₦airaland Forum

2015: The real boosters to Jonathan’s re-election
FRIDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2012 00:00 ONYEBUCHI ONYEGBULE



As a matter of fact, we should be less concerned with 2015 for the simple reason that there’s a lot to do in contrast to Okupe’s mouthed claim that Jonathan has delivered in all his campaign promises. The likes of Kaita, Junaid, etc. want tomorrow’s battle today. They’ve disdained the East as no-starters and told them, as usual, to wait until they’re overdone.



They’ve taken the battle to the South-south and warned that Jonathan should abort any dream of a 2015 comeback. They went further to call for the abrogation of the 2004 onshore/offshore dichotomy and may perhaps stray over to the repeal/reduction of the 13 percent derivation fund. Why not, when the self-acclaimed grandmasters are already showcasing their permutations: 2015: Sule-Lamido/Amaechi ticket. That’s the arrogance embedded in appeasement on our menu. But it’s a no-sale. These are the things that fire up Boko-insurgency. In the midst of destructive engagements, you give the domain of the destroyer kudos by acquiescing. Otherwise, why should a sleeping Sule Lamido be flogged up to pursue an imposed desire – the same beat as Yar’Adua in 2007? A man who felt he had served enough and wanted to quietly retire was spotted by ‘Nemesis’ to become the first wrongly persuaded president. He fell for it and died in the process. Here we go again.

What the South-south doesn’t know yet is the implication of that gamble. It’ll set Ikwere-Igbo against Ijaw should Amaechi fall for the intrigue and in the end, break the South-south. That’s been the old game: using the South to break the East and turning around to use the South to break itself. All these happening before a sitting president whose body language says ‘I’ll run again’.

When South-south leaders gathered in Effurun last week to declare Jonathan for 2015, they touched button. It’s they who have to promote theirs before we take him up. That gathering is a statement that kingmakers can’t always have their way. It’s also a signal that ‘Nigeria must get it right or get us out’. Their reason is straight: whoever ascends the presidency does 8 years, why not us? Isn’t this a fact, and isn’t it just? Croaking voices somewhere say, ‘return it to us, we own it’; then the acquiescence masters jostle to be seen to champion the return. This time around, no visa.

Jonathan has been called many unprintable names. But it’s on record that he’s the first president to overcome darkness. Others gave reason and darkness in lieu, while billions evaporated, czars of wealth made and all escaped. The victory over darkness came amidst destructive insecurity; meaning that, if security were there, much more good news would have flowed down. The significant development coming from the aviation sector is a level-change, though for the middle-upper flying class. The real public announcement of Jonathan’s thrive will be the Second Niger Bridge and the crying road infrastructural development all over the country. When he has finished these projects, let’s meet by 2015.

What the president has to guard against is being seen to easily give in. An instance is the proposed N5,000 note fast-tracked by Sanusi and the concomitant street opinion that Mr. President was goaded into it. It’s not a good picture to be seen to say yes when you should say no. The people put him in office, it’s their will he must toe. Going by how things work here, the contract may have been awarded, leaving the lazy public to argue and debate like they did during the maligned Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP). But it’s not always that the public and their representatives get lazy. Now that the grandmasters have become unpredictable, the president should be found squarely on the people’s sand strand.

The difference between Jonathan and the northern attack dogs is governance-delivery. It’s governance-delivery versus power-grab. The argument coming from the north is always, ‘power-must-return’, but the delivery of that power to the people is an empty chair. Now Nigerians want something for power, and that’s where delivery knocks out ‘it’s my right to have and hold power’. Danger is, if they insist the way they’re doing, the whole Nigeria question may become toxic. And if they’re taking the East for granted, that may well be their sore point.

[size=18pt]Another timbrel the president must play, and quickly too, is Bakassi. Quite frankly, Nigerians and history want Bakassi. IT MUST NOT GO. Hope the president has heard.[/size] That brings me to the lily-livered disposition of Florence Ita Giwa on the plight of her people. She’s too emotional for a freedom-fighting role and sometimes passes for an irritant.

[size=18pt]Jonathan should know that by 2015, we shall ask him a simple three-worded question: ‘WHERE IS BAKASSI?’ Let’s hope he’ll say: ‘IT IS WITH US.’
[/size]
http://www.businessdayonline.com/NG/index.php/analysis/commentary/44375-2015-the-real-boosters-to-jonathans-re-election-

Nigeria: Why Nigeria Should Ask ICJ to Review Bakassi Verdict (3)

Mallam Abdullahi U. Maiyaki, a senior research fellow at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, NIIA, Lagos in this third edition of the Vanguard Media series on rethinking the judgment of ICJ and options before the Federal Government where the executive seems to be alone in conceding Bakassi provides fresh insights on options before President Goodluck Jonathan.

Continues from yesterday

JUDGE Al Khasaweh fur ther challenged the ICJ where he opined that "no support can be found to the Court conclusion by reference to the Western Sahara or the Island of Palmas decisions."

The latter he maintained, "mistakenly compounds inequality in status and inequality in power by concluding suzerainty over a native State becomes the basis of territorial sovereignty by the protecting powers".

Nigerian soldiers lowering the Nigerian flag at Bakassi following the ceding of the territory to Cameroun

(d) In addition, Judge Al-Khasaweh opined that "excessive generalization results in the assumption that local chiefs are deemed to have become virtual colonies or vassal of the States under the suzerainty of the protecting colonial power regardless of the nominal control exercised by the protecting State and the fact that they were often recognized as sovereigns in their subsequent dealings with the protecting State".

(e) Consequently, Judge Al-Khasaweh then emphasized that "treaties of protection were sometimes a first step toward the development of a full colonial title", but argues that "until that happened and in the absence of provisions which may be interpreted as conveying title, they remained a lever and no more". This conclusion, Judge Al-Khasaweh maintained "is supported by several examples of State practice-in particular by Great Britain contemporaneous with the Berlin Conference".

Fundamental concern

(f) Furthermore, the ICJ Judge to the October 10, 2002 verdict raised another fundamental concern as to why the disputed case over Bakassi Peninsula "was not addressed within the principle of inter temporal law?" Since historically, he opined, "protection a concept traceable to the Roman Jurist Ulpian excludes notion of ownership and connotes elements of guardianship".

However, he argues "after 1885, State practice began to deform the original classical concept and converted it into an instrument of colonialism". He then questioned whether "deformation be taken into consideration in the application of the inter-temporary rules?"

(g) In conclusion, Judge Al-Khasaweh maintained that, "the 1884 Treaty had International Legal standing. It concerned protection and not colonial title and that the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar had capacity to enter into Treaty relations". He argues that "the plain word Treaty suggest that there was no intent to transfer territorial sovereignty." The situation Judge Al-Khasaweh observed "was not altered until 1913 when Great Britain ceded Bakassi to Germany".

The cession, he argues implied "powers associated with territorial sovereignty that Great Britain did not possess". (Source: Summary of the ICJ ruling in disputed Bakassi Peninsula of October 10, 2012 (Ibid) pages 17-19)

Further conceptualisation of the Treaty of Protection between the Old Calabar and Britain of 1884 by highly qualified publicists of the various nations/scholars as required by the ICJ: Basically, the controversy generated by the ICJ verdict of October 10, 2002 which ceded Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun, attracted global reactions, questioning the validity of the court's interpretation of the above cited 1884 treaty of protection between kings and chiefs of the Old Calabar and Great Britain which eventually form the basis of the said judgment.

Solomon Ukhuegbe: In an article entitled "Bakassi At The Bar of Politics" accessed from the internet observed that "politics of the partition of Africa has led in the transformation of the classical meanings and concept of international protectorate.

External sovereignty

He argues that "classic notion of international protectorate vested only external sovereignty in the protecting power, whereas the colonial protectorate was in fact not a protectorate (except in name) but was rather fully assimilated in legal regime of colony". (Source: Solomon Ukhuegbe (2002) - Bakassi at The Bar of Politics, Nigeria World Feature Article accessed from nigeriaworld.com/articles/2002/nou/08/htm (p.3-4)

Charles Henry Alexandroniez: The General Act of the Berlin Conference of February 26, 1885 attracted his concern, because it legitimizes the emerging notion of colonial protectorate. He challenged that "the classic protectorate tended to be converted into a new institution which most of the positivists lawyers at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century defined as the colonial protectorate." He observed that "nowhere in the articles of the Berlin Act is the term colonial protectorate specifically used", and conceded that "indeed state practice largely continued to adhere to the neutral term protectorate". (Source: Solomon Ukhuegbe, (200) Ibid. p. 4).

Max Huber: A renowned Swiss publicist and former Judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) presented a contrasting view which seems to have been adopted by the Court in its judgment of October 10, 2002.

Max Huber said to have served as the Sole Arbitrator to the 1928 Island of Palmas case argues that, "such a treaty of protection is not an agreement between equals, it is rather a form of internal organization of a colonial territory, on the basis of autonomy of the natives. Sovereignty over native states in this situation becomes the basis of territorial sovereignty as towards other members of the committee of nations. (Source: RIIA, Vol. 11, pp. 858-859, ICJ Report Inside Solomon Ukhuegbe (2002) p.4).

However, this conception has been challenged Judge Al-Khassaweh of the ICJ verdict of October 10, 2002 where he observed that "the object of the protectorate system - like the mandatory system - is a form of guardianship which by definition should exclude notions of territorial ownership o r territorial domination". (Source: Solomon Ukhuegbe (2002) Ibid. p.4).

Professor James Crowford: He was said to be one of the Nigeria's leading counsel in this case at the ICJ. However, his reaction to the General Act of the Berlin Conference of February 26, 1885 seems surprising, not expected of a defence counsel to Nigeria.

He was reported to have stated that "by virtues of the Act of Berlin, colonial powers had full international powers over an African protectorate and that ceding away protectorate territory without the consent of the local kings and chiefs and in breach of the protectorate agreement was lawful". (Source: Solomon Ukhuegbe (2002) Ibid. p.3).

The character of such a defence counsel to Nigeria to have accorded the Anglo-German Agreement of 1913 legitimacy, can better be described as conspiracy of the highest order, and a traitor masked in our nation's leading counsels at this ICJ case between Nigeria and Cameroun. No wonder, Nigeria lost the case.

Sir Lindley: A renowned Jurist and Scholar was reported "as late as 1926 to have insisted that there was no justification for treating African treaties as less than obligatory".

He maintained that "it is difficult to see how there is no regard to the universality of the practice of grounding a colonial protection upon an agreement with local authority, the importance attached by the European Powers to such agreements in their relations inter-se, the requirements for such an agreement to be regarded other than as a rule of law". (Source: Ibid. p.3.)

Solomon Ukhuegbe: The international law analyst viewed such an attitude as more of selectivism, when he observed that, "although, the partition of Africa was largely through procurement of treaties of protection and of friendship with African kings and chiefs, such as that entered into with the Old Calabar".

He, however, asserted that conventional wisdom dictate that international law from this class of agreements appears to create any legal obligations for the European parties, even when such status seems to be inconsistent with the zeal with which European powers went about this business of treaty making". (Ibid.p.3). Such inconsistency may eventually lead to morality questions when it forms basis of passing judgment in contentious cases like the one over sovereignty of the Bakassi Peninsula that went to the ICJ.

The foregoing conceptualization of the 1884 treaty of protection between Kings and Chiefs o f the Old Calabar and Great Britain by both some of the judges of the ICJ that adjudicated over the case, but challenged the Court's verdict of October 10, 2002 in their separate/dissenting opinions raised credibility, validity and the legality of the said ICJ judgment. Consequently, the Court's action present a breach of its Statute contained in Article 38 (1) (b-d) which among other things requires the Court in its task a consideration of "the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations as subsidiary means for the determination of rules law". Article 38 (1)-d).

Nigeria's Prayers before the ICJ

Accordingly, Nigeria hereby respectively requests the Court to:

1. Interpret the legal status of the various treaties/agreements entered/concluded with a Consul on behalf of the British Government with other treaties/agreements entered in the Niger-Delta with the Royal Niger Company within the context of International Law before the enactment of the General Act of Berlin of February 26, 1885;

2. That Nigeria request the Court to adjudge as whether the treaties entered between kings of Old Calabar and Great Britain in the Niger before February 26, 1885 gives the powers of jurisdiction over their territories as a colony or just a control over foreign relations as conceived;

3. That Nigeria request the Court to state as to whether there is any similarity between the Western Saharan case and the sovereignty dispute over the Bakassi Peninsula case ceded to Cameroun by the ICJ on October 10, 2002;

4. That Nigeria request the Court to define and distinguish between the classical concept of international protectorate in legal framework and colonial protectorate. The Court should also distinguish between colony and protectorate before the enactment of the General Act of the Berlin Conference of February 26, 1885;

5. That Nigeria request the Court to state whether operators of International Law including judges are required to periodically appraise the concept and practice of protection as to whether it connotes guardianship of the protected entity or the notion of territorial ownership/acquisition of territorial domination. (With contribution from Solomon Ukhuegbe (2002) Ibid. pages 1-4).

Nigeria hereby requests the Court to adjudge and declare that;

(a) The judgment of October 10, 2002 in the case between Nigeria and Cameroun over the sovereignty of Bakassi Peninsula was passed on erroneous premise;

(b) That the interpretation of the treaty of protection of September 10, 1884 between the Kings and Old Chiefs of Calabar and Great Britain should mean a treaty of protection, not a surrender of their territories to Britain;

Various interpretations

(c) Consequently, Nigeria request the Court to admit that there were sufficient evidence from the various interpretations of renowned Jurist/Publicist of international repute of the concept of treaty of protection as represented in the preceding paragraphs which has credence both in International Law and Jurisprudence respectively to which the Court as of the time of its Judgment of October 10, 2002 was unaware;

(d) Accordingly, Nigeria hereby request the Court that in pursuant of the provision of Article 61 of the Statute of the ICJ, which empowers a revisal of any of its Judgment; that the Court should adjudge and declare that its verdict of October 10, 2002 which ceded the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun was passed in error.

(e) That the Court should, therefore, declare the revisal of its said earlier judgment of October 10, 2002 by ceding the sovereignty of the disputed Bakassi Peninsula to Nigeria as so requested respectively.

In conclusion, these are my articulated thoughts presented as a Paper to the Nigerian Government to reinforce existing ideas on how Nigeria can seek redress over the unfair and unjust ceding of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun by the International Court of Justice in its Judgments of October 10, 2002. At the same time, respective governmental authorities at home in Nigeria should take urgent measures to provide relative comforts, facilities and shelter to the displaced Nigerians from the disputed Bakassi Island.

It is hopeful that, some of these enumerated policy opinions can equally be found to be useful in realizing our desired national objective of reclaiming our ceded Bakassi Peninsula to Nigeria.

Ads by Google

Bakassi case not closed, says Oyebode
By Emmanuel Oladesu 8 hours 1 minute ago
Font size:


Former University of Ado-Ekiti Vice Chancellor Prof. Akin Oyebode has declared that Nigeria can still reclaim the area of Bakassi Peninsula ceded to the Cameroun, based on the judgment of the International Court of Justice.
The Professor of International Law disputed the Green Treaty under which Nigeria and Cameroun agreed to give the land to the former French Colony, pointing out that it is not binding.


Oyebode, who suggested that military action could be invoked as a last resort said no African country can underrate the military might and potentials of Nigeria.
He alluded to the violation of the process of ceding part of Nigeria’s territory to another country, which he said was cleverly ignored by the Presidency, following the negotiation brokered in France by the French President between Cameroonian and Nigerian leaders.

Oyebode said: “The so-called treaty or agreement was never approved by the National Assembly”, maintaining that its implementation was done in error.
The University of Lagos teacher noted that, in the case of military confrontation, French’s military pact with Cameroun may predispose it to supporting its former colony. However, the legal scholar said France would hesitate to adopt that approach because of its enormous investment and other interests in Nigeria.
Oyebode, who spoke at the Nigeria Television Authority (NTA) One-On-One Programme, recalled that the military administration managed the Bakassi issue better.


The former Vice Chancellor urged Nigeria to press for the ownership of the disputed Peninsula, based on the fact that the National Assembly never ratified the controversial treaty. He said there is no way Cameroun can gain ownership of the disputed area and begin the exploitation of its oil resources without impinging on the rights of displaced Nigerians in Cross River State.

Oyebode also spoke on the state of the nation, especially the contentious national question, state police and lopsided federalism. He said state police will stem insecurity in the land because members of the community would be recruited into the police, thereby reducing unemployment.
He said Nigeria should also halt the practice of quasi federalism by adhering strictly to the spirit of true federalism.[url] http://www.thenationonlineng.net/2011/politics/61285-bakassi-case-not-closed-says-oyebode.htm[/url]l

Bakassi is one issue dat can unite Nigeria. We need to stop seeing each other as the enemy but externalize the threat and enemy. Cameroon is well placed for dis.

Orikinla: [size=28pt]We must reclaim Bakassi NOW![/size]

Endorsed.

All i am sayin is that, it is time Nigeria starts to take care of its citizens. Bakassi is a clear example of neglect.

^^@ naptu2


Similar to the Gowon treaty with Cameroon, the Federal Government had in 2006 signed an international treaty, known as the Green Tree Agreement, with Cameroon to formally cede the territory to the country in compliance with the ICJ judgment without the approval of the National Assembly.

Lawmakers had argued that the decision of the government was in breach of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, which required that such treaties must be ratified by the National Assembly to have the force of law in Nigeria. Hence Bakassi still has not yet been legally handed over to Cameroon.

Displaced from their home for the oil multinationals company and Cameroon Elites Dictator.

Bakassi Militants

This is no longer news. I wait to see the new State. Until then adeus!

Bakassi militants threaten to drag govt to war with Cameroun
FRIDAY, 24 AUGUST 2012 00:00 FROM ANIETIE AKPAN, CALABAR NEWS - NATIONAL
User Rating: / 0
PoorBest

AS tension continues to mount in Cross River State over Bakassi, militants in the area have threatened to drag the Federal Government into war in the Peninsular.

A former militant in the Bakassi Peninsula and a member of the Niger Delta Youth Movement (NDYM), Mr. Emmanuel Edet, gave the warning in Calabar when the Senator representing the area met with the Bakassi people recently.

Edet said his group would go back to the creeks to defend the people of Bakassi who have been “unjustly” displaced as a result of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment 10 years ago if the Federal Government refused to revisit the case.

Inside the Creeks, he said, “we shall engage the Camerounian gendarmes in serious battle and by the time we kill 10 to 20 of them, the Federal Government will sit up and defend the course of Bakassi people so as to restore hope to them”.

At the meeting, Bakassi people were said to have called on the government to file a fresh case against the judgment of the International Court of Justice.

Edet said: “It has become obvious that the Federal Government is not prepared to file a case for the revisiting of the judgment. If we discover that it is true, we shall kill gendarmes and then the government will know that we are serious. The government will soon be dragged into a war it is not prepared for”.

Representative of Bakassi Peoples’ General Assembly, Orok Eneyo, alleged that Cameroun had since violated Section (3) of the Green Tree Agreement and must be called to order by the United Nations Security Council.

Etubom Ekpo Eyo, representing the traditional rulers in Bakassi, said the royal fathers had, before now, cried aloud over the alleged injustice meted out to the rightful owners of Bakassi following the court verdict several years ago.

“Today, we are delighted to observe that our prayer is coming to fruition after many years. It is God’s will to create equity to all and sundry. Why is it that it is only our land and heritage that are always given out to people just like that?”, he queried.

Eyo, therefore, appealed to the people to learn to speak with one voice, act with one mission so that all the prayers put before God shall be heard.

Meanwhile, the recent statement credited to Governor Godswill Akpabio of Akwa Ibom State, expressing the willingness of his state to resolve the effect of the Supreme Court judgment of 10th July 2012 through dialogue with Cross River, has been described as a welcome development.

A foremost Cross River-based lawyer, Utum Eteng, in an interview in Calabar yesterday, said the gesture is a right step and a demonstration of maturity and statesmanship.http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96555:bakassi-militants-threaten-to-drag-govt-to-war-with-cameroun&catid=1:national&Itemid=559

^^ I am still of the opinion that Bakassi indigence can decide to leave Cameroon for Nigeria following a referendum. Which begs the question on why a referendum was not held to validate Nigeria claims of Bakassi as opposed to ICJ.

All we are asking is for GEJ government as a breath of fresh air from past corrupt government of OBJ and Gowon appeal this Bakassi dispute. We want a do something government not a do nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Till today, there was no time the Green-Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

In 1960, there was a case between

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

Mods kindly front page this national issue. It is currently a hot topics with many headlines by different academicians. https://www.nairaland.com/1045320/why-nigeria-should-appeal-icj

The destiny of the people of Bakassi have been used for shady dealing by subsequent administration. Time to rewrite dat history and allow Bakassi indigence a chance of self determination. There destiny should be put back once again in their hands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The destiny of the people of Bakassi have been used for shady dealing by subsequent administration. Time to rewrite dat history and allow Bakassi indigence a chance of self determination. There destiny should be put back once again in their hands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Nigeria Should Appeal ICJ Verdict On Bakassi - Maiyaki

In less than one month, Nigeria will forgo Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon unless Nigeria raises an appeal against the verdict of the Hague based International Court of Justice which awarded the sovereignty of Bakassi peninsula to the Central African country using the 1913 Anglo-German treaty as the basis of its decision.
https://www.nairaland.com/1045320/why-nigeria-should-appeal-icj

Nigeria: Why Nigeria Should Appeal ICJ Verdict On Bakassi - Maiyaki
Tagged: Cameroon, Central Africa, External Relations, International Organisations, Legal Affairs, Nigeria, West Africa
11 SEPTEMBER 2012
Comment
Photo: Leadership
Bakassi Camp


In less than one month, Nigeria will forgo Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon unless Nigeria raises an appeal against the verdict of the Hague based International Court of Justice which awarded the sovereignty of Bakassi peninsula to the Central African country using the 1913 Anglo-German treaty as the basis of its decision.

This is the first part of the Vanguard Media series on rethinking the judgment of ICJ and options before the Federal Government where the executive seems to be alone in conceding Bakassi.

In the first of our series on why the Federal Government should revisit the ICJ judgment, a senior research fellow at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, NIIA, Lagos, Mallam Abdullahi U. Maiyaki, provides fresh insights on options before President Goodluck Jonathan.

Relevant Links

Why We Lost Bakassi to Cameroun
Bakassi Indigenes Demand Resettlement
NBA Urges for Review of ICJ Judgment On Bakassi
Bakassi - Why FG Must Listen to Citizens Not Politics
Bakassi - Apply for Revision of ICJ Judgement, NBA Tells FG
HIGHLIGHTS: THE recent call credited to the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, to the Federal Government of Nigeria to apply to the International Court of Justice, ICJ, for the revision of its judgment of October 10, 2002 which ceded the disputed Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun was not only timely, courageous but equally strategic. The said call was contained in the NBA Communiqué issued on Friday, August 30, 2012 after the Association's 52nd Annual General Conference held in Abuja where it asserted that there are fresh facts for the ICJ to revisit its judgment and thus requested the Federal Government of Nigeria to legitimately apply. (Source: Bakassi: Apply For Revision of ICJ Judgment NBA Tells FG, The Leadership Weekend Newspaper Sept. 1, 2012 P.



HIGHLIGHT 2: After all, Article 61 (Sub-Section 1 & 5) of the Statute of the ICJ had provided this facility where it stated that:

Article 61 (1): An application for revision of a Judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of which a nature as to be a decisive factor, which the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.... Article 61(5) No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment (i.e. October 10, 2002 - October 10, 2012 in the Bakassi Case)

Basically, the foregoing provisions of the State of the Court requires a critical re-examination, review and analysis of the entire litigation strategies, proceedings and indeed the Summary of the Court Judgment, particularly in context of the separate Declaration of some Judges, who are members of the Court as at October 10, 2002.

Window to explore

Collectively, Nigeria may find a window to explore to its advantage in her quest for revision of the contentious Judgment on the Bakassi Peninsula which was ceded to Cameroun.

HIGHLIGHT 3: During the proceeding, it was speculated that Nigeria was requested to produce any scientific evidence of ownership of the disputed Bakassi Peninsula earlier than the 1884 Treaty of Protection between the Old Calabar Chiefs and Britain, to which I understand, the Nigerian agents at the Court presented substantial titles thus gladly the discovery of yet another crucial documented evidence would certainly enhance Nigeria's prospects before the ICJ.

This new document satisfies the Court's requirements as contained on Article 49 of the Court Statute which states that: "The Court may, even before the hearing begins, call upon the agents to produce any document or to supply any explanations. Formal note shall be taken for any refusal"

Prof. Walter Ofonagoro asserted recently that he has in his possession year 1822 documents which vested ownership of the Bakassi Peninsula to the Old Calabar Chiefs by extension to Nigeria. He disclosed this while speaking to Nigerian public on a topic: "Nigeria, Cameroun and the Bakassi Question: The Unfulfilled UN Mandate" organized by the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, NIIA, held on Thursday, August 23, 2012 in Lagos. This is a fresh fact unknown to Nigerians and the Court before the Judgment of October 10, 2002, which gives credence and impetus to our agitation.

Highlight 4: Similarly, Article 52 of the Statute of Court provided another window to Nigeria to explore in her quest for the revision of the ICJ ruling of October 10, 2002 which ceded Bakassi to Cameroun. The provision stated:-

Article 57(2): If the Judgment does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the Judges, any Judge shall be entitled to deliver a separate opinion.

Critically reviewing and analyzing the separate/dissenting opinions of some of the Judges of the Court as provided by the Article 57 of Statute of the ICJ cited above, their separate declarations against the Court's ruling as presented in the Summary of the Court's Judgment of October 10, 2002 is quite revealing and indeed exposing the erroneous basis upon which judgment was passed. Irrespective of the numerical strength of the voting which favours the Cameroun, the intellectual exposition, the analytical skills on the strength of law, International Jurisprudence and conventional wisdom, suggest either there was an organized conspiracy to derail justice against a party in the case or just a mischievous plot to overlooked the place of intellectualism on the case by the Court.

These separate/dissenting opinions of members of the court who adjudicated over the case raised credibility questions on their intellectual status, sound sense of judgment, neutrality and courage of the Judges who voted in favour of the judgment. These dissenting/separate opinions if adopted could have added colours, class and credence to the International Court of Justice verdict and, indeed the United Nations in passing the contentious Judgment of October 10, 2002.

Highlight 5: After all, Article 38 (Sub-Section a-d) of the Statute of the Court has provided another window to Nigeria to explore in reinforcing the legal status of these intellectual expositions of some of the Judges who expressed their reservations to the court's judgment over the Bakassi Peninsula which ceded the Island erroneously to the Cameroun on October 10, 2002.

Reservations to court's judgment

The Article 38 (1) Sub-Section a-d states: "The Court, whose functions is to decide in accordance with International law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

(a) International Conventions whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

(b) International customs, as evidence of a general practice as law;

(c) The general principle of law recognized by civilized nations;

(d) Subject to the provision of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law."

These separate/dissenting opinions of some of the Court Judges to the October 10, 2002 verdict over the Bakassi Peninsula coupled with the interpretation of the term "Treaty of Protection of 1884 between the Old Calabar Chiefs and Britain" by renowned International Jurists and Scholars articulated in this paper would show how the ICJ violated its own Statute of Article 38 (1) Sub-Section a-d which presents a sound legal basis for the Court to revisit the said contentious Judgment of October 10, 2002 which ceded the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun. Moreso, Nigeria still has a legal basis to request the ICJ to revisit the contentious judgment it passed on October 10, 2002 by invoking Article 66(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 which states: "any one of the parties to a dispute concerning the application or interpretation of Article 53 or 64 may, by a written application, submit it to the International Court of Justice for a decision unless the parties by common consent agree to submit the dispute for arbitration"

Highlight 6: Diplomatic option open to Nigeria: Furthermore. Nigeria still has a window to explore diplomatic option before the United Nations until the expiration of the ten year grace in the said judgment which ends on October 10, 2012. Article 66 (b) of the said Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 States: anyone of the parties to a dispute concerning the application or the interpretation of any of the other articles in Part V of the present Convention (i.e. Invalidity, Termination and Suspension of the operation of Treaties) may set in motion the procedure specified in the Annex to the Convention by submitting a request to that effect to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Consequently, the above provision of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties has opened yet another window to Nigeria, while still utilizing the legal instruments cited above and many others being projected by other stakeholders across country for consideration by the Nigerian Government. Moreso, these available diplomatic options open to Nigeria within the United Nations when explored could equally provide a face saving diplomatic channel for the world body to revisit this contentious verdict of the ICJ. Also, the precarious security threat such insensitivity may pose within the Gulf of Guinea Region of Africa in particular and global peace in general imply that, a request by Nigeria to the Court to revisit the ICJ ruling of October 10, 2002 becomes inevitable.

The controversial green-tree agreement of year 2006: The on-going national controversy over the legitimacy of the Green-Tree Agreement of year 2006 is not unexpected. However, there are existing International Instruments which legitimizes such an exercise. The question as to whether the said Agreement needed be ratified by the Nigeria Legislature or as to whether President Obasanjo had powers to single handedly enter into a Treaty or Agreement without ratification of the Nigerian Parliaments are equally provided in the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties for Nigeria to explore.

Article 7 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states the procedures/personalities that have the capacity to conclude treaties/agreements as understood in International Law.

(Article 7(1) states: A person is considered as representing a State for the purpose of adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty or for the purpose of expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty if :

(a) he produces appropriate full power or ;

(b) it appears from the paragraph 2 of the Statute or from other circumstances that their intentions was to consider that person as representing the State for such purposes and to dispense with.

Article 7 (2) states: In virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are considered representing their State:

(a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers of Foreign Affairs for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty;

(b) head of Diplomatic Missions, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty between the accrediting State and the State to which they are accredited;

(c) representatives accredited by States to an International Conference or to an International organization or one of its organs, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty in that Conference, organization or organ.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201209110707.html

Nigeria can simply refuse to relocate the indigence of Bakassi and support their fight for independence from Cameroon. Better yet a referendum to join Nigeria and not Cameroon. Southwestern Cameroon did something similar to Nigeria in the 1960s. Bakassi can do the same to Cameroon.

This issue should be revisited by GEJ. Cameroon does not own Bakassi.

I

free2ryhme: Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Robert Clarke argues that the Bakassi Peninsula was territorially never in Nigeria. Clarke said this during an in an interview with our judiciary correspondent, Shola Soyele.


Clarke said “some legal practitioners who thought they could procure a false judgment led the country down the path of submitting to the jurisdiction of the World Court”.

He added that ” because 80 per cent of Bakassi citizens are Nigerians we can defend it by force. So, knowing fully well that we do not own it we should not have subscribed to going to the world court for a litigation”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBNTrPoPxIM&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

If 80% of Bakassi citizens are Nigerians but we don't own the territory then Cameroon own Bakassi based on the speculation of potential oil and gas claims. Now i see Nigeria intellectuals are hot property. Sorry!

If the truth be known, OBJ had third term agenda and went out of his way to satisfy the west. Bakassi is just another corruption episode of OBJ.

Wen will Bakassi be returned to its indigence. Communities decide were their land belongs not Oil.

Remaining for them to close business. Better luck next time.

People should be careful not to make excuses for ra.pist that lured a girl to an untimely death. I don't believe she wanted to die or believed she was in any danger at the hands of those ANIMALS. She probably have known dem for a while and decided to check dem out as friends with potential for more.(very common amongst singles) Unknown to her this animals had bad intentions.

Those animals planned everything and killed her. May the soul of all involved in the death of that girl perish in eternal damnation. After dey are destroyed here on earth.

The animals still think its a joke. Covering their face and wearing clothes, sitting down and making hands gesture. What ever happened to the Nigeria Police Force. Their body and face should be rearranged by now. This is very very annoying.

yesterday, the Southeast Governor’s Forum condemned the killing of Cynthia, the daughter of Major-General Osukogu, by suspected Facebook friends.

Chairman of the forum and Anambra State Governor, Mr Peter Obi spoke with reporters on the arrest of one of the suspects at Nnewi.

The two culprits - Okwuoma Nwabufor and Ezekiel Odera have confessed to the crime.

Obi described Cynthia’s killers as wicked and barbaric. He said the killers were not worthy to live among men.

The governor described as unfortunate a situation where some people, rather than tap the enormous advantages that go with the internet and other social media, seek to put it into bad use thus bringing it into disrepute.

He said the bad use was symptomatic of the erosion of values in our society and declared that what Nigeria needed most is value-reorientation and ethical rebirth.

I absolutely agree wit the bolded. Nigerians are morally bankrupt. These people are beyond sick and have turned right to wrong and wrong to right. They are twisted.

I just want dem to suffer forever,drugged, tied up, before an unsually painful death.There mother, father and siblings must follow becos dey killed the poor gal family the day, they killed Cynthia.

I believe the hotel should be shut down. It is possible that Cynthia wasn't dead but assumed to be dead and put in a mortuary. Did dey call an ambulance or doctor? Dey just complied with the bastards request to remove her from the room without any attempt to resuscitate her. This story just seem senseless and unbelievable but it happened.

I find myself praying this story is not true and everyday it is updated the reality dawns on me, leaving a very sorrowful heart daily. RIP Cynthia

Wen will dis criminal make front page. I am still waitin. https://www.nairaland.com/1020558/olutayo-owolabi-hmrcs-most-wanted-tax

I am very annoyed. This story appears to have affected me more than any other sadistic news.This was a calculated r.a.pe. I don't see how any body can pay to rob a person.

These animals came prepared as date ra.pist with tranquilizer and would dispose their victim of belongings to recover expenses.

In this case the victim retained consciousness and was savagely beaten with intent to knock her out but she never regained consciousness. Tranquilizer, beating and affixation would definitely cause death. She did not stand a chance against does odds.


Those animals and family need to pay for this big time. They should all die and their blood used to cleanse the land they have defiled. Then we consider wat to do to their village.

Those animals should be given public execution. Worst than a common thief, if possible their family and village wiped off the map. sick! sick! sick!


RIP Cynthia