion that gave rise to the resolution was sponsored by Senator Abdul Ningi, representing Bauchi Central, who argued that it would be wrong for Nigeria not to appeal the judgment, as there was still a window of opportunity for Nigeria to do so before October 9.

The resolution reads in part, "The Senate accordingly urges the Federal Government to invoke Article 61 of the ICJ status to appeal the said judgment in the interest of Nigerians in the affected areas, including Bakassi."

Senate wants FG to appeal ruling

Senate President, who presided over the plenary said, "I think appeal is a line of action that should not be neglected because that is legal, since Nigeria subjected itself to the court. "If that is what is available through the court, we should also utilise it. I think that is the most appropriate thing to do at this point in time.

"We urge the Federal Government to go on appeal, we on our part will revisit the letters and see what we can do, may be to quickly come up with a debate on the letters and then resend it to buttress our points and resolution that was arrived at today.

"Part of what the President said at the UN and I think the man is right, and I think he infers that to mean that we have obeyed the International Court to this point but we still do not accept the judgment."

Mark added that Nigeria was obeying the ruling does not mean it accepted it, because there is a lot of pressure at home."

New facts

Ningi argued that emerging new facts had shown that the judgment was erroneously based on the agreement between the British authorities and the Calabar Chiefs in 1884, adding that there has never been a precedent in history where any case of this nature was executed without a referendum as enshrined by the United Nations.

He said: "The lack of faithful implementation of the Green Tree Agreement signed by both countries violates the basis for the implementation of the court judgment."

Bakassi natives protest

Last week, natives of Bakassi Peninsula stormed Abuja with what they called 'fresh and incontrovertible evidence' to assist the Federal Government in reclaiming Bakassi but could not submit to any government officials.

The Coordinator of the 'Save Bakassi Group' in the FCT, Mr. Solomon Inameti, told Vanguard in an interview that they were ready to assist the Federal Government with fresh evidence that was not available at the time of the judgment to be able to move forward with a review.

Inameti said, "We have 100 new information and we are ready to give to the Nigerian Government to use and approach the ICJ and conveniently pursue this case to a logical conclusion.

"To the best of our knowledge, the evidence is concrete enough to secure us victory at the ICJ and the Federal Government can take us for our words.

"We went out of our way to secure this vital information that was not there before to assist the Federal Government because we believe that it is in our own interest to continue to remain in Nigeria.

"Let us make it categorically clear that no matter what happens we will not accept Cameroun as our own country. Subjugating us to Cameroun would not only be humiliating but dehumanizing to us and our generations yet unborn.

"Anyone who thinks that we the people of Bakassi can come under Cameroun is wasting time because that will not work. We are ready to go to the United Nations and seek a referendum on where we want to be and how we should be administered.

"If the Federal Government does not want us we will approach the UN at the end of October 10, 2012 to seek the way forward for ourselves and our respective communities in Bakassi," Inameti said.

A historian, who is very familiar with the Bakassi history, Mr. Emmanuel Doh, said the AGF had no reason to hesitate in approaching the ICJ for the immediate review of the 2002 judgment given the weight of evidence now at his disposal.

Doh pointed out that Cameroun even committed a serious blunder by the way and manner it adjusted the boundary between it and Southern Cameroon encompassing Bakassi, after the African Union had asked all countries to respect their boundaries with other nations.

Doh said Cameroun's fraudulent boundary adjustment coupled with numerous actions, which the UN and the ICJ were not aware of at the time of the ruling in 2002, were enough to swing judgment in Nigeria's favour, if a review was sought.

"Nigerians do not want us to cede Bakassi; while we are urging the Federal Government to go on appeal, we will look again at the papers forwarded to us earlier and pass relevant resolutions.”

While no one can guess for now what the ruling of the ICJ would be if Nigeria eventually goes on appeal, the truth of the matter remains that Bakassi indigenes as well as Nigerians around them have rejected the ruling of 2005. The message to the president is to reclaim the territory, not just for economic reasons but also for cultural affinity. Only the events of the future can dictate how this eventually pans out."

“There is room for us to appeal. I think appeal is a line of action that should not be neglected because that is legal, since Nigeria subjected itself to the court. If that is what is available through the court, we should also utilise it. I think that is the most appropriate thing to do at this point in time, if there are other avenues we can explore them, but the most civilised thing now will be to quickly rush on appeal.”

Nigeria: Bakassi - 1922 - 39 Maps Had Rio Del Rey As Eastern End of Peninsula
Tagged: Arms and Armies, Cameroon, Central Africa, Conflict, Conflict, Europe and Africa, External Relations, Governance, Nigeria, West Africa
2 OCTOBER 2012
Comment

Senior advocate of Nigeria, Robert Clarke has been speaking about the facts surrounding the ownership of the Bakassi Peninsula. In an interview with ... ( Resource: Nigeria Has Never Owned the Bakassi - Robert Clarke
Prof Walter Ofonagoro in this segment insists that the international boundary between southern Cameroun and southern Nigeria started from cape Bakassi on the Atlantic coast and moving inland along the western bank of the Rio del Rey river in the 1922-39 reports to the League of Nations.

Professor J.C. Anene confirms in his book, International Boundaries of Nigeria, that this portion of the boundary from the sea, at Bakassi, to the Cross River "Rapids", had been settled by 1913, and were not nullified by the 1913 Agreements: "In the final settlement, the "rapids" of the provisional boundary became the thalweg of the Cross River at the bend of the river about two and a half miles upstream from Obokun.

The boundary southwards followed the thalweg of the Cross River down to its junction with the Akwa River. The thalweg of the latter River continued the boundary, and thence to a number of hill tops, demarcated with pillars.

From these hill-tops, the boundary followed the thalweg of the Akwa Yafe River down to the coast. Here, the boundary was coincident with the Western Bank of the Rio Del Rey estuary."

Relevant Links

Bakassi - Try Obasanjo for Treason - SNG
Bakassi - Again, House Urges FG Review of ICJ's Judgment
Senate to FG - Appeal Bakassi Judgement Now
Senate Rejects ICJ Ruling On Bakassi, Urges FG to Appeal Judgment
Senate Warns Ministers, Presidential Aides Against Careless Talk
President Shehu Shagari who had served as a Federal Minister in Nigeria, since 1954, also states that the boundary between Nigeria and Cameroons had long been settled down the Rio del Rey, and the territorial waters of the two countries finally defined and settled between the British and the Germans up to the three-mile limit since 1913, and demarcated on a colonial map which both Britain and Germany signed. He further maintained that it was the discovery of oil in large quantities under the sea in the Bakassi region that aggravated the problem of maritime international boundaries.

Cameroon then took advantage of Nigeria's preoccupation with the Civil War in the late sixties, to start drilling for off-shore oil, in a disputed area in the sea along the Nigerian border. Finally, he stressed that the existing Nigerian border at the sea coast of Rio Del Rey was protected by the OAU Resolution of 1964, respecting the inviolability of inherited colonial boundaries.

Every student of modern European history is familiar with the aggressive posture of the German government in foreign affairs at the time, which eventually led to the First World War. In 1913, European powers were seeking shelter in a frenzy of alliance negotiations, as Germany bullied the other powers for concessions in their colonial possessions.

Germany bullied France into surrendering substantial territory to German Cameroons as a settlement in the Moroccan Question of 1911 and 1912 when Germany tried to seize Morocco from France.

Britain, likewise was pressured to surrender Bakassi Peninsula to Germany, but never did, and never allowed the mutual border from Rio Del Rey to be moved to the Calabar/Cross River Estuary even in the March 11, 1913 Agreement.

Great Britain insisted in Article 21 of that Agreement, that the boundary from Thalweg of Akwa Yafe River, "shall lie wholly to the East of the navigable channels of the Cross and Calabar Rivers", that is, towards the Rio del Rey boundary. All the documents mentioned above, are a matter of public record, and can be found in the following publications:

1. Walter I. Ofonagoro, Trade and Imperialism in Southern Nigeria, 1885-1929. (New York, Nok Publishers, 1979)

2. J.C. Anene, Southern Nigeria in Transition, 1885-1906, (Cambridge, 1966)

3. International Boundaries of Nigeria (New York, The Humanities Press, 1970).

4. Clive Perry, LLD. The Consolidated Treaty Series, (New York: Oceana Publications, 1978)

5. The treaties are also published in Sir E. Hertslet, the Map of Africa by Treaty, Vol. III (London: Frank Cass and Co. 1967).

Cameroons and the League of Nations: There is additional information about concealment of material evidence and misinformation that have a bearing on this case.

I would like to draw the attention of the reader to papers presented at the Yale University Conference on Imperial and Colonial History, held at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut in Spring, 1965. In that Conference, which paraded the world's most acclaimed experts in British and German Imperial and Colonial History, papers relevant to Germany's brief 22 year rule in Cameroons (1884-1916) were presented. Particularly apt is the paper presented by Professor David E. Gardinier of Yale University, entitled "The British in Cameroons, 1919-1939".

He was able to demonstrate that Britain and France invaded German Cameroons at the outbreak of the war in 1914, and by February 18, 1916, the last German outpost at Mora, was routed.

Sharing of German Camerouns

Thereafter, the British and French allies set about sharing German Cameroons. Britain already had an Empire in which the sun never set and so, she was not interested in acquiring more colonies.

She however took enough territory from defeated German Cameroons to re-unite territories and peoples who had been divided by previous Anglo-German boundary lines. In German Borno in North-West Cameroons, Britain took enough territory to unify the Nigerian Emirate of Borno; and in German Adamawa in Cameroons, she took enough territory to reconstitute the Nigerian Emirate of Adamawa.

France also recovered all the territories she had ceded to German Cameroons in the Moroccan Crisis of 1911 and 1912. Both Britain and France set up their respective administrations in their partitioned spheres of Cameroon in March, 1916.

On March 4, 1916, Britain and France agreed to a provisional partition of German Cameroons, and by June 29, 1919, Article 119 of the Treaty of Versailles recognized the renunciation by Germany of all her colonies in favour of the Allies. Who were the Allies? They were Britain, France, Italy, Russia, and the United States who joined the war in 1917.

Before the signing of the League Treaty on June 29, 1919, the Supreme Council of the League of Nations decided that all German colonies with the exception of Togo and Cameroons should be placed under mandate. France was sure that she was entitled to sovereignty over her portion of the conquered German colonies. Britain just wanted enough territory to fill out the edges of her existing colonies of Nigeria and Ghana.

On May 7, 1919, the two powers were asked to advise the League on what to do with Cameroons and Togo. Eventually, they took their time to consolidate their hold on German Cameroon.

They also wrote their own terms of the conditions stated in the League Mandates which they signed on July 20, 1922, three years after the League of Nations had been set up. They had controlled their conquered colonies for four years before the League of Nations was born.

Their mandate allowed them to integrate their colonies with their new conquests, so long as they maintained "law, order and good government" and "improved the moral character" of their charges.

These were, after all, "B" Mandates which were, at the time, not deemed capable of self-determination. By 1922, Great Britain had already dispensed with the cession of Bakassi to Germany, and quietly re-integrated that peninsula with Nigeria.

The terms of the Mandate Treaty required Britain to send Annual Reports to the League Headquarters in Geneva, on the administration of the Mandates. I have read those reports sent to London by the British Government of Southern Cameroons, between 1922 and 1939. Most of them have maps and other statistical data. None of those maps show Bakassi as a German Territory.

Rather, all the maps that accompanied these Annual Reports on Southern Cameroon, between 1922 and 1939, showed the international boundary between southern Cameroon and Southern Nigeria, starting from Cape Bakassi on the Atlantic coast of the Bakassi Peninsula, and moving inland along the Western bank of the Rio del Rey which was the Eastern end of the Bakassi Peninsula.

Thence at the headwaters of the Rio del Rey, the boundary turned west along the north shore of Bakassi Peninsula and then north into the Akwa Yafe River thalweg, and thence into the interior. Furthermore, the Annual Reports dealt only with the four administrative Divisions of Southern Cameroons, namely Mamfe, Victoria, Kumba and Bamenda. Britain never sent any report on Bakassi to the League between 1922 and 1946.

Onlytruth: My sister Bliss4lyfe I wonder why you are so obsessed with this Bakassi issue. Please give it a rest because it is bigger than Nigeria.
The day Nigeria stands up to defend things like Bakassi is the day Nigeria will disintegrate, and Nigeria fears disintegration like a plague! The forces that be has spoken on it and no person can ever ascend to the presidency of Nigeria if he questions those forces. Why do you think that no Igbo has ever been allowed to be Nigeria's president for over 43 years? I can bet my last penny that no Nigerian president of Igbo extraction would allow this type of "a Bakassi issue" to go unchallenged.
Nigerians are the most fatouos group of homo sapiens in Africa, nay the world.
So, give it a rest and move on.