₦airaland Forum

That is simply public nuissance. If I was there I would ask him to stop and respect the public space of the other passengers. It is bad enough that these christians behave in such despicable a manner, but to have the gabbage from the bible spoken at by these shrieking preachers is my idea of hell.

Who is greatest or least in the kingdom of heaven? Does god have some sort of hierarchical system in heaven into which entrant would/are placed?

JC does suggest such a system when he alluded to some people being called greatest or least in the kingdom of heaven.

If there is such a social stratifcation, how would one be allocation to any given strata? For instance, would Moses be given the same honours as Abraham? Would Paul be honoured in the same manner as Elijah?

Try ordering the following in the order in which they deserve honour in heaven;

Aaron
Moses
Joshua
Mary (Mother of JC)
Job
David
Ruth
Peter
James
Pope John Paul II

It is a shame and a human disaster than the African ( and for that matter, the world at large) has adopted this book that comes from the barbarism of nomadic desert dwellers in Arabia.

What are we to make of the injunction from Jesus requiring his disciples NOT to go into the villages of non-Jews and calling non-Jews derogatorily dogs and that he did not come for them. If JC did not come for non-Jew, how do Africans and other non-Jews see themselves in his salvidic plans?

Does it not say somewhere in the bible that @whatever you ask in my name, it shall be given to you"?

If I had to choose between satan and god, I would definitely go for satan. Not only is he more fun, you can be sure to come off alive. With god, your chances of death and punishment are very high.

In the bible satan is supposed to have killed about 10 people while god's body count exceed 10 million.

From the amount of post on Nairaland discussing the tension between the Northern and Southern regions of Nigeria, it is obvious that these two regions are sitting very uncomfortably together as a state/nation. In fact, there appears to be no love lost between the people from these regions, with the obligatory bashing and mud slinging one to the other.

But how would Nigerian feel if such bashing were coming from a non-Nigerian? Say, a non-Nigerian was bashing a Northern Nigerian - how would a Southern Nigerian take that?

Does a non-Nigerian bashing a Nigerian the same as Nigerian bashing a Nigerian?

http://www.omoigui.com/
Gowon and Bakassi
By Dr. Nowa Omoigui
To the Editor, Guardian Newspapers, Lagos, Nigeria
Sir
In a recent article titled "Gowon, the Queen and the stolen bronze", Reuben Abati raised
interesting questions about the alleged expropriation of an original piece of Benin
artwork from the National museum by General Gowon enroute to Britain in 1973 for a
State trip.
I understand the sentiment he projected and agree with the moral outrage over the
museum matter.
However, I was bothered by his attempt to link the issue of the Benin Bronze gift to the
Bakassi question. A journalist of Abati's stature ought to be much more familiar with the
truth about the Bakassi issue. The media should refrain from sensational publications
which can smear people unnecessarily and/or push government into an untenable
domestic political corner in dealing with complex external affairs issues.
Again and again, over the years (since the July 1975 coup) this false story has been
peddled around that Gowon gave away Bakassi to Cameroun as a gift. It is one of the
bigger lies of the modern Nigerian generation - a lie which has affected Nigeria's
approach over the years to the Bakassi dispute and has even unnecessarily cost the lives
of Nigerian soldiers.
Briefly, let me point out that:
1. Treaties between Britain and Germany dating back to 1913, official Nigerian regional
border delineation (eg The Legal Notice No. 126 of 1954), as well as British-Nigerian
http://www.omoigui.com/ 2
and Nigerian-Cameroun exchange of diplomatic notes (1960-2) all clarified the matter
LONG BEFORE Gowon ever came to power in 1966.
2. Administrative maps of Nigeria have continued to reflect these realities, showing
Bakassi inside Cameroun, except the few that were reprinted in 1991 (during the
Babangida/Aikhomu regime) to try to reinvent the wheel. A courtesy visit to most
Government ministries in Nigeria, which often pin Nigerian maps up on walls, will
confirm this observation. Pay particular attention to the South-east corner and notice
where the maps claim Bakassi is.
3. During the Cameroon/Nigeria plebiscite of 1961, 21 polling stations were physically
located in the Bakassi peninsula. UN records clearly show that approximately 73% of the
people living there AT THAT TIME voted NOT to be administered under independent
Nigeria. This is fairly easy to confirm either from the UN itself or Ambassador BA Clark
who was Deputy Permanent Secretary External Affairs in 1970/71. The precise number
of polling booths and their exact locations is a matter of public record. It is fair to assume
that the vote was binding on future generations in the area. The question of whether it
could have been different - as was the case with Northern Cameroons - is one of the more
fascinating but unexamined aspects of Nigeria's history from that period. Whether the
vote meant that the people of Southern Cameroons should form their own country or be
fused with French Cameroun is another curious angle that has recently surfaced.
4. General Gowon was guided in his approach to the Nigeria-Cameroun border question
by a formal legal opinion prepared in 1970 by the late Teslim Elias, Nigeria's former
Attorney General and, incidentally, later a Judge of the ICJ. Elias prepared a well thought
out formal brief for then Commissioner for External Affairs, Okoi Arikpo, (who was of
South Eastern State origin), in which he clearly stated that Nigeria had no legal claim to
the Bakassi peninsula. Elias also advised that given the legal and historical precedents, as
well as the good relations between both countries, and the role Cameroun played during
the civil war, it was not wise, fair nor right for Nigeria to press the issue. This document
is available.
http://www.omoigui.com/ 3
5. In 1969, even before the Elias opinion - and long before Gowon ever met with Ahidjo
to discuss the border, the office of the Geographer, US State Department, came to the
same conclusion about the Nigeria-Cameroun border. This document is also available.
6. Although some indigenes of the area, local politicians and misguided national
commentators have raised dust over the years, the real dispute between Nigeria and
Cameroun was not originally about the shrimp rich Bakassi peninsula per se. As a
consequence of language in the original Anglo-German Treaty, the dispute was about the
OFFSHORE border and precise delineation of the APPROACH CHANNEL to the
Calabar Port. Why? Because the treaty stated that the NAVIGABLE portion of the
channel was to lie wholly within Nigeria while the peninsula itself was to lie wholly
within Cameroun - even if the Akpa Yafe river was to change its course and flow into the
Rio del Rey. The issue, therefore, was to define the navigable channel. This became more
sensitive when oil was discovered offshore.
7. General Gowon relied on experts from the Federal Survey Department in the Ministry
of Works on what the offshore delineation of the approach channel to the Calabar Estuary
should be - up to the 3-mile limit. The Nigerian civil servant (not Gowon) who actually
decided the offshore eastern border of the navigable channel - which formed the basis of
what became known as the Coker-Ngo line - was Chief R. Oluwole Coker, Director of
Federal Surveys. Accompanied by a group of civil servants from then South Eastern
(later Cross-River) State, including SJ King who had previously served as Consul
General in the Nigerian mission at Buea, the Solicitor General and Permanent Secretary
for Justice of the South Eastern State (Mr. Ukot) at that time was party to it and cosigned
the declaration. It is not, however, clear whether the Permanent Secretary of the Federal
Ministry of Works, Gray Longe, or the Federal Commissioner, Femi Okunnu, were aware
of the details. The Governor of the South Eastern State, Col. UJ Esuene was certainly in
the delegation, as was Colonel Musa Usman of the North Eastern State. Mr. U Ekaette,
now Secretary to the Obasanjo government, was also there as one of Gowon's key
assistants. Surveyor Adeleye was in attendance.
http://www.omoigui.com/ 4
What Gowon and Ahidjo did was to sign on either side of the Coker-Ngo line. When
Ahidjo asked Gowon to draw the line, Gowon in turn turned to Chief Coker and asked
him to define it. Gowon did not order anyone to give anything away to Cameroun, nor
did he do so himself. The specifics of this line were certainly previously fiercely debated
internally within the Survey Department at a technical level, and there were some who
felt it ought to have been further toward the Cameroun side, but it is wrong to suggest
that General Yakubu Gowon "gave away Bakassi". The issue of Bakassi itself was sealed
by the Ministry of Justice legal opinion, supported by Okoi Arikpo of External Affairs,
based on decades of legal and political precedent. If the people of the Bakassi peninsula
had either boycotted the Cameroon plebiscite altogether or had voted along with the rest
of Southern Cameroons to stay in Nigeria, the matter would have been much less
complicated - although it could still have been an internal border problem between states.
To compound issues, the late Alhaji Malabu, one time Nigerian Ambassador to
Cameroun used to say some people in the area often paid taxes to both countries. There
are unconfirmed reports that some of the local residents also kept taking part in voter
registration and elections in Nigeria AFTER voting overwelmingly to leave!
8. In reaching an agreement with Ahidjo about the Coker-Ngo "navigable channel"
border, the question of whether Gowon had the authority to do so without subsequent
ratification by the SMC was also the subject of another legal opinion by the Nigerian
Ministry of Justice of that era. Gowon's authority (as confirmed by the Justice Ministry)
derived from a decree originally promulgated by the Ironsi regime. It will be recalled that
the Supreme Military Council - under this decree - was only an advisory body to the
Head of State. Neither Ironsi nor Gowon after him required legal ratification for anything
from the SMC. This is why, for example, Ironsi was able to promulgate the unification
decree of 1966 without formal SMC approval.
Gowon's powers after July 29, 1966, (in continuation of Ironsi's powers) were the subject
of discussions at Aburi in January 1967, and led to the controversial Decree No. 8 of
1967. This decree was never, however, formally codified because Ojukwu rejected it in
the run down to the outbreak of the civil war in July 1967. It will be recalled that in late
May 1967 Gowon declared a State of Emergency and assumed full powers after the
http://www.omoigui.com/ 5
Ojukwu-appointed Eastern Regional Assembly mandated Ojukwu to declare secession. In
1969, after Colonel Obasanjo refused to cooperate with Colonel Muhammed to delay the
end of the civil war in order to force Gowon to "share power" with other officers, there
was no further opportunity (or interest) after the war to change the powers assumed in the
original Ironsi decree. The decree and Gowon's "supreme commander" like legal status
was thus in effect when the Nigerian-Cameroun Boundary commission was doing its
work in the early seventies.
9. When Brigadier Muhammed came to power in July 1975 he initially wanted to retain
this "sole power" arrangement but was overruled by the middle ranking officers
(Yar'Adua, Garba, Abdul Mohammed, Taiwo etc) who carried out the coup. This is why
he had to agree to share power with Brigadiers Obasanjo and Danjuma in a trioka. This is
also why the new decree reconstituting the new SMC in 1975 (after Gowon was
overthrown) enhanced the authority of the SMC and made it more than an advisory
council. It was in the context of this newly enhanced power for the post-July 1975 SMC
that questions were raised (retrospectively) about Gowon's authority to sign the Coker-
Ngo line. However, AT THE TIME he did, Gowon was well within his legal powers no
matter what we may feel today. However, whether the civil servants who advised him to
accept the precise location of the Coker-Ngo line, advised appropriately, is a different
issue. Whether ANY military government can sign ANY agreement whatsoever for the
country is another. The latter is a fundamental point that affects many laws, agreements
and treaties signed by Nigerian governments during the long period of military rule.
10. The sensitive question of arbitrary colonial borders in Africa affects many countries.
There are Yoruba speaking communities which are split between Nigerian and Benin
republic. There are Ewe speaking communities split between Ghana and Togo. The
question of communities split between Nigeria and Cameroun is unfortunate but not
unique. Nigeria, in ratifying instruments which established the OAU in 1963, agreed to
respect the inviolability of colonial borders. This was reflected in the 1964 OAU Cairo
Declaration on Border Disputes among African States.
http://www.omoigui.com/ 6
11. Very interestingly, it came to light during the Buhari regime that several years
AFTER Gowon left office the precise location of the Coker-Ngo line and the navigation
beacons for approaching the Calabar Estuary were shifted even further westwards toward
Nigeria making our case worse. This shift (which was done either during the Obasanjo or
Shagari regimes) may have been done without authority or proper research by the
Nigerian Ports Authority - another consequence of the frequent turn-overs of
governments in Nigeria and lack of collaboration between various pre and post-coup
regimes. Or perhaps it was done to create a reason to award a contract to dredge the area.
Who knows?
12. I humbly advise Reuben Abati (and others) to review original documents or talk
directly to those civil servants WHO WERE THERE AT THAT TIME before he (and
others) write further on the Bakassi matter, confusing Nigerian policy makers and the
public and potentially exposing our soldiers to unnecessary risk. Some of those in the
know are dead but there are others who are not.
13. Like other Nigerians, I hope the judgement of the ICJ helps to settle this issue or
create a framework for bilateral and trilateral discussions to resolve the dispute - for the
sake of those who live there and for the sake of the rest of us. I am also eager to see how
the ICJ reacts to the interesting arguments put forward by Chief Richard Akinjide and his
legal team.
14. However, in the meantime, journalists should stop repeating the lie that Gowon gave
away the Bakassi peninsula. He may have given away an original piece of Benin Bronze
to the Queen of England. But he did not give away Bakassi to Cameroun.
Nowa Omoigui
Columbia, South Carolina
USA

Have northerns got a legitimate claim for separate statehood?

Read a background of the dispute here: http://www.omoigui.com/files/the_bakassi_story.pdf

What is most disturbing about the Bakassi affair is the level of ignorance in the general public in both countries (Cameroon & Nigeria) about the historical background underlying the territorial claims of both countries. What is even more disturbing is the amount of willful ignorance about the legal issues involved.

But what is most vexing and potentially dangerous is the emotive reaction people on both side of the borders display without a full grasp of the issues. Issues of these types are not the sort of arenas for emotional and ill-tempered individuals to pontificate on. It takes the level-headedness of career diplomats, international lawyers, historians, scholars and dispute negotiators to resolve. Hence, the decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Nigerian government to hand the disputed territory to Cameroon must not only be applauded but should be seen as an exemplar for resolving international territorial disputes. This is a most "civilised" way of resolving disputes.

The media on both side can be held culpable for irresponsible coverage of the whole affair. At the start of today, I was no better informed than the average man on the street about the details and background of the dispute - shame on me. But the difference I have made is that I sought to redress my ignorance on the issue. So it was that I found this report -

http://www.omoigui.com/files/the_bakassi_story.pdf

which gives a very detailed background into the post-colonial boundary issues between the Nigerian and Cameroonian territories immediately post independence. I strongly urge you to inform yourself on the history of the dispute by reading the linked document or any other material, for that matter.

To the ordinary people of both countries, say inhabitants of Kano or Douala or Lagos or Abuja, Bakassi is but a small territory in a far-off region at the edges of their country. Before this issue took the international dimension it now has, few of these urban inhabitants would have known where Bakassi is, much less want to split blood over it. What amount of national affinity does a Kanoian have with a native of Calabar, Ogoni or Bakassi? What amount of affinity does a Yaoundian have with the locals of Bakassi, Ida Bato, etc?

To the administrative elites who run both countries, these regions are but their playthings, handed to them in the hustling and jostling in the immediate aftermath of de-colonization. That these may yet prove to be mineral rich makes it even more of a toy to them. Just see the way the oil wealth of both countries have been squandered by the ruling class, riding roughshod over the needs and concerns of the locals. The disenfranchisement of the inhabitants of the Delta region by the Nigeria government comes to mind.

Now, to what extend is the ordinary Nigerian or Cameroonian citizen able to be manipulated by their respective ruling elite to go do their dirty work (ie fight a war) and under the virulent guise of patriotism and nationalism. Would you really want to bear arms in the name of your country without having been fully informed about why you are doing so?

We blame and criticise the American government for leading an illegal war against Iraq. I think, it behooves us to inform ourselves about the real background to the dispute lest we find ourselves supporting an illegal action by our government.

The painful truth is that many people will remain uninformed about the historical background to the issues, hence rendering themselves mechanical drones susceptible to easy manipulation by their respective governments. Evidence from regions of territorial disputes and conflict (Kossovo, Rwanda, etc) shows that many of the belligerence would have been avoided if only people had a better grasp of their history and that of their neighbours.

I think this peaceful transfer of Bakassi to Cameroon ought to be commended and taken as the paragon of resolving international disputes in this day and age for it shows respect of international laws dating back to 1913.

Huxley was born in Cameroon.


References:
http://www.ipacademy.org/meetings/recent-meetings/2007/08/07/lessons-from-the-resolution-of-the-bakassi-dispute/

Read the full background to the story here: http://www.omoigui.com/files/the_bakassi_story.pdf

Another interesting report: http://www.gamji.com/

SMC/002/07
24 May 84.


Lt-Col Dan P Archibong
The Military Governor
Cross River State
Calabar.


NIGERIA/CAMEROUN BORDER

The attention of the Federal Military Government has been drawn to the petition of 10th November, 1983, addressed to the then Governor of Cross River State, Chief Donald Etiebet by the Chiefs and elders of Abana Atuen-Effiat and copied to the Speaker of the Cross River State House of Assembly etc. The community had written to protest vehemently against alleged acts of brutality inflicted on the citizens of Effiat/Mbo Local Government Area by Cameroun gendarmeries. They alleged that on 10th November, 1983, at about 5 a.m., the gendarmeries molested them and emphasized that they should pay tax to the Government of Cameroun. The community had asserted in the petition that they are Nigerians living on Nigerian soil and fishing in Nigerian territorial waters, and that villages like Abana Ntuen, Atabong, Edem Abasi, Ine Odong, Ine Atayo, Ine Akpak with a total population of over 500,000 people were being administered by the Nigerian Government even before the advent of missionaries in Calabar. Consequently, they urged government to take urgent and decisive action to protect the citizens of Cross River State at Abana Ntuen from being tortured and killed on their soil.



2. The Cross River State House of Assembly which subsequently debated the report insinuated Federal Government’s neglect of the community and, accordingly, called on the Federal Government to take urgent steps to halt the disgraceful and inhuman actions of the gendarmeries and save the lives of the affected citizens. The Nigerian press including the “Nigerian Chronicle” of 23rd November, 1983 and the “Nigerian Herald” of 1st December, 1983 which reported the proceedings of the House of Assembly had highlighted alleged invasion of Nigerian villages by Cameroun gendarmeries. The attention of the Secretary to the Cross River State Government was earlier drawn to the present intransigence of the affected community towards the Cameroun authorities vide the letter No. 21/Vol.XX/668 of 22nd June, 1983. Nonetheless, the apparent continuance of misrepresentations demand that the Nigeria/Cameroun border problem should be put once again in its correct perspective.



3. The boundary between Nigeria and Cameron is predicated on the Anglo-German treaty of 1913, copy attached as Annex 1. Before the Nigerian Independence in 1960, the Bakassi Peninsula which lies between the Akwayefe River (Akpayefe) and the Rio-del-Rey estuary was administered by Nigeria as part of Southern Cameroun . As a result, there was free movement of people. However, following the subsequent reunification of Southern Cameroun with Cameroun Republic in 1961, the border took a new complexion apparently unknown to the Nigerian fisherman who thought that since they were linguistically linked with one another in the creeks, they were in Nigerian territory. The erroneous impression gained ground as both Nigeria and Cameroun Governement made no visible move to assert their authority in the creek areas. The situation, however, changed dramatically when in 1973 Cameroun decided to substitute the names of their fishing settlements bearing indigenous Nigerian names with Camerounian names. Unfortunately our maps had continued to carry the old Nigerian names while Nigerians constituted more than 90% of the population of the Bakassi Peninsula which has been focal point in dispute. Some of those Nigerians had been inhabiting the area even before the 1913 treaty. The prevailing situation in the area had created the illusion that the territory is ours whenever there is a conflict and the Nigerian press did not help matters by giving erroneous impression that the area concerned is part of Nigeria. The security and law enforcement agents equally had their share of the blame as they carried out their operations under the impression that the area East of the Akpayefe River belong to Nigeria.



This is far from the truth.



4. Several attempts had been made by Nigeria and Cameroun to settle the border disputes. A technical committee comprising officials of both countries was set up in June 1965 to settle a land dispute between the people of Danari in Ekong Division of Nigeria and Boudam in Cameroun . The survey work which followed was aborted at the start of the Nigerian Civil War. Another committee was set up in 1970 which after holding several meetings arrived at the famous “Coker/ Ngoh” line. The new boundary line drawn on sheet 3433 attached as Annex 11 to this letter was rejected by the Nigerian Government as it obstructed the navigable part of the Calabar channel.



5. The problem of the maritime border henceforth featured prominently in subsequent discussions held between the then- Head of the Federal Military Government, Gen. Yakubu Gowon and President Ahmadu Ahidjo in Garoua from 4th to 6th August, 1972, in Kano from 30th August to 1st September, 1974, and in Maroua from 30th May to 1st June, 1975. The last meeting resulted in the issuing of the “Maroua Declaration” attached as Annex 111 and the demarcation by the Head of State shown on chart 3433. The two Heads of State thought that they had found a lasting solution to the border problems. However, following the overthrow of the Gowon administration 2 months latter, the succeeding military administration found the declaration completely unacceptable. The declaration was accordingly repudiated by General Olusegun Obasanjo during his meeting with President Ahidjo in Garoua from 7th to 9th Ausust, 1977. Cameroun on its part has since been reluctant to re-open the issue.



6. Meanwhile, a conducive atmosphere is yet to be found to review the situation due mainly to the following intervening incidents:



( i ) the arrest of the district head of Idabato and 8 Camerounian Armed Forces personnel on 21st June, 1981, following their incursion into Nigerian territory. Although the Cameroun functionaries were released soon afterwards the arms taken from them were returned after a special plea made by President Ahmadu Ahidjo during his visit to Nigeria in January, 1982; and



(ii) the ambush and resultant killing of 5 Nigerian soldiers by Camerounians on 16th May, 1981 following which the Nigerian Government insisted upon and obtained compensation for the bereaved Nigerian families.



7. Every avenue is still being explored to get the two countries to agree on a final demarcation of the maritime border. Meanwhile, as reports of alleged harassment and extortion of Nigerian fisherman by Cameroun gendarmes, frequent incursions by the security agents of both countries across the ill-defined border, and continuing resistance by the Nigerian living in the Bakassi peninsula to pay tax to Cameroun continue to be received, I should emphasize that the Bakassi peninsula and the Rio-Del-Rey estuary are definitely in Cameroun territory. Although the border is yet to be demarcated it would be indefensible to lay claim to any areas eastwards from the thalweg of the Akwayafe River. Copies of the map of Ikang, sheet 332 attached hereto as Annex iv have accordingly been made available for the guidance of Nigerian security agencies, to ensure that they confine their activities to Nigerian territory. In taking the foregoing steps, it is expected that the tension generated in the area as a result of the unlawful incursions by both sides would be reduced especially with the additional effort of the Nigerian Ambassador in Cameroun who has been implored to press his host Government to accept its responsibilities under the 1913 treaty. Cameroun is obliged to allow Nigerians residing in the border areas to pursue their livelihood without undue harassment. To assist in keeping peace in the areas it is necessary to persuade those Nigerians in territories known to belong to Cameroun to give due regard to and cooperate with their host country in the interest of all concerned. They should be left in no doubt as to the possible serious consequences to themselves, in the first place, and to relations between Nigeria and Cameroun, of their continued recalcitrance. It is understood that the inhabitants of most of the islands on the Cameroun side, with the exception of the island of Njabane (Atabong) have in fact, started to cooperate with the Cameroun authorities. To encourage this positive development, you should facilitate the usual exchange of visits with the Governor of the Littoral Province in Cameroun , and such other steps that will impress on the minds of the local inhabitants that they cannot change boundaries. On the whole, public enlightenment on the issue is necessary at your end, while diplomatic efforts are being made to resolve the issue for the mutual benefit of the two neighboring African Nations.



V.L. ODUWAIYE



Rear Admiral







for Chief of Staff



Supreme Headquarters

This report is quite informative about the background of Bakassi. Look at this excerpt on page 18, http://www.omoigui.com/files/the_bakassi_story.pdf

The federal plan was to link up through Oban with 1st Division federal elements coming
down from Ikom against Biafran forces led by Lt. Col. Ochei. The objective was to cut
off the Biafran border point with Cameroun at Ikang. This was finally achieved in
December. However, the road to Ikom along with the towns of Ikot Okpara, Amolo
Water Town, Mbabu Owa and Agobi-Iwolo were not taken until the end of January 1968,
courtesy of a controversial Biafran withdrawal ordered by European mercenaries hired by
Ojukwu. Note that in his book "My Command" written by General Obasanjo (rtd) and
published by Heinemann in 1981, all the maps of that sector show the Bakassi peninsula
in Cameroun (page 93). In his book “The Struggle for Secession, 1966-1970. Frank
Cass, 1971” N.U. Akpan, the Secretary to the Eastern Regional and later Biafran
government, who is himself of South-Eastern origin, also shows the Bakassi peninsula in
Cameroun in a map titled “Map of Eastern Nigeria declared Biafra, 30th May, 1967”
(page 20). The war did not begin until July 6th.

So it looks like there has been a long period of recognition that this territory belong to Cameroon.

I have just read up on some background (http://www.omoigui.com/files/the_bakassi_story.pd) to the disputed territory and it seems to me that this is another case of high politics and international affairs arrogantly riding roughshod over the sentiments of the people involved.

The people in Bakassi clearly self-identify as Nigerians and have been under Nigerian administration for many decades. They should have held a plebiscite there to give the people a chance to express their opinions. Such was the case in the 60s when many lands swapped sides, some going to Nigeria, some to Cameroon.

In my opinion, this decision is triumph of arrogant and high-handed international politics over the desires of the local people. It is decisions of these nature that lay the ground for future resentments and unrests such as we are seeing in Georgia over Ossetia.

The Nigeria government should be commended for exercising such restraints and being reasonable with the negotiations. If Bakassi is to remain a Cameroonian territory, I wonder whether the Bakassians will soon forget that there were once administered from Nigeria, much like the other Nigerians who once belonged to the German administered Kamerun are living peacefully in Nigeria.

Some historical background of the Bakassi region here: http://www.omoigui.com/files/the_bakassi_story.pdf

I have just read up on some background to the disputed territory and it seems to me that this is another case of high politics and international affairs arrogantly riding roughshod over the sentiments of the people involved.

The people in Bakassi clearly self-identify as Nigerians and have been under Nigerian administration for many decades. They should have held a plebiscite there to give the people a chance to express their opinions. Such was the case in the 60s when many lands swapped sides, some going to Nigeria, some to Cameroon.

In my opinion, this decision is triumph of arrogant and high-handed international politics over the desires of the local people. It is decisions of these nature that lay the ground for future resentments and unrests such as we are seeing in Georgia over Ossetia.

The Nigeria government should be commended for exercising such restraints and being reasonable with the negotiations. If Bakassi is to remain a Cameroonian territory, I wonder whether the Bakassians will soon forget that there were once administered from Nigeria, much like the other Nigerians who once belonged to the German administered Kamerun are living peacefully in Nigeria.

The primary question we should be asking ourselves in this day and age is

"What is the proper and responsible way for determining the borders of states and countries"


Or for that matter within states, what are the proper and responsible way for deciding the borders between ethnically different regions within the same country/state, say the borders between Yoruba land and Igbo land?

I see some people here rattling their sabers and calling for severe repercusions one those responsible for the peaceful transfer of Bakkasi to Cameroon. I would venture to ask, "In which country did this land belong 100 years ago and how would the then residents have self-identified?"

Most of the states of the world are constituted by a patchwork of several ethnically different peoples living together on the same administrative authority. Think of Europe today. Most of central Europe from regions like Belgium, parts of France, Germany etc could have made claims of belonging to different state than were they are today. After the 1st world war, there was essentially a major redrawing of borders. These regions no live peacefully in new Europe that is advancing ever so rapidly and getting closer together under one governance. I think we Africans should learn from this. Alas, we may still have many dunces about who can only think in a small-minded regionalistic/nationalistic sense.

In international affairs, the honouring of agreements is considered a very gentlemanly type of conduct. If it is the case that this territory was used as a bargaining chip during the Biafra war, and there is evidence for that, then I think it behoves the Nigerian government to honour that deal. I particularly do not consider this story as true, it may only be aprocryphal. Was the territory in disputed then? Why would it have been worthy of been given away?

I wonder if both countries would have laid such a strong claim on this land had it been a poor wilderness. I bet the people of Bakkasi and their immediate neighbours (including humanitarians on both sides) are happy that little or no blood has been split of this little piece of territory.

Would be interesting to know what factors played in Cameroons favour in their claim for the territory apart from the so-called Biafra war deal. Without such a deal, and if it is true that the majority population currently self-identify as Nigerian, then it would stand to reason that the territory should have gone to Nigeria. There surely are other prevailing factors.

Yisraylite:
@ huxley

Quite Fair

Thats why I started with Psa 111:10, you don't have it yet. so everything copied and pasted shall remain utter rubbish to ya

Salamah
Yisraylite

What sort of bizarre and nonsensical circular logic (or better still, non-logic) is this. Why do I have to first of all belief and be committed to something that I am investigating? Further, you are asking me to trust the very thing (ie the bible) that I am questioning. Is this not illogical to you? Are there no independent source outside the bible that could provide credence to your point?

Yisraylite:
@ Huxley

Anyone who does not observe the LAW will never have a righteous understanding of YAHAWAH

Psa 111:10 The reverence of YAHAWAH is the beginning of wisdom; A righteous understanding have all those who do His commandments.
His praise endures forever.

Having said that, I can assure you that creation did not start with the Genesis account. You may say explain, so if find you can find when YAHAWAH created water or the waters of the earth, I fully explain

The Torah does not condon incest,

Lev 18:9 The unclothedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, [whether] born at home or elsewhere, their unclothedness you shall
not uncover.

Lev 18:10 The unclothedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter, their unclothedness you shall not uncover; for theirs [is] your own unclothedness.

So it is clear That Cain never slept with his sister, In fact he left the region entirely and went to the land of Nod

Gen 4:16 Then Cain went out from the presence of YAHAWH and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden

We clearly see Cain left by himself, and then this:

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son--Enoch.

Cain found this woman in the land of Nod and as it has been established, this wife he found in the land of Nod was not his Sister.

So the question is who were the kin of Cain's wife. These people were already on the earth. Let me stop here and hear from you.

Salam

Yisraylite

Would it be unfair if I said all of the above is rubbish as it completely failed to address any of the issues I discussed?

The narrative in Genesis 1 puts the history of the earth at no more than 10,000 years old. The was the prevailing and accepted age of the earth for many centuries, even at the dawn of Enlightenment and the scientific age. In fact, scientist who first postulated an ancient earth had the huge obstacle of Genesis to overcome. Although there may have been a few renegade individual you may have postulated an old earth in antiquity, this may have been the result of idle speculation, some deductive reasoning, mythology, or simple guesswork. Today, with sophisticated scientific tools it is possible to determine the age of the earth with greater degrees of accuracy. It is currently estimated at about 3.8 billion years old.

What is even more interesting is that for more that half that period life have existed on the planet, albeit in the form of unicellular and microbial life. Complex multicellular life is a rather younger participant of the drama of life on the planet, with a record no more than about 500 million years. The Cambrian explosion saw the emergence of new body-plans, new organism and a wide variety of flora. These evolved into your dinosaurs, flowering plants in later geological periods.

The dynamism and robustness of life on the planet is staggering. There have been many great extinction events on the planet, some wiping out 98% of all living things at the time. In fact, current estimates says about 99% of all things that have ever lived are now extinct.

The existence and extinction of life for many millions of years is clearly a problem for the Genesis account. Upon the widespread acceptance of the scientifically determined age of the earth and the facts of evolution, it became imperative for theologians to re-interpret and offer some kind of remedial understanding of the Genesis account. Some theologians found Genesis 1: 28 as offering that explanation of a pre-Adamite world.

Genesis 1:


26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


This basically means there must have been more than one creation events, interspersed by long eras of life and geological activities. The Christians promoting this view have latched onto the word REPLENISH in Genesis 1:28 to mean that god's latest creation was a replenishment of a long lost world. If this is true, what did god intend Adam&Eve (AE) to replenish on the earth?

1) Were AE meant to replenish the earth with only their own kind, that is only other humans? On this reasoning, are we to assume that this was a replenishment of some pre-Adamite humans? Is this an acknowledgment of the existence of Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo Afluerensis etc.

2) Adam is supposed to have named all the animals on the earth. Were the animals he named those created in the pre-Adamite world or those created alongside Adam?

3) What did god mean by give AE dominion over all living things?

Are there no Christian beggars? What are those pastors and ministers doing appealing for money in the form of tithes and offerings in the churches? What is the difference?

Ah, Jesus never died, according to Peter, Jesus's closest disciple. If you belief is predicated on his death, then look again.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7560334588471801986&hl=en

Enjoy

Luke 17:

20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

22And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.

[table][tr][td]The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
[/td][td]behold, the kingdom of God is within you.[/td][/tr][/table]

Can any of Jesus's pronouncements be so confusing and misleading as the above statement. In fact, all of Luke 17 is one of the most confused of jesus' s supposed speechs.

What is the difference between Heaven and the Kingdom of God?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY

Enjoy

I think "NAK" derives from the English word "knock".

Gamine:
Mr Guy.

You will never know, i know people who were once like you.

So when you die what will happen?

Atlist, if i die and find out there is Heaven and eternal life, i win

if i die and find out there is no heaven, i win

i would have lost NOTHING.

You on the other hand, would have lost EVERYTHING.

ah, so you definitely know you will end up in heaven, if there is a heaven?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6OknlMk2Cw

Interesting video about fundamentalist christians, speaking in tongues and slaying children in the spirit.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RDu1_sFn1o

Is this madness of what?