A special megaphone of CyberschuulNews

presents

A File on
Bakassi
 

 '....When we started the Bakassi Self Determination Front, led by Senator Florence Ita-Giwa, we went to see former President Olusegun Obasanjo thrice and he saw the pressure. So, he picked Senator Ita-Giwa and gave her appointment and the organization collapsed at that moment. She took the appointment and became a member of Obasanjo's Presidency and so the pressure on him ended.
    Imagine somebody working with Obasanjo allowing her area to be given to another country. She followed Obasanjo to the United States to sign the Green Tree Agreement. That is why I insist that she sold out. No Yoruba (God bless them) would have followed the President to give out their territory; their ancestral home. They would have resigned and made the whole world know why they are doing so and even made the government to have a second thought.
   After all, Senators Victor Ndoma-Egba and Ewa Henshaw, whose district included Bakassi were in the National Assembly and did nothing when Bakassi was being given away. What did they do? Instead, they were pursuing the failed Third Term project of the same President. I told them so recently. Now that they have returned to the National Assembly, they are running around holding press conferences at this wee hour. What kind of leaders are they? A leader is known by the position he/she takes in times of crisis; when it matters most...'

........HRH Etinyin Etim Okon Edet, paramount ruler of the embattled Bakassi people

intro

Bakassi is the peninsular extension of the African territory of Calabar into the Atlantic Ocean. It is currently ruled by Cameroon (to the north) and Nigeria (to the south) following the transfer of sovereignty from neighbouring Nigeria as a result of a judgment by the International Court of Justice. On Thursday, the 22 of November 2007, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria sitting in Abuja rejected the transfer of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, since The Green Tree Agreement ceding the area to Cameroon was contrary to Section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

 The peninsula lies roughly between latitudes 4°25' and 5°10'N and longitudes 8°20' and 9°08'E . It consists of a number of low-lying, largely mangrove covered islands covering an area of around 665 km². The population of Bakassi is the subject of some dispute, but is generally put at between 150,000 and 300,000 people. 

Bakassi is situated at the extreme eastern end of the Gulf of Guinea, where the warm east-flowing Guinea Current (called Aya Efiat in Efik) meets the cold north-flowing Benguela Current (called Aya Ubenekang in Efik). These two great ocean currents interact creating huge foamy breakers which constantly advance towards the shore, and building submarine shoals rich in fish, shrimps, and an amazing variety of other marine life forms. This makes the Bakassi area a very fertile fishing ground, comparable only to Newfoundland in North America and Scandinavia in Western Europe. Most of the population make their living through fishing. 

The peninsula is commonly described as "oil-rich", though in fact no commercially viable deposits of oil have yet been discovered. However, the area has aroused considerable interest from oil companies in the light of the discovery of rich reserves of high grade crude oil elsewhere in Nigeria. At least eight multinational oil companies have participated in the exploration of the peninsula and its offshore waters. 

History
A kingdom was founded in Bakassi around 1450 by the Efik of coastal southeastern Nigeria, and was incorporated within the political framework of Calabar Kingdom along with Southern Cameroons. During the European scramble for Africa, Queen Victoria signed a Treaty of Protection with the King and Chiefs of Calabar on 10 September 1884. This enabled the United Kingdom to exercise control over the entire territory of Calabar, including Bakassi. The territory subsequently became de facto part of the republic of Nigeria, although the border was never permanently delineated. Interestingly, even after Southern Cameroons voted in 1961 to leave Nigeria and became a part of Cameroon, Bakassi remained under Calabar administration in Nigeria until ICJ judgement of 2002. 

Bakassi People
Bakassi people are mainly the Calabar people, the people of Cross River State and Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria, including the Efik, Ibibio, Annang, etc. 

Political status
Bakassi is currently administered by Cameroon after the end of Nigerian occupation. It enjoys a significant degree of local autonomy under traditional rulers; the current Monarch of Bakassi is Etinyin Etim Okon Edet an Efik man of Nigeria. 

Territorial dispute
Nigeria and Cameroon have disputed the possession of Bakassi for some years, leading to considerable tension between the two countries. In 1981 the two countries went to the brink of war over Bakassi and another area around Lake Chad, at the other end of the two countries' common border. More armed clashes broke out in the early 1990s. In response, Cameroon took the matter to the International Court of Justice on 29 March 1994. 

The case was extremely complex, requiring the court to review diplomatic exchanges dating back over 100 years. Nigeria relied largely on Anglo-German correspondence dating from 1885 as well as treaties between the colonial powers and the indigenous rulers in the area, particularly the 1884 Treaty of Protection. Cameroon pointed to the Anglo-German treaty of 1913, which defined spheres of control in the region, as well as two agreements signed in the 1970s between Cameroon and Nigeria. These were the Yaoundé II Declaration of 4 April 1971 and the Maroua Declaration of 1 June 1975, which were devised to outline maritime boundaries between the two countries following their independence. The line was drawn through the Cross River estuary to the west of the peninsula, thereby implying Cameroonian ownership over Bakassi. However, Nigeria never ratified the agreement, while Cameroon regarded it as being in force. 

ICJ verdict
The ICJ delivered its judgment on 10 October 2002, finding (based principally on the Anglo-German agreements) that sovereignty over Bakassi did indeed rest with Cameroon. It instructed Nigeria to transfer possession of the peninsula, but did not require the inhabitants to move or to change their nationality. Cameroon was thus given a substantial Nigerian population and was required to protect their rights, infrastructure and welfare.

 The verdict caused consternation in Nigeria. It aroused vitriolic comments from Nigerian officials and the Nigerian media alike. Chief Richard Akinjide, a former Nigerian Attorney-General and Minister of Justice who had been a leading member of Nigeria's legal team, described the decision as "50% international law and 50% international politics", "blatantly biased and unfair", "a total disaster", and a "complete fraud". The Nigerian newspaper The Guardian went further, declaring that the judgment was "a rape and unforeseen potential international conspiracy against Nigerian territorial integrity and sovereignty" and "part of a Western ploy to foment and perpetuate trouble in Africa". The outcome of the controversy was a de facto Nigerian refusal to withdraw militarily from Bakassi and transfer sovereignty. The Nigerian government did not, however, openly reject the judgment but instead called for an agreement that would provide "peace with honour, with the interest and welfare of our people." 

The ICJ judgment was backed up by the United Nations, whose charter potentially allowed sanctions or even the use of force to enforce the court's ruling. Secretary-General Kofi Annan stepped in as a mediator and chaired a tripartite summit with the two countries' presidents on 15 November 2002, which established a commission to facilitate the peaceful implementation of the ICJ's judgement. A further summit was held on 31 January 2004. This has made significant progress, but the process has been complicated by the opposition of Bakassi's inhabitants to being transferred to Cameroon. Bakassian leaders have threatened to seek independence if Nigeria renounces sovereignty. This secession was announced on 9 July 2006, as the "Democratic Republic of Bakassi". The decision was reportedly made at a meeting on 2 July 2006 and The Vanguard newspaper of Nigeria reported the decision to secede. The decision was reportedly made by groups of militants including Southern Cameroons under the aegis of Southern Cameroons Peoples Organisation (SCAPO), Bakassi Movement for Self Determination (BAMOSD), and the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). 

Resolution
On 13 June 2006, President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria and President Paul Biya of Cameroon resolved the dispute in talks led by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in New York City. Obasanjo agreed to withdraw Nigerian troops within 60 days and to leave the territory completely in Cameroonian control within the next two years. Annan said, "With today's agreement on the Bakassi peninsula, a comprehensive resolution of the dispute is within our grasp. The momentum achieved must be sustained." 

Withdrawal
Nigeria began to withdraw its military, comprising some 3000 troops, beginning 1 August 2006, and a ceremony on 14 August marked the formal handover of the northern part of the peninsula. The remainder will stay under Nigerian civil authority for two more years. 

Nigeria Senate ruled on November 22, 2007 that the hand over of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon is illegal. The federal government is yet to take action but has agreed to hand over the region on August 14, 2008. 

The government plans to hand the final parts of Bakassi over to Cameroon on 14 August 2008 as planned, but a court has stated this should be delayed until all accomodations for resettled Bakassians had been settled; the government does not seem to plan to heed this court order. Fishermen displaced from Bakassi had been settled in a landlocked area called New Bakassi, which they claim is already inhabited and not suitable for fishermen like them but only for farmers.

Source : Wikipedia

Bakassi: 'Nigeria’s legal team did the damage' -Sagay -
'But we can reclaim the territory'
by Emerson Gobert, Jr, THE SATURDAY SUN, Saturday, August 2, 2008

Twelve days from today, Nigeria is expected to cede the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to the Republic of Cameroun in line with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment delivered at The Hague, The Netherlands on October 22, 2002.

The judgment which was further emboldened by the Green Tree Agreement which gave a five-year period of grace for Nigeria to disengage from the peninsula and relocate its citizens is expected to come into force on that day. 

And President Umar Musa Yar’Adua has at various times repeatedly stated that Nigeria will abide by the terms and letters of the judgment and the agreement signed on behalf of Nigeria by his predecessor, Gen. Olusegun Obsanjo.

 But before Yar’Adua hands over the oil-rich zone to President Paul Biya of Cameroun against the passionate wishes of the indigenes and popular voices of the public, it may be needful for him to spare an ear to an expert’s counsel on the matter.

Professor of Constitutional Law, Itse Sagay has told Saturday Sun exclusively that there is still a window of opportunity, which can be explored by Nigeria as a country or the Bakassians, as indigenes to put on hold the handing over of the peninsula.

Q. Prince Bola Ajibola who represented Nigerians interest at The Hague in the Bakassi case has said that the Nigerian case was jeopardized by activities of past government officials, including verbal note sent to the Camerounian government in 1962 by Nigeria Foreign Affairs Minister. Do you share this position with him?

Yes, he’s right in that sense. In a way, Nigeria destroyed its own case before the ICJ in the sense that we had, in our usual nonchalant irresponsible manner accumulated evidences in favor of Cameroun whereas Cameroun turned out to be a country that had an agenda against Bakassi and has been laying the foundation of by gradually getting used to commit ourselves at every stage over a period of 30 years or so before the case, for example Ahmadu Ahidjo made Gen. Yakubu Gowon sign a strong memorandum in which Bakassi was put in the Camerounian side in exchange for support during the civil war.

Not only was that, Nigeria’s surveyor General’s maps of Nigeria reproduced without Bakassi being part of Nigeria. All these were in possession of Cameroun so that Bakassi is in Cameroun.

But that treaty was an illegal one because Britain had no right to transfer Nigerian territory in 1913. It had no power. It was not in the colonial authority. Two, you cannot transfer a people and their territory without a referendum, without their right to self determination. But there was this accumulation of evidence coming from us in which we were admitting Cameroun as the owner of Bakassi. So, not to that extent, yes, Ajibola was right.

Q. He has also admitted that Nigeria did not do good homework. In his words, “we disclaimed Bakassi”, would you say Nigeria did a thorough work before going to the ICJ?

There are three points that I will make here: one favorable to Nigeria, the rest unfavorable. The first unfavorable one is this. We should not have accepted the court jurisdiction in the first place. That was a mistake because as at that time Cameroun filed that suit, as at the time the dispute arose, Cameroun was not a member of what we call the Optional Club. In other words, it had not joined or accepted declaration of the International Court of Justice. We had accepted it and the international rules covering the jurisdiction of the courts to say, No, you a non-party cannot bring a case before us and that would have been upheld by the court. We should have said, No. we should have excused jurisdiction based on the fact that Cameroun was not a party. Cameroun joined when it was ready to bring that case against us. Those are circumstances which international law and the law of the court allow us to resist the jurisdiction successfully. We do not do that. That was a big mistake.

On a positive side, in spite of all the mistakes we made indirectly, inadvertently signaling that Cameroun was the owner of the territory, we were in physical control throughout. We administered it. There were hospitals, the schools, police, anything you can see in a modern state was provided by Nigeria. We were the ones that were administering it. Effectively, we were on the ground. Cameroun was not in possession and not in a position to have an upper hand. Moreover, you cannot transfer a territory and the people without the right of self determination. That means the right to a referendum should have won us the case. So, it is very unfortunate that the court overlooked that aspect.

Q. August 14 is the handover date of the peninsula to Cameroun according to the Green Tree Agreement but the indigenes are still making statements, which portray their reluctance to leave. Is it possible to reverse the ICJ judgments? Is there room for appeal at this state?

In fact, I wasn’t fully aware of the facts of the situation. I thought we had finally handed over the territory until this issue arose recently. About 15 months ago, I saw the former Attorney General, Bayo Ojo at a ceremony in which our flag was lowered and the Camerounian flag was raised. While trading out those people was one of the most obscene spectacles I’ve ever come across in my life, the man betraying his people, giving out a whole territory to a foreign oppressor was smiling and embracing Cameroun. I had thought that that was the end. I was pleasantly surprised when I started reading recently that the processes are not complete, that there is still to be a formal hand over. This gave us a window of opportunity.

You asked a correct question. Is there an appeal? No! You can only appeal where there are facts relevant to the situation of which you were not aware and which you were not brought before the court and which would have made a defect and all that must be within six months of the judgment. So, there is no room for appeal but there is right for a report to the Security Council because under the same chapter which says that we must comply with the judgment of the court, there is also a provision that when there is non compliance, the matter should be taken to the Security Council which is the major political organ of the United Nations which in fact, is the enforcing arm which is supposed to enforce judgment.

The Security Council is empowered to look at the situation and if it deems it necessary, deviate from the decision of the International Court of Justice, decide whether to enforce or not to enforce. That is the import of that provision. It is within the discretion of the Security Council. Now, that is a window of opportunity and my view is that we can still go back to the Security Council, and say that the right to self determination was denied the people of bakassi and that it is illegal to transfer people and territory from one territory to the other without their consent. It is illegal under international law. So what the international court of justice did was illegal and we can then implore the Security Council to take a political step to correct that illegality and decree a referendum so that the people can decide where they want to go. I give you two good examples. The present Adamawa is in Cameroun but the people of Adamawa and the surrounding areas voted in1961 to stay with Nigeria and refused to go back to Cameroun under the Germans but they joined Nigeria for administrative purposes after World War II but in 1960 when independence was coming, they were billed to go back to meet their people in Cameroun and not to remain in Nigeria, they decided to remain with Nigeria. Southern Cameroun, which is the English-speaking Cameroun is the same thing. They came from Cameroun to Nigeria in 1945and went back in 1961.

When they voted, they voted to go back to Cameroun. The same thing happened to an ethnic group in Ghana. They are Togolese but they voted to stay in Ghana rather than going back to Togo. You cannot transfer people and territory from one territory to another. They are not people who left Nigeria to stay there. No! That territory belongs to them as an Oyo man owns Oyo, as an Itsekiri man owns Itsekiri and so on. You cannot remove them. It is their ancestral right. Unless they have voted to join another territory and they have been denied this right. So the whole judgment is illegal and only the Security Council can correct it. There is a moral aspect in addition to the legal aspect.
Nigeria should have looked for support from China or Russia but because Obasanjo was anxious that Nigeria should be a permanent member at the United Nations that is why he decided to sacrifice Bakassi.

The people of Bakassi were sacrificed by Obasanjo, as simple as that. And Bola Ajibola led a delegation to arrange to hand over the same territory to the Cameroun which he said does not own it at the ICJ, taking away from Nigeria which you say owns it, and that is why I keep on asking, if bakassi were part of Ogun State, would they negotiate and hand it over or is it because the people of bakassi are disowned people? This is the moral aspect to this thing in addition to the legal aspect.

Q. Recently, the presidency said the accord was illegal and the Chief of Defense Staff, Gen. Owoye Azazi disclosed that Obasanjo acted alone on the issue and did not consult the military, adding that the handover was not in Nigeria’s security interest. Do you agree?

When there is clash between international obligation and internal irregularity, the international obligation prevails. The judgment of the court is now regarded as international obligation in which we have to fulfill and international law will not tolerate us with an excuse that our internal law- our constitution does not allow us to carry out that obligation. So, our people are right- the National Assembly and all the other people are right in what they are saying. You cannot rely on them to up turn an international obligation. You have to go to that international sector, Security Council to untwine that obligation to suit our circumstances. That is a wrong approach.

Q.The indigenes of Bakassi have also rejected the makeshift relocation arrangements made by the Cross River State Government. What is likely to happen in this situation?

I don’t really know what Nigeria expected. It’s just like you have a hometown or a village and they tell you either you stay in your village and be crowned a Camerounian or you move away from your village and over to Asaba or somewhere where they will look for a new place for you to live in forever and ever, you will always be reminded by Asaba people that we are just giving you a shelter in this place, you don’t belong here. You will never operate freely in such an atmosphere. I can understand this people. There can be no material compensation for the loss of your home land. The people of bakassi should now mobilize themselves and go independently to the Security Council and mobilize the international community on their struggle.

Q. The UN says that if Nigeria reneges on the pact, it might cause diplomatic blunder at the world body. What does that mean?

That’s why I said they should be diplomatic in getting to the Security Council. When it goes to the Security Council, it would not be seen as reneging. It will be seen as complying with an international law. But if we sit at home and refuse to handover without doing anything, that’s when we will be in trouble but if we bring the matter to the Security Council, let us see those who will argue that the people of Bakassi are not entitled to their right of self determination which is the number one rights in international law. We call it voluntary law, that is, a law that is from nature that it cannot be altered. I don’t see any country that can argue that the people of Bakassi are not entitled to the right of self determination.


 

 Nigeria says Bakassi handover still on track
AFP News August 1, 2008

ABUJA (AFP) - Nigeria's scheduled August 14 handover of the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon remains on track, despite a court order to delay the move, the president's office says.  

"Our country has a commitment to handover the peninsula by August 14 and so far nothing has changed," said presidential spokesman Olusegun Adeniyi. 

"If there are legal hurdles, the president is fully committed to addressing those hurdles so that the handover can go on as planned," he told AFP late Thursday. 

He added: "Nigeria will not abandon its sovereign responsibilities and international obligations." 

Acting on a petition by eight Nigerian residents of Bakassi, federal court judge Mohammed Umar ruled in Nigeria's capital Abuja that all parties in the case maintain the status quo, pending another court hearing on October 20. 

But Adeniyi said President Umaru Yar'Adua has already directed his justice minister "to file the necessary motions to overturn the ruling and I think he will do that tomorrow (Friday)." 

Yar'Adua said last week that Nigeria was "fully committed to a successful handover" on August 14. 

The so-called Green Tree agreement was signed in New York on June 12, 2006 during US-facilitated mediation talks between Nigeria and Cameroon in the presence of then UN secretary general Kofi Annan. 

It followed a 2002 ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague that awarded the disputed territory to Cameroon, ending a drawn-out legal battle. 

A 1,000-square-kilometre (386-square-mile) patch of coastal swamp jutting out into the North Atlantic, Bakassi is believed to contain considerable oil and gas reserves as well as rich fishing grounds. 

Doubts about Nigeria's commitment to the handover arose from a row in the federal parliament over accusations that former President Olusegun Obasanjo acted unilaterally in agreeing the deal. 

Reacting to Thursday's court ruling, Bassey U. Bassey, an official in the legal department of Cross River state, which borders Cameroon, said the decision to maintain the status quo was pointless. 

"This order is not capable of being obeyed because this court cannot sit as an appellate court on the judgment of the International Court of Justice in The Hague," he said. 

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Kayode Fasetire, said the legal action was not intended to challenge the judgment of ICJ, but rather focused on the modalities of its implementation. 

"We know that we are bound by the judgment of the ICJ," he said. 

"The presidency did not submit the Green Tree Agreement to the National Assembly for ratification while the legislature also failed in its oversight functions to call the president to order."

UN urges Nigeria to hand over Bakassi to Cameroun
Imade Peter Babs, New York, NIGERIAN COMPASS August 5, 2008

PRESIDENT Umar Musa Yar'Adua's body language on the controversial planned handover of the Bakassi peninsular to Cameroun is easily discernible: He wants to carry it out.

But, just in case the Nigerian leader is still mulling over the planned action, the United Nations (UN) top hierarchy at the weekend had a piece of advice for him: Just do it.

If he does hand the territory over, however, it will be against the wishes of many indigenes of the affected area and an assembly of Nigerians in the United States who also at the weekend told Yar'Adua not to reverse the principles of the late Alhaji Ahmadu Bello who strove spiritedly to have Northern Cameroun to Nigeria.

The chairman of US-PRONACO and an activist with the Committee to Defend Bakassi, Dr. Baba Adam, last week urged Yar'Adua to be guided by history in his decision on the controversy.

In a memorandum he distributed to close aides of the President, Adam warned that "just like one of the great legacies of the late Sardauna of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello was on making everything possible for Northern Cameroun to join Nigeria - long time from now the legacy of President Yar'Adua will be tied to his stand on Bakassi... This is very time sensitive and this issue is of national importance."

Under a "Green Tree Accord," brokered by the UN, and signed by Cameroun and Nigeria in New York two years ago, the peninsular is billed to be handed over to the neighbouring country on August 14.

The Nigerian Compass attended a meeting of top UN chiefs in New York at the weekend where the world body's opinion on the controversy was gleaned.

The UN chiefs, who noted the order of a Federal High Court in Abuja last week mandating all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum, in a suit instituted by some representatives of the peninsular, urged Nigeria to implement the accord.

Empowered Newswire reported yesterday that the top UN diplomats expressed hopes that President Yar'Adua would ensure that the agreement is complied with, to the letter.

A senior diplomat of the world body described the report credited to the Federal Government that it would go ahead with the agreement as "good news from Nigeria."

The UN officials noted that top Federal Government officials, including representatives of two ministers — the Attorney General and a Foreign Affairs Minister of State—had spoken critically of the UN accord at the Senate public hearing on the issue.

But the office of the spokesperson for the UN Secretary General responded that the agreement was still valid. Others at the world body advised Yar'Adua to ensure that Nigeria keep faith with the agreement.

Since then, the Federal Government has issued other statements reinforcing its commitment to implementing the accord next week.

It is believed that the Yar'Adua administration has given renewed diplomatic assurances both to the UN and Cameroun on its intention to proceed with the accord.

Both the Attorney-General and the Inspector General of Police are members of the UN Follow-Up Committee which oversees the implementation of the accord.

Top UN sources revealed that the world body was keeping a close tab on developments on the Bakassi issue and were banking on President Yar'Adua in spite of the critical developments from the National Assembly and the court decision last week halting the transfer of areas billed for August 14 next week.

But officials of the world body are keeping mum on the court order in the hope that the Federal Government would ensure that the agreement is not overturned.

However just as the UN top officials are hoping that President Yar'Adua would ensure that the agreement does not falter, US-based Nigerians are pumping up the pressure also on the president and the National Assembly.

For instance, the chairman of US-PRONACO and an activist with the Committee to Defend Bakassi, Dr. Baba Adam, wrote to the National Assembly last month seeking to also testify against the Greentree accord at the Senate hearing.

US-based Nigerians are also using close associates of President Yar'Adua to reach him and express the reservations of Nigerians abroad over the agreement which many consider ill-advised and a violation of Nigeria's constitution. Some of Yar'Adua's closest aides have reaches among leading US-based Nigerians.

For instance, some of Yar'Adua aides went to same colleges and schools in the US several years back.

According to Dr. Adam: "We are very concerned about the Presidency's stand that the handover of Bakassi to Cameroun will go on as planned on August 14, 2008 - even after the highest ranking Nigerian Army officer Gen. (Owoye) Azazi, Chief of Defense Staff (CDS)'s public testimony at Senate on July 16, 2008 that the transfer will be a security risk to Nigeria. " Adam added that the position of the CDS is reaffirmed by the Navy - former Chief of Naval Staff, Rear Admiral Suleiman Sa'idu.

In a similar vein, last week the House of Representative passed a unanimous resolution requesting the President to seek National Assembly ratification before completing the transfer of Bakassi. According to Adam: "We believe the President is aware of this."

Equally, Adam said US-based Nigerians are very concerned that the President whose mantra is "rule of law" — may also planning to ignore or appeal the court order issued last week by the Federal High Court in Abuja restraining transfer of Bakassi.



 

Bakassi indigenes threaten minister with contempt charge
THE NATION, August 5, 2008

INDIGENES of Bakassi yesterday said they would file contempt of court charge against the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Michael Aondoakaa (SAN), if the peninsula is handed over to Cameroon.
The indigenes, in a statement in Abuja by their lawyer, Mr. Kayode Fasetire, said the order of the Federal High Court restraining the government from ceding Bakassi to Cameroon was "clear and unambiguous".

They called on civil rights organisations to take a stand and support them in their plight.

"In particular, the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) must reject this affront on the judiciary by the Attorney-General," the statement said.

A Federal High Court, Abuja, last Thursday, restrained the federal government from ceding Bakassi to Cameroon.

Justice Mohammed Umar had ordered that all parties to the suit, including the federal government, should maintain the status quo.

"The justice of this case is that parties to this suit should maintain the status quo so that the subject matter will not be destroyed.

"The subject matter is Southern Bakassi, which is to be ceded by the defendants on August. 14.

"It is hereby ordered that parties should maintain the status quo and should not take any step pending the hearing of all applications," Justice Umar had ruled.

He adjourned further hearing in the case to October 20 when the court would have resumed from vacation.

At a news briefing last Friday, however, Aondoakaa said the order not withstanding, the government would go ahead with the handing over.

He had said the order of the court was not only confusing, but an aberration.

"A court order must be so explicit to the effect that the person who is bound by it should be able to comply.

"In this case, the order poses a dilemma because it does not state which status quo to maintain at the time it was enrolled by the judge. "The status quo that I know is that there is a judgment of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, which the government had partly implemented and must implement completely," Aondoakaa had said.

 

Bakassi: Azazi denies media reports
by Molly Kilete, Abuja, DAILY SUN, Friday, July 18, 2008

The Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Andrew Owoye Azazi, has denied media reports ascribed to him that former President Olusegun Obasanjo did not consult the military over the ceding of the Bakassi Pennisula to the Republic of Cameroon. 

Gen. Azazi, who made the clarification at a briefing with Defence correspondents in his office on Thursday in Abuja said his testimony at the Senate Joint ad-hoc committee investigating the Green Tree Agreement (GTA), did not in anyway reflect on the screaming headlines of most newspapers reports of Thursday. 

Azazi, who was at the National Assembly at the instance of the Senate Joint ad-hoc committee investigating the Green Tree Agreement, to give details of military involvement in the Bakassi Peninsula saga, said he had told the committee members that even though the former CDS, General Martin-Luther Agwai, had accompanied former President Olusegun Obasanjo to New York, he was unable to give further details of the military’s involvement and contributions as he was yet to lay his hands on any concrete documents prepared by the military over the matter.

According to him, “what transpired at the public hearing did not reflect what was written. I was asked a question as to how the military was involved in the green tree agreement and I said that I remembered that the former CDS accompanied the then President when he was going to New York, and am still looking for documents, prepared by the military if they contributed and I haven’t seen them and that when I see them, I will present them to the committee on public hearing and if there is none, I will put up a position paper.” 

On the issue of national security, Azazi, said he told the committee that boundary adjustment in the Bakassi Peninsula if left the way it is, could jeopardize Nigeria’s security in that area because of the Calabar ports and that it also undermines Nigerian shipping as the deep waters is mostly on the Cameroonian side.  

“There was no issue of the president at the time not taking the military into confidence or the president at the time not consulting the military on the agreement to be done. The screaming headline about OBJ not consulting the military is absolutely unnecessary.” Azazi, said.

ICJ judgement on Bakassi binding - AGF
by Chidi Obineche,  DAILY SUN, Monday, July 7, 2008

Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr Mike Aondokaa (SAN) has said that Nigeria will obey the International Court of Justice ruling which ceded the disputed Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun. 

The House of Representatives recently rejected the judgement and urged the Federal Government not to respect it.

But speaking to newsmen in Lagos at the weekend the minister said that it would not augur well for the nation as a member state of the United Nations (UN) to disobey it

He frowned at news reports that tended to suggest a wholesale renouncing of the IJC jurisdiction to which the nation voluntarily submitted herself to. 

He said, “from the point of law, submitting ourselves to the jurisdiction of the IJC was voluntary and having done that, and participated throughout the trials and through to the judgment, it will not augur well for us a member and as part of the United Nations to say we are not obeying the court judgement.”

He also discountenanced those who were equating the judgement to a treaty, saying that the two were different and served the opposite ends. 

“The issue here is that it is a judgement from the world court and not a treaty per se. So there are two different things and we should not mix them up,” he declared.

On the Green Tree agreement, which came as a fallout of the bulky judgement, he reasoned that the agreement could not stand without fully implementing the judgement.

The AGF urged Nigerians to show concern about the uncertainties surrounding the nation’s huge oil installations in the area, rather than dissipating energy on a seemingly wild goose chase of spurning the judgement. 

As a way out of the logjam, he suggested a prototype of the joint venture agreement on the management of the nation’s expensive oil installations in Sao Tome.

“I think what should concern or bother us as a country is what happens to the oil installations we have in that area. I think what will happen is that we cannot move or uproot our oil installations that are on the border, because they are owned by Nigeria and they are really expensive.

“We have some arrangement with Sao Tome for example, where we have a joint venture agreement on the management of our oil installations in that country.

In the case of the ones we have in Cameroun (Bakassi), we can strike the same type of agreement since we are not fighting,” he declared. 

Continuing, he said, “those oil installations are ours and some of them fall right on the demarcation area. So what do we do? I think we could have a joint commissions to manage these oil resources. We can convert these equipment to equities and turn that place to a security zone which could be managed under a special arrangement.” 

The minister further spoke on the Supreme Court judgement on new Lagos local government councils.

He advised the state to obey the judgement to the letter, saying it was wrong for the government to select which sections of the judgement to obey. 

He explained, “Lagos State should follow the law on the issue of 20 local governments. There is a Supreme Court ruling that said that it was wrong for the Federal Government to hold local government’s money in Lagos which we obeyed, and the same Supreme Court also recognized only 20 local governments in Lagos. So they should abide by that ruling too.  

“The same court ruled that Lagos cannot have additional local governments until they have the required presidential approval to do so. As a good government, I expect them to respect the ruling.“Are they saying that Lagos State Government will not respect he Supreme Court decision? My advice is that Lagos State should respect the Supreme Court ruling which they initially got benefit from. They got their money. It is the duty of any government to respect the law, and where that fails to happen, it will be very unfortunate.

Hand-over Bakassi, risk impeachment, Arigbe-Osula tells Yar’Adua
by DAILY SUN Reporter, Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Barely two weeks to the scheduled hand-over of the Bakassi Peninsula to the Camerounian authorities, the Federal Government has been told to perish the idea. Hon. Emmanuel Arigbe-Osula, a former member of the House of Representatives who gave the warning at the weekend said President Umaru Yar’Adua would be committing an impeachable offence if he goes ahead to handover the oil-rich region. 

The former All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) governorship candidate in Edo State said before Bakassi or any other part of the country listed in the first schedule of the 1999 constitution can be excised, the constitution must first be tinkered with. 

“Bakassi is a part of our constitution in first schedule and section 8 (4) and section 9 (3). The president will be breaching the constitution and committing impeachable offence if he supports this lawlessness of his predecessor, while irredeemably rubbishing his supposed commitment to the rule of law,” he noted. 

Last week, Yar’Adua while receiving the new Camerounian High Commissioner to Nigeria, Mr. Salaheddine Abbas had said the deal between Nigeria and Cameroun over the oil rich Bakassi Peninsula was irrevocable and insisted that his administration will for no reason go back on the issue.

According to him, Nigeria was ready and fully committed to a successful handover of the disputed Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun on August 14, 2008, in accordance with the Green Tree Agreement signed between Nigeria and Cameroun. 

“We must ensure that the August 14 handover goes ahead, in accordance with the Green Tree Agreement, and then we shall continue to work together to further strengthen our existing very cordial and brotherly relations,” Yar’Adua had said. 

But a visibly concerned Arigbe-Osula told Daily Sun at the weekend that the treaty, which purportedly relocated Bakassi was not only a farce, but was against the spirit and letter of the constitution which Yar’Adua has sworn to defend and uphold.

“Treaties, even when in compliance with section 12 of the constitution cannot controvert the supremacy of our constitution nor circumvent it”, he reasoned.  

He continued: “Treaty, no matter how good the intention, an international body, no matter how big, including the UN, cannot legislate for Nigeria, particularly if such legislation is inconsistent with the provision of our constitution.  

The supremacy of our constitution cannot be undermined by anyone who has a serious and valid democratic credential and regard for the rule of law. Consequently, those members of the National Assembly who support the seccession of Bakassi without the amendment of the constitution in line with section 9 (3) are committing a sacrilege. The president will be breaching the constitution and committing impeachable offence if he supports this lawlessness of his predecessor, while irredeemably rubbishing his supposed commitment to the rule of law. 

“The NASS, by itself, cannot amend the constitution nor make a law inconsistent with the constitution valid even if they passed it. Bakassi shall remain a part of Nigeria until all constitutional conditions are met before it can be ceded away. It is, therefore, still the responsibility of Nigeria to ensure their welfare and security.  

We can do the right thing now or go the lawless part and plunge our country into an avoidable crisis.”

According to Arigbe-Osula, by backing down from handing over Bakassi, Yar’Adua will be remedying one of the most hideous crimes of Obasanjo’s administration against Nigerians who in a desperate bid to perpetuate himself in power ceded away part of the nation ostensibly to hoodwink other world leaders that he was peace-loving and the solution to the Africa insecurity.

“The international communities will respect us if we do the right thing,” he maintained.

Nigeria to appeal Bakassi delay
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7537020.stm
Friday, 1 August 2008

 Hundreds of thousands of people have moved from their homes in Bakassi 

The Nigerian government is preparing to appeal a court ruling delaying the handover of the oil-rich border region of Bakassi to Cameroon.  

A Federal High Court ruled this week that the handover be delayed until a compensation claim can be resolved by the courts in October.  

But the government is intent on ceding the Bakassi region in two weeks time.  

A group of Bakassi leaders are seeking 400bn naira ($3.3bn, £1.7bn) in compensation from the government.  

  Thousands of people now have no drinkable water, no place to live  

Bakassi campaigner Joe Etene  

They say the government has not prepared for all the people who have left Bakassi.  

The compensation would amount to 1.9m naira ($16,000, £8,000) for each person displaced.  

No accommodation  

The government built a block of apartments with 200 rooms to accommodate 206,000 people, said Joe Etene, one of the people who brought the suit.  

 "People have moved from their ancestral homes. Thousands of people now have no drinkable water, no place to live," he said.  

"We want the government to learn they can't do that to people."  

The area set aside for the people who moved out of Bakassi has no access to the sea, campaigners say.  

Bakassi has a rich fishing culture and people say the handover has destroyed their way of life.  

In 1981 Cameroon and Nigeria nearly went to war over the region, thought to be rich in oil and gas.

During the 1990s there were bloody clashes that claimed dozens of lives.  

An International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled that the disputed region be ceded to Cameroon in 2002.

 Part of the region was handed over to the Cameroonians in 2006.  

The remaining portion will be ceded in August.  

Nigerian President Umar Yar'Adua reportedly assured his Cameroonian counterpart that the handover would go ahead as planned, local media has reported.  

'Legal theory'
Mr Etene said it was important to stop the handover before the compensation claim could be settled because after the handover there would be more refugees to deal with.  

Campaigners say the treaty that agreed the handover was not ratified by the Nigerian Senate.  

But a Nigerian constitutional lawyer told the BBC the Federal High Court's decision would not stop the handover.  

"The government has behaved in a way that respects the treaty agreement to hand Bakassi over," said Awalu Yadudu.

"It's now an legal argument only in theory."  

Nigerian Armed Group vows to Halt Bakassi Handover, Plans more attacks
by Gilbert da Costa ,Abuja, 25 July 2008
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-07-25-voa45.cfm

Nigeria is due to complete its withdrawals from the disputed Bakassi peninsula on the 14th of August, but fresh tension is mounting as Nigerian gunmen opposed to the handover intensify attacks on Cameroon troops in the territory. Gilbert da Costa in Abuja reports the Nigerian legislature has yet to ratify the handover deal, leaving the process hanging in the balance. 

A little-known group, the Niger Delta Defense and Security Council, has promised more attacks on Cameroonian forces in parts of Bakassi already ceded by Nigeria, unless the deal that gave Bakassi to Cameroon, signed by Nigeria's former president is revised. 

Cameroon's defense ministry said twelve people, two Cameroonian soldiers and 10 Nigerian gunmen, were killed Thursday in an attack by an armed gang in Cameroon's oil-rich west, close to the Nigerian border. Eight of the attackers were taken prisoner, a statement said. 

Nigerian gunmen in speedboats have routinely attacked Cameroon's military positions in the peninsula in recent months. 

At least four deadly assaults have been reported since November 2007 as pressure to abort the final phase of the handover process mounts in Nigeria, leading to increased tension in the region.  

Nigerian troops lower the Nigerian Flag and the military flag in Archibong, a disputed area of southern Bakassi Peninsula, Nigeria. The upsurge in attacks coincides with growing resentment within Nigeria of the deal signed by former president Olusegun Obasanjo to abide by the 2002 International Court of Justice ruling that the 1000-square kilometer oil-rich territory belonged to Cameroon. The Nigerian parliament has yet to ratify the deal and various groups have mounted a legal challenge. Chief Edet Okon, the traditional ruler of Bakassi, says he is not impressed with the last-minute campaign to abort the handover.

"It is amazing to see a group of people who were there when the [former] president took the action, who were supposed to rise up at that time," he said. "They did not do so for reasons best known to them and today after many things have gone astray, somebody is now just waking up to say it was not properly done. Where were those people when those things were done? 

Most of the population of the penisula, who are Nigerians, have been given the option of staying under Cameroon authority or being resettled in Nigeria. 

The dispute over ownership of the peninsula brought the neighbors close to war in the 1980s. 

Bakassi lies east of the restive Niger Delta, the source of nearly all of Nigeria's oil and gas. Oil output from Nigeria, the world's eighth biggest exporter, has been cut by a fifth in the past two years due to attacks on oil infrastructure and personnel by Delta-based militant groups.

Court stops Bakassi handover  
by Kamarudeen Ogundele, THE NATION, 1/8/2008

A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday pulled the brakes on the planned handover of the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon. The August 14 ceremony is to be put on hold pending the determination of a suit before the court. 

But the Cross River State Government said it would spurn the order, which it said cannot override the 2002 verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ceding Bakassi to Cameroon. 

Ruling on the suit brought by some Bakassi indigenes, Mr Justice Mohammed Umar said: 

"The interest of this case is that parties to this suit should maintain the status quo, so that the res (subject-matter) will not be destroyed.  

"The res is Southern Bakassi, which is to be ceded by the defendants on August 14.  

"It is hereby ordered that parties should maintain the status quo and should not take any step pending the hearing of all applications."  

Umar adjourned the matter till October 20 when the court would have resumed from annual vacation.  

Nigeria and Cameroon signed the "Green Tree Agreement" ceding the peninsula to Cameroon after the ICJ verdict.  

Under the agreement signed in New York on June 12, 2006, Cameroon is expected to take over the peninsula on August 14. 

Two former chairmen of the Bakassi Local Government, Chief Emmanuel Etene and Hon. Ani Esin, and six others are challenging the Federal Government’s decision to cede the area to Cameroon.  

In the suit, the plaintiffs are seeking N356billion compensation for the compulsory ceding of their ancestral homes and land and their source of livelihood to Cameroon in an unconstitutional manner.

The plaintiffs are also demanding N100 billion damages for alleged infringement of their rights to dignity, to acquire and own immovable property and to self-determination.  

They are also asking the court to stop the government from remitting funds due to Bakassi Local Government to Cross River State.  

Respondents in the suit are President Umaru Yar’Adua, the National Assembly, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Governor of Cross River State and the House of Assembly.  

Others are the National Boundary Commission, the Federal Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission.  

The plaintiffs, through their lawyer Mr. Kayode Fasetire, are praying the court to restrain the government from removing the administrative headquarters of Bakassi from Abana. They are also seeking an order stopping the government from ceding the remaining parts of Bakassi (Abana and Atabong Zones) to Cameroon.  

They said they are opposed to the resettlement of the affected people at the New Bakassi.  

According to them, the New Bakassi is landlocked and ideal for farmers and not fishermen like them.  

They also alleged that the Cameroon authority in which hand their fate now lies has a history of imposing undue taxes, molesting, assaulting and killing Nigerian citizens in Bakassi.  

"The creation of the New Bakassi Local Government by legislative fiat and the relocation of the headquarters without compliance with constitutional provision is inchoate.  

"The said New Bakassi is already inhabited by people other than Bakassi people, and the inhabitants are hostile to the Bakassi refugees," they said.  

Cross River State Deputy Director of Civil Litigation Mr. Bassey U. Bassey said the order would not be obeyed because a Federal High Court cannot sit on appeal over the ICJ decision.  

Besides, he said, the reliefs sought are embedded in the ICJ judgment.  

"This order is not capable of being obeyed because this court cannot sit as an appellate court on the judgment of the ICJ.  

"All the issues in this case as well as the final cession of Bakassi are fall-outs from the ICJ judgment.  

"Nigeria was represented in ICJ and it took active part in the proceedings. Nigerians’ interests were fully represented; so, ICJ’s judgment is binding on Nigerians. They are not against relocation. What they want is compensation. So, I can’t understand their problem. Parts of the decision have been implemented. Nigeria will obey ICJ and not this court," Bassey said.  

Hailing the decision, Fasetire expressed confidence in the judiciary as the last hope of the common man.  

According to him, the government erred in its agreement to cede the area because the National Assembly did not ratify the treaty.  

"It was in the course of their oversight function that they discovered the Federal Government goofed. Nigeria has not done what it is supposed to do before implementing the agreement,’’ he said  

The suit, Fasetire explained, was not to challenge the ICJ judgment but the modalities for its implementation. 

The ICJ verdict drew flaks from Nigerians who believed it was against the nation’s interest. 

To avoid a clash between Nigeria and Cameroon, the immediate past United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Kofi Annan waded in the matter. 

The UN then set up a Nigeria-Cameroon Mix Commission co-chaired by Prince Bola Ajibola and Ahmadou Ould-Abdallah to work out "ways of following up on the ICJ verdict and moving the process forward". 

After several meetings, the commission decided on August 14 as the handover date. 

To avoid any hitch, the government has started rehabilitating the Bakassi people who do not wish to be under Cameroon’s sovereignty.

Govt Faults Court Order, To Handover Bakassi
From Lemmy Ughegbe (Abuja), Muyiwa Adeyemi, Ajibola Amzat
and Cornelius Onuoha Lagos, Aniete Akpan, Calabar
Saturday, August 02, 2008

AN order by a Federal High Court, Abuja stopping the Federal Government from ceding Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun may not be obeyed by the Federal Government. The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Chief Michael Aondoakaa (SAN) said the order was not explicit. 

Even if it was specific, according to him, the order could not override a subsisting verdict of the International Court of Justice on the same matter. The minister said yesterday that the government would go ahead with the handover of the peninsula to the Cameroonian Government on August 14, adding that he would contest the order through an application.

 The government, he said would abide by the ruling of the ICJ and the Green Tree Agreement, which Nigeria signed with Cameroun on the Bakassi peninsula.

The government's action came 24 hours after Justice Mohammed Umar ordered it to maintain status quo ante bellum pending the determination of a suit brought by some Bakassi indigenes, opposing the handover. 

Umar said: "The justice of this case is that parties to this suit should maintain the status quo, so that the res (subject matter) will not be destroyed. The res, is Southern Bakassi, which is to be ceded by the defendants on August 14. It is hereby ordered that parties should maintain the status quo and should not take any step pending the hearing of all applications." 

But Aondoakaa told journalists that the court lacked the jurisdiction to review or sit over a matter that had been determined by the ICJ. 

He said the same Federal High Court headed by Justice Anwuri Chikere had earlier upheld government's preliminary objection against a similar suit filed by the same Bakassi indigenes on the reasoning that it (court) lacked the jurisdiction to restrain the government from enforcing the ICJ ruling. 

The minister said: "As a responsible government, our counsel tried to point out the subsisting other of his learned brother, Chikere J. which was not even appealed against, but the judge was not willing to listen to that." 

He pledged the government's commitment to the rule of law, declaring that no matter how painful an order may be, it remained committed to enforcing it." 

Aondoakaa assured Nigerians that government would do its best to protect the interests of its people at all time. 

His statement reads: "I have just been served an enroll order of Umar, J. of the Federal High Court, Abuja and I must say that all the order says is that parties should maintain status quo. What does status quo mean in this case? The status quo to my mind as the Chief Law Officer of the country is the judgment of the International Court of Justice hanging on our head, which we have been implementing from Borno State to other affected parts of the country. The status quo extends to our final handover date which is August 14. 

"There was a case before Justice Chikere. We filed a preliminary objection. The judgment they sought to restrain from being implemented being a judgment of the International Court of Justice, that court has no jurisdiction to entertain it because they were not parties to the suit. 

The same Federal High Court upheld our application and struck off the case; now we have two judgments. One is saying the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter, while the other says maintain status quo. Nobody has appealed against the first order, which says the court has no jurisdiction to sit over the subject matter of an ICJ judgment.  

Today we are having another order that we should maintain status quo. So which of the status quo are we maintaining? The status quo that is existing in law is the judgment of the ICJ, which was served on Nigeria. So, I don't understand the status quo the judge was talking about. He should have been more explicit by saying that he is restraining me from completing the process of enforcing the judgment of the International Court of Justice, it is a different thing. 

"I am not going to file an application to set aside the order because you have read the order that I should maintain status quo. The status quo is that I have a binding judgment against me. This judgment now I don't think it has made any point. To be honest with you, my duty is to follow the law but you must make things explicit to me." 

Opinions were however divided on the order of the Federal High Court. 

While some believed that the Nigerian court had no jurisdiction on the matter, others said that it remained an order that must be obeyed by the Government until a higher court vacated the order. 

A professor of International Law and former Vice Chancellor of University of Ado Ekiti, Akin Oyebode, said by "virtue of declaration of 1965, which Nigeria has accepted, the country is bound to carry out the decision of the ICJ."  

According to him, "Article 94 of UN Charter mandates any member to comply with the decision of ICJ in any case in which it is a party. The inadequacy of our local processes including the court processes is no defence. So, whatever decision emanating from our local court is of no consequence. And I am speaking as an international lawyer, because quite a number of people have been ventilating views that are not in consonance with the knowledge of international law".

Renowned historian, Prof. Anthony Asiwaju while sympathising with the people of the Bakassi and Nigerians over the loss, said the country was at the risk of being branded a "lawless member of the UN if she fails to honour the Green Tree Agreement signed by both countries." 

He said the decision of the Nigerian High Court threw up fundamental issues about the relationship between our domestic laws and court processes on one hand and the relationship between our local courts and the ICJ. 

According to him: "I am not a lawyer but I know there is a problem here for a lower court in Nigeria asking for a stay of execution of the judgment of the ICJ even when it cannot even do that for a Supreme Court. What I am saying is that a Nigeria court does not have a jurisdiction on this matter and the decision of the Nigeria court was just to create a jurisdictional confusion." 

A constitutional lawyer, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), however, said "the order of the High Court is an order of a court of competent jurisdiction and must be obeyed until it is upturned by a superior court. 

"It is not a question of whether or not it was validly made. If the Federal Government is not comfortable with the ruling of the High Court or feels it is invalidly made, all it has to do is to file an appeal against the ruling of the high court. Until such action is taken by the government and an appellate court overrules the lower court's decision, the order remains subsisting and must be obeyed." 

But Unknown to the indigenes of Bakassi that Federal would not obey the lower court order, it was jubilation in Abana, Amoto, Atabong and other parts of Bakass Peninsular as the Federal High Court on Thursday in Abuja restrained the Federal Government from handing over Bakassi Peninsular to Cameroun on August 14, 2008. 

The main Bakassi people who are the fishermen and traders in the fishing ports are particularly excited with the judgment saying they had long expected it. 

One of the fishermen Mr Etim Okon a native of Amoto said: "This is the best thing that has happened to us. The Obasanjo Government and his people sold us away to Cameroun but today the court has redeemed us. We are indegenes of Bakassi and we don't have anywhere else to go to". 

A Social critic and radical lawyer in the state, Chief Okoi Obono- Obla has described the ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja as being in consonance with constitutionality and the rule of law noting that "the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is part and parcel of international law which cannot be superior to the Nigeria constitution". 

He said: "The Green Tree Agreement upon which Nigeria plans to hand over the entire Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon has no place in law, except it is rectified by the National Assembly as demanded by the letters and spirit of the nation's constitution, and until this is done the entire process is null and void and not binding." 

The former Special Adviser to the President on National Assembly matters Senator Florence Ita-Giwa, the Senator representing Cross River South where Bakassi falls, Senator Bassey Ewa Henshaw, former Chairman of Bakassi, Chief Emmanuel Etene and many others hailed the judgment while the Paramount Ruler of Bakassi Etinyin Etim Okon Edte frowned at it saying it was belated. 

According to Heshaw, "this is an excellent development not just for the Bakassi people but for the entire country. Two things have been established with regard to the Green Tree Agreement (GTA): it seriously compromised our nation's security and also clearly the flood of people that would leave Bakassi at the handing over." 

He said the Abuja judgment was okay as it would help check some of these things and the over 30,000 Bakassi population would have been a great problem resettling as the 4000 returnees have not even been resettled even as it is difficult taking care of them. 

The paramount Ruler on his part said: "The judgment is postponing the evil day." He wondered where the law makers from the state had been all this, sneering that they had just woken up from their slumber.

Bakassi Is a Done Deal - Don
by Daniel Kanu, Senior Political Correspondent
SATURDAY INDEPENDENT, August 2, 2008

Dr. Fred Aja Agwu, a research fellow at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), has said that the ceding of the Bakassi peninsula to Cameroon is a process that cannot be reversed. "Bakassi is a done deal and there is no amount of political or legislative bickering that will change the situation." 

He made this revelation during an interview with Saturday Independent. 

Agwu disclosed that Bakassi has been legally ceded to the Republic of Cameroun and that nothing would change the situation unless Nigeria wanted to confront the International Community. 

"Bakassi has been lost; it was lost because of our own bad politics. There is no amount of legislative intransigence to change what has been done," Agwu declared, explaining further that "the Nigerian government mis-managed Bakassi, so all this talk as to whether Bakassi should be ceded or not is like flogging a dead horse." 

On why the issue was not sent to the Senate for ratification, he said the Constitution does not provide that a treaty should be presented to the National Assembly for approval before the executive would ratify it. 

According to the expert in international law "No National Assembly ever ratifies a treaty. No legislative house ever ratifies a treaty. Legislative Houses only approve for the ratification of treaty by the executive arm of government. The Nigerian Constitution does not provide that the National Assembly should ratify a treaty. The constitution does not provide that the National Assembly should approve a treaty before the executive should ratify it. Ratification is an executive prerogative. 

" The ICJ has given it's judgment, Nigeria has acceded to the implementation of that judgment through the Green Tree Agreement. International law is superior to municipal law. 

Agwu said the Green Tree Agreement did not even need any ratification because the President contracted the agreement directly with his Cameroonian counterpart and not through any emissary or plenipotentiary. 

He noted that we had a President that was arrogant and who was not consulting enough to know how best to handle the issue. 

"August 14, 2008 is just around the corner when the entire handover will be consummated. We should just go home and leak our wounds. Nigeria does not have the desired diplomatic stamina to pursue the case," he lamented.

No Going Back On Bakassi -FG
by Ofonime Umanah, (Port Harcourt), Bassey Inyang (Calabar)
and Joe Nwanwko (Abuja), SATURDAY INDEPENDENT

Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Michael Aondoakaa, reiterated on Friday that Nigeria will hand over Bakassi to Cameroon on August 14 despite the restraint imposed on Thursday by the Federal High Court in Abuja. 

Aondoakaa explained that "I have been served with the court order, it is ambiguous and there are several decisions of the Supreme Court that court orders should be so explicit that the person who is directed to comply would be in position to comply, and I will the genesis of our dilemma here. 

"I have a case where the same people from Bakassi instituted the same matter before the Federal High Court presided over by Justice Anuli Chikere, and we filed a notice of preliminary objection. The judgment they had sought Chikere to stop from being enforced, being the judgment of the ICJ, the same Federal High Court upheld our objection and held that the court had no jurisdiction and subsequently struck out the case. 

"We have that judgment, which means that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any application on this matter, and nobody has appealed against that judgment. We have that as a final judgment. Today we are having another order that we should maintain the status quo, so the question is which status quo should we maintain? 

"If I am to maintain any status quo, the status quo that is existing now is the judgment of the International Court of Justice, that is the truth. The status quo that is existing in law is the judgment of the International Court of Justice. 

"If I have two judgments I will chose the one I like; like in this case I have two decisions from courts of coordinate jurisdiction, I will choose the one to obey, and for that matter, Chikere's judgment was a final judgment while this one was an interim order. 

"I am not going to file anything to seek to set that ruling aside, what I am enforcing is the judgment of the ICJ, which is the handing over of Bakassi. The judge should have been more explicit and am not the Green Tree Agreement." 

Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court had on Thursday granted the restraint order at the hearing of a suit filed by Bakassi indigenes. 

He ruled that "the justice of this case is that parties to this suit should maintain the status quo, so that the res (substance)will not be destroyed. The res is southern Bakassi, which is to be ceded by the defendants on August 14th. 

"It is hereby ordered that parties should maintain the status quo and should not take any step pending the hearing of all applications." 

He adjourned the hearing to October 20 when the court would have resumed from vacation. 

Cameroon was to assume full sovereignty over Bakassi on August 14 under the Green Tree Agreement signed in New York on June 12, 2006. 

Cross River State Deputy Director of Civil Litigation, Bassey U. Bassey, reacted by saying that the order "is not capable of being obeyed because this court cannot sit as an appellate court on the judgment of the International Court of Justice at the Hague. 

"All the issues in this case as well as the final ceding of Bakassi are fallouts from the judgment of the ICJ." 

Counsel to the plaintiffs, Kayode Fasetire, countered that the suit is not to challenge the judgment of the ICJ but its implementation. 

"We know that we are bound by the judgment of the ICJ. The Presidency did not submit the Green Tree Agreement to the National Assembly for ratification while the legislature also failed in its oversight functions to call the President to order," he explained. 

"We are challenging the agreement and we are surprised that the President has said he would go ahead to hand over in the face of it. Nigeria has not done what it is supposed to do before implementing the Agreement." 

The plaintiffs, led by two former Chairmen of Bakassi Council, Emmanuel Etene and Ani Esin, sought N456 billion as compensation before the cession, and an order that the Federal Government should resettle them in a place of their choosing. 

They also requested an the amendment of the Constitution to reflect the cession as well as their relocation. 

The plaintiffs rejected their resettlement in the "New Bakassi" already inhabited by other people "who are hostile to Bakassi refugees." 

They argued that New Bakassi is a landlocked patch ideal for farmers, not fishermen like them. 

They sought an order directing the Federal Government to resettle them in Nsutana Iyata in Cross River State or any other location in the state which they might choose by plebiscite or referendum. 

The plaintiffs contended that the 206,000 indigenes of Bakassi are entitled to be protected and catered for by the Federal Government - and alleged that Cameroon has a history of imposing unfair taxes, molesting, as well as assaulting and killing Nigerian citizens in Bakassi. 

Joined as respondents are President Umaru Yar'Adua, Aondoakaa, the National Assembly, former Cross River State Governor, Liyel Imoke, the state Assembly, National Boundary Commission (NBC), Federal Ministry of Finance, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC). 

It also emerged on Friday that Southern Cameroonians expressed support for the 40,000 Nigerians in Bakassi to fight against their oppressors from France and to secure a future for themselves. 

Stephen Joseph, Media Liaison Officer of the Orgainsation of people Southern Cameroon Government and People, said: "We the people of the Southern Cameroon have followed events in the Bakassi area with a lot of interest. It is unfortunate that we have followed them as bystanders instead of as the interest concern. 

"The people of the Southern Cameroon had hoped that the ICJ would use the Bakassi case to address a larger injustice against all the peoples of the Southern Cameroon, but the court decided to narrow its focus and considered only the matter of Bakassi." 

They lamented the harassment Nigerians have gone through at the hands of Cameroonians, saying "the brutal French foreign legion that makes up the armed forces of the occupier in Southern Cameroon have indiscriminately terrorised our citizens using torture, rape, extortion and murder.  

"This treatment has been dished out to us as well as people of Nigerian descent. The Anglo Saxon heritage has been the driving factor as exorbitant extortions and indiscriminate deportations have been reserved for people of Nigerian descent. 

"In this effort we are expecting Nigeria and Nigerians to join our struggle to de-colonise our country from colonial occupation. The words of Kwame Nkrumah remain as true today as they were in the 1950s and 60s: that the liberation of one of us (Nigeria)is meaningless unless it leads to the total liberation of the African continent (including a free Southern Cameroon). 

"It is in this effort that the government of the Southern Cameroons stand in total support of the different groups in Bakassi that are putting up a courageous fight against the French colonial occupation of their land. It is a fight that the people of the Southern Cameroon should have put up in 1961 but did not, and allowed foreigners, speaking a foreign language, to invade the Southern Cameroon and today an enemy flag flies our skies. 

"It is our determination that this must come to an end. We invite the fighting men and women of Bakassi to join our fight and become a part of the larger fight that did not take place in 1961 but which we must fight today."

Bakassi Handover on Track Despite Injunction,
Says FG, - AGF directed to appeal ruling
by Yemi Adebowale, 08.02.2008, THIS DAY.

The Federal Govern-ment yesterday said the scheduled August 14 handover of the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon remains on track, despite Thursday’s court order to delay the move.

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja stopped the government from ceding the disputed territory to Cameroon pending the determination of the substantive case before it.

The Special Assistant to the President on Communication, Mr. Olusegun Adeniyi, who spoke yesterday said President Umaru Yar'Adua had already directed the Minister of Justice, Michael Aondoakaa "to file the necessary motions to overturn the ruling and I think he will do that on Friday."

The presidential spokesman said: "Our country has a commitment to hand over the peninsula by August 14 and so far nothing has changed.

"If there are legal hurdles, the president is fully committed to addressing those hurdles so that the handover can go on as planned. Nigeria will not abandon its sovereign responsibilities and international obligations."

At the resumed hearing of the suit brought before the court on Thursday by some indigenes of Bakassi to restrain the government from ceding the oil-rich area, the trial Judge, Justice Mohammed Umar said: "The position of the court is that all parties involved in this matter should maintain the status quo so that the substance of the matter will not be destroyed."

The plaintiffs, led by two former chairmen of Bakassi Local Government, Chief Emmanuel Etene and Mr. Ani Esin, are seeking N456 billion as compensation before the cession.

They also want the court to order the Federal Government to resettle their people in a place of their choice before the cession and called for the amendment of the 1999 Constitution to reflect the cession and their relocation to a new home.

The Bakassi people told the court that they had rejected the resettlement of the affected people in the newly created Bakassi, saying, "New Bakassi is already inhabited by people other than Bakassi people and the inhabitants are hostile to the Bakassi refugees."

The New Bakassi, they said, was landlocked and ideal for farmers but not fishermen like them. They therefore sought an order of the court "directing the respondents to resettle them at Nsutana Iyata in Cross River or any other area or location in the state where they might choose by way of plebiscite or referendum."

The plaintiffs contended that the 206,000 citizens of Bakassi are entitled to be protected and catered for by the Federal Government, alleging that the Cameroonian authority, in whose hands the Federal Government has left their fate, has a history of imposing undue taxes, molesting, assaulting and killing Nigerian citizens in Bakassi.

Yar'Adua reiterated last week that Nigeria was "fully committed to a successful handover" on August 14.

The president spoke while receiving the new Cameroonian ambassador to Nigeria.

The Green Tree agreement was signed in New York on June 12, 2006 during a US-facilitated mediation talks between Nigeria and Cameroon in the presence of then UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.

It followed a 2002 ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague that awarded the disputed territory to Cameroon, ending a drawn-out legal battle.

A 1,000-square-kilometre (386-square-mile) patch of coastal swamp jutting out into the North Atlantic, Bakassi is believed to contain considerable oil and gas reserves as well as rich fishing grounds.

Doubts about Nigeria's commitment to the handover arose from a row in the National Assembly over accusations that former President, Olusegun Obasanjo, acted unilaterally in assenting to the deal.

Reacting to Thursday's court ruling, Bassey U. Bassey, an official in the legal department of Cross River State Government, said the decision to maintain the status quo was pointless.

"This order is not capable of being obeyed because this court cannot sit as an appellate court on the judgment of the International Court of Justice at The Hague," he said.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Kayode Fasetire, said the legal action was not intended to challenge the judgment of ICJ, but rather focused on the modalities of its implementation.

"We know that we are bound by the judgment of the ICJ. The presidency did not submit the Green Tree Agreement to the National Assembly for ratification while the legislature also failed in its oversight functions to call the president to order," he said.

All the stories used for this compilation are culled from wikipedia, newspapers, and from credible, authoritative and responsible internet websites.

Nigeria Never Owned Bakassi – Ajibola
08.06.2008, THIS DAY

Former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Bola Ajibola, yesterday said Nigeria never owned Bakassi. Ajibola, a former Judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague, condemned the misconceptions about the handover of the area to Cameroon.

He told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) yesterday in Lagos, that Nigeria never had sovereignty over Bakassi, although Nigerians took possession of its western strip.

"From the outset, Nigeria had never owned Bakassi. We have never had the sovereignty over Bakassi, although we must admit that our people took possession of its western strip.
"But majorly, the rest of Bakassi, which included the entire middle and eastern strips were never at any time inhabited by Nigerians," he said.
According to him, Nigeria has agreed to abide by the ICJ rulings and the rule of law on the issue.
“That is what we will be doing by handling it over to Cameroon,” he said.
Ajibola claimed that the zone to be handed over to Cameroon was just one sixth of the total land area with a population of about 200,000 residents.
"We have already released and allowed Cameroon to take over 80 per cent of Bakassi. We have nothing to lose now by handing over the remaining zone to Cameroon as the zone does not possess any crude oil, contrary to speculations in some quarters," he stated.
Ajibola allayed the fears of residents of the area, saying that their interests had been taken care of by the ICJ ruling and advised indigenous people of Bakassi to acquaint themselves with the ICJ judgment.
He implored those he said were fanning the embers of bitterness to stop it, saying about 3.5 million Nigerians living in Bakassi were there on their own volition.
He disagreed with the insinuations that the Nigerian government did not go to The Hague with renowned historians on Bakassi to defend the country at the ICJ.
"It was not a matter of having renowned historians going to The Hague to defend the country's historical position on the Bakassi issue. It is a matter of international law, it is a matter of looking into the 1883 and 1884 treaties and the Anglo- German agreement of 1913," Ajibola argued.

Again, the Bakassi dilemma
by Dafe Onojovwo
PUNCH: Wednesday, 6 Aug 2008

THURSDAY next week will be August 14, when, under the terms of the Greentree Agreement signed between Nigeria and Cameroon on June 12, 2006, the Federal Government is obliged to finally withdraw all its law-enforcement and civil authorities from the Bakassi Peninsula, in compliance with the judgement of the International Court of Justice. The government of Cameroon will then officially exercise full sovereignty over the disputed territory, as provided for under the said Greentree Agreement.

As I argued in my piece, “Scaling the Bakassi hurdles,” last week, however, the Yar’Adua administration may find that the issue is unlikely to be that straightforward and simple. Since that article was published, the legal constraints hampering Nigeria’s formal handover of the peninsula to Cameroon have become more complicated. Ruling on an interim application brought before it by some indigenes of Bakassi, a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja issued an injunction last Thursday ordering the government and other parties to the suit to maintain the status quo on the Bakassi handover. Justice Mohammed Umar, presiding, adjourned further hearing of the suit till October 20, 2008, when the court is expected to be back from vacation. A legal controversy over the effect of this judicial order now rages.

On Friday last week (that is, barely 24 hours after Justice Umar’s ruling), the Nigerian government’s position, as articulated by the Attorney-General of the Federation, Chief Michael Aondoakaa (SAN), was that the FG was “not going back on the implementation of the International Court of Justice’s judgement.” This has been taken to mean that the government is determined to ignore the Federal High Court’s order in its resolve to conclude the handover of Bakassi on schedule.

Aondoakaa justified his decision, during a press briefing in his office, as follows: “I have been served the court order. But the Supreme Court had said in a number of cases that a court order must be explicit to enable the person to whom the order is directed to understand and comply. I’m duty-bound to obey a court order, but the order must be explicit. This order is not explicit. I do not understand which status quo the learned judge is referring to.”

That is intriguing, for the high court seemed clear enough in phrasing its ruling. Justice Umar had said (as reported in the press), “The justice of this case is that parties to this suit should maintain the status quo, so that the res (substance) will not be destroyed.” He defined the res as follows, “The res is Southern Bakassi, which is to be ceded by the defendants on August 14.”

But Aondoakaa had a different definition of the status quo. “What is the res?” he asked, at his press briefing. “The res is the final judgment of the International Court, which we are bound to comply with.”

Who is to be believed: the judge or the attorney-general?

Having taken it upon himself to re-define the res of the case for the presiding judge, will Aondoakaa next proceed, knowingly, to defy and disobey the court? I would be surprised if Nigeria’s Chief Law Officer should go ahead with such a course of action.

Underlying Aondoakaa’s defiant stance, of course, is the assumption or opinion that the Federal High Court trial is futile since the World Court’s judgement on the Bakassi case is final and binding on the Nigerian state.

The Cross River State Government, a co-defendant in the high court suit, had plainly said so last week. The state’s Deputy Director of Civil Litigation, Mr. Bassey Bassey, had told reporters, shortly after the court gave its ruling, “This order is not capable of being obeyed because this court cannot sit as an appellate court on the judgment of the International Court of Justice.” The plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Kayode Fasetire, had countered with the view that the plaintiffs were aware that the ICJ’s judgement was binding. Their case, he said, was that “the (Olusegun Obasanjo) Presidency did not submit the Greentree Agreement to the National Assembly for ratification.” Also, that the “legislature failed in its oversight functions to call The Presidency to order.” In other words, the plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the judgement’s implementation process, not the judgement itself.

That seems to me to be a rock-solid ground for the high court to assume jurisdiction on the case. For example, two straightforward constitutional issues need to be resolved in implementing the Greentree Agreement within the context of Nigerian law. First, Section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution states: “No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly.” The question is, has the Greentree Agreement, signed between Cameroon and Nigeria, been enacted into law by the National Assembly? If it has not, then is it lawful to implement it, in defiance of the Constitution? Is the judgement of the ICJ an extenuating circumstance for the Nigerian government to violate its own supreme law?

Secondly, under Part One of the First Schedule to the Constitution, wherein are listed the states and local governments areas in Nigeria, Bakassi is clearly listed as an existing LGA of Cross River State. Does the Greentree Agreement override the explicit constitutional requirements (e.g. in sections 8 and 9) for boundary adjustments, local government creation and amendments to the Constitution?

The Federal Government has had more than two years to fulfil these constitutional requirements, since it signed the agreement at the Greentree Estate, New York, in June 2006. Even President Umaru Yar’Adua’s formal request to the present National Assembly for the enactment of the agreement into law is already about six months old. Thus, the Nigerian government, if it was sincere, has had enough time to clear the internal legal hurdles standing in the way of the agreement.

The government should therefore quit its posture of being in such a hurry to comply with World Court’s judgement as to treat the country’s own courts and supreme law with contempt. Aondoakaa, a Senior Advocate, knows better than to constitute himself into an appellate court over the Federal High Court. Justice Umar has “ordered that parties should maintain the status quo and should not take any step, pending the hearing of all applications.’’ Let the Chief Law Officer take necessary steps to enforce that judicial order, in fulfillment of his Oath of Office. To do otherwise would be a mockery of Section 1(1) of the Constitution: “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
 

Well done!!
Thank you for your elaborate and educative piece on Bakassi. May Allah (SWT) continue to enrich you in knowledge and wherewithal.
mohammed sakiwa <mbsakiwa@yahoo.com>

 

Bakassi: Cameroun equally conceded lost territories to Nigeria —Aondoakaa  
VANGUARD   
Sunday, 10 August 2008 

THE Abuja judge who adjudicated on the Bakassi issue  was  said to have  interpreted the status quo.

Yes, in compliance with the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The reason is that we will bow, we submitted to the jurisdiction of International Court of Justice. The moment you submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, as a state party, you are bound by Article 94. That jurisdiction excludes any jurisdiction of  municipal court. We voluntarily submitted to the subject matter jurisdiction. 

 That is, two jurisdiction exist, either you subscribe to the charter establishing the ICJ, one, as a member state of the United Nation, two, voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the ICJ in 1965. And when we were dragged before the International Court of Justice, we also submitted to the subject matter jurisdiction. We made submissions, we gained grounds in the final analysis of the judgment. The implementation of the judgment has commenced as far back as 2002 when it was delivered. This judgment cuts  across the whole country ,from the north to the south. That is, from Borno down to the south. Now, we have this, we already enforced the judgment in the Borno area, around Adama area. 

These are areas where you have taken territories? 

We have taken some territories into Nigeria. We have also given out some territories. Even on the Peninsula itself, we have exchanged some territories to the Camerounians, remaining only the Bakassi, which is around Abana. Now, having gone three quarters into the enforcement of the judgment of the International Court, of course, those areas Cameroun lost they have also not complained.  The major area which was the maritime zone, which was their main plank of the case because they thought the marine zone around the Sao Tome area, they will get because they claimed it to be theirs when we had entered into partnership with Sao Tome. They lost that area.  Now, going by that, enforcement has commenced and that is why, when I say when you say status quo be maintained, then I will expect that it is the enforcement that had commenced that the judge said it should be maintained because he is aware that the enforcement of the judgment had commenced. 

The ordinary man will also understand the status quo to mean the handover of Bakassi, because we are talking of a particular area, Bakassi, which is scheduled for a particular date and that has not happened.  That may be interpreted to be the status quo? 

I will give you a graphic explanation. One, authorities abound from the Supreme Court that judges in complex matters should try to make their judgment very explicit, an order so explicit that when it is flouted, you have a cause to explain.  Status quo that existed is an existing judgment. And a judgment which is binding which is the cause of action by a state party is binding on Nigeria. 

Is it the ICJ judgment that is binding on Nigeria or this is a Bakassi issue? After the ICJ judgment, Nigeria entered into an agreement with Cameroun, that is, the Green Tree Agreement, that it is the agreement that is the issue now not the ICJ judgment? 

This is the confusion that Nigerians have been made to understand. The Green Tree Agreement is nothing. The Green Tree Agreement is a vehicle of the sheriff and civil process law where you enforce the judgment of the court. Here, there are two ways of enforcing this judgment: The very day it was given, we comply with the judgment, or we say, ‘okay, this is a very complex judgment, a judgment that involves transfer of property, transfer of land, transfer of a lot of things. Therefore, let us look and study this judgment’.   

That was the basis of the Green Tree Agreement. The Green Tree Agreement has no root, it derives from the judgment. It is not a treaty. It is just a vehicle for the enforcement; it is an agreement that I and you will enforce this judgement and make sure that this judgment is complied with strictly in the intents it was delivered. It cannot go outside the judgment itself.  It did create any obligation outside what is given in the judgment. It is generally that judgment that is being enforced, not Green Tree Agreement. So, there has been that confusion that people think that that agreement is a bilateral agreement. No.   

It is not bilateral agreement, it was just a voluntary submission by the state parties who just made some binding on them that we will enforce it and a third party should witness, where there are errors, and there are mistakes, we look at the judgment because I am the leader of the follow up committee.  When there is conflict, we got to go to  judgment. What did the judgment say?  We look at the judgment and it is the judgment that prevails. 

That will seem to run contrary to the opinion of some other senior lawyers within and outside of Nigeria, that the Green Tree Agreement is a treaty. That is also the understanding the National Assembly is reading into that, that if Nigeria signed a treaty with another country under Nigeria’s constitution, that treaty has to be ratified by the National Assembly. Have you tried to explain this to the National Assembly? 

Yes, I’ve put it to the Senate committee when they invited me, because there have been so much confusion on  the status of the Green Tree Agreement. It was a mere agreement that I and you will enforce this judgment.  The actual subject matter for consideration is the judgment, not an agreement that you and I will make sure this judgment is complied with. And the vehicle of complying with this is, for instance, the maritime zone, the judgment created the maritime zone. Me and you agree that we will bring experts to look at and demarcate, in line with the judgment. So, you could see that there is nothing standing on the way of the judgment.  And let me clear one aspect of the judgment, which is most confusing. The judgment never asked anybody to leave his ancestral rights. 

Really? 

Yes, this is the confusion. 

But, if an area belongs to Cameroun, you don’t expect Nigerians to be staying there? 

If you elect to remain on that soil, it has happened in this country, you should be ready to become Camerounians. What happened in Adamawa province?  Adamawa province was part of the larger Adamawa province. Adamawa was divided.  Three parts of Adamawa province are in Cameroun, people are there.  The other portion is in Nigeria. At the end of the day, one surprising thing which I want you to understand is, after the exchange in the northern part, you realise that the people still went back to their homes. They operate freely because some of them are bonded here and there. The marriages are still being contracted together, and they don’t think of what we are thinking, Cameroun or  Nigeria. 

The difference here again  is the oil? 

Well. 

I assume that it is a very big ceremony that will take place this week? 

Yes, we hope so too.

How will the hand over take place? 

Nigeria has become a model in showing the world that we can resolve our relationships or any commitment we have with the international community will be complied with. Apart from that, we believe that resolving things on the Bakassi issue amicably was in the best security interest of this country. No need creating a war zone when you have a big pot of a very good food.  You know that Bakassi is just by the edge of the Niger Delta. Can you envisage a war there?  Just over a small piece of land and endanger the whole property you have. No, that is not the consideration. The consideration is that we submitted ourselves to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and after the judgment that option open to us was to appeal to the Security Council but we accepted the judgment. And when we took the benefit of the judgment, it is too late for us to say we cannot conclude the judgment and that is what the president is insisting that, this judgment, we must go as specified to accomplish our obligation before the international community. 

I guess the president is saying that Nigeria will obey the International Court of Justice decision on Bakassi is an expression of his commitment to the rule of law and due process? 

Beyond that. 

Talking about rule of law and due process now, Nigerians have been wondering whether there is substance in this rule of law and due process mantra because when you also key into the rule of law, a lot of people thought that it was an avenue for your office to interfere in the work of the agencies like EFCC, the ICPC and all of that? 

Rule of law is something that will take you time to appreciate. And Nigerians are seeing it. I know you are seeing it.  You have seen it come. You are feeling an air of freedom. First, we have set up very minimum conditions, that will meet international standard. A country must be governed based on prescribed rules and regulations. Not what you wake up and think. The power exercisable by the president is in the constitution, not his person. That’s what the president is saying, ‘I am not exercising powers because I am the person who is the president. That I am exercising these  powers because that is what the constitution says’.  That is one thing the president is trying to make Nigerians understand. ‘Secondly, I will govern based on the provisions of the constitution and written laws as specified by the parliament.’ That is what the president is saying. Thirdly, Nigerians, should learn to carry out a culture of living and complying with civic obligations as specified by law down to the fact that if I have contractual relationship with you, I should be able to honour it because if basic, as you see them simple, is they are simple, is if they are observed, the moment people believe that if I come to your house and borrow N100, and on the due day, I come to pay, you are obeying the law.   

Society will move itself. But a situation where people face the law  and try to bend the law, society cannot move, no matter the genuine intentions, once you leave procedure, once you leave the pattern of doing things, established. For instance, our constitution has been so comprehensive that it has rolled out how you will prosecute offenders.  And you could just imagine a document like a constitution saying that if you arrest somebody, no matter how you feel about him, you should take him to a court of law.   

You should make the charge known to him.  You should give access to medication, access to his lawyer and should take him to court and give him an opportunity for an interpreter.  These are basic.  And you should presume him innocent until he is convicted.  What we are doing is that before you get somebody arrested, get your facts correct, investigate, conclude your case file and by the time you get the person, you have already got your case file and tomorrow, you comply with the constitution and take him to court.  

 There is no gainsaying because the powers of conviction are not vested in the executive, they are vested in the judiciary.  Arresting somebody, keeping him for one year in detention and looking for evidence, that amounts to fishing for evidence.  I don’t think that is the right thing.  When the evidence eventually is found, you have no remedy to give him. That means it becomes an abuse of state power.  And that is what the president is against.  And so, if agencies of government follow this pattern and do their work according to it, the attorney-general will never be what you can ... (laughter). 

When all agencies of government, particularly those that have investigative and prosecutoral powers key into this rule of law and due process... 

(Cuts in) Honestly, they are doing it. You are a living witness. No Nigerian has been arrested by EFCC, the police are complying. I can tell you, go to the police station now, you will discover that they don’t stay more than 48 hours, I can bet you.  They comply. The EFCC is evident, they take you today, tomorrow you are in court. Boni Haruna was arrested, how many days?  Next day, he was in court. Nobody has been detained anywhere. 

  And I have established a hotline, department of civil rights, in my ministry.  Once there is complaint of detention of more than the required time, you write a petition and we get in touch with I-G and I-G normally takes prompt action.  The same thing with the EFCC and, of course, ICPC  has a traditional history of complying with these provisions.  Maybe because always, it has been headed Supreme Court judges.  I have never had incident where ICPC will arrest somebody and detain the person indefinitely. 

You are the chief law officer for the government. It appears  government has an axe to grind with Nuhu Ribadu otherwise why  this basket or harvest of problems for this man? 

I don’t know what you are talking about. 

It is not an easy thing to fall from AIG to DCP and all of that?

I wouldn’t want to talk about that because I read the newspapers and I saw a lot of my friends talking. 

(Cut in) That is why it is a big question, hasn’t this government anything against him? 

I don’t think anybody will say the government is particularly interested, what we may be interested in was to restructure institutions and make them efficient. If the Police Service Commission decides to restructure the institution and they have not gone outside the law, that is it.  And I don’t think anybody has any particular interest.  I think a lot of very prominent men, including people who, some of them are serving now in the Presidential Villa, they are  affected.   I know one Shettima who is, I think , the OC in-charge of the Mobile Police, in the Villa is affected.  The next to him is affected.  I understand the ADC to the First Lady is affected.  Many  other officers I know very well who have been working very hard are affected.  There is nothing so spectacular, I don’t think the Police will reduce themselves to target at a person, the police Service Commission won’t also do so because of the calibre of the persons there. 

Let’s talk about the administration of justice in Nigeria. The concern here is really whether you are doing a follow-up on all that have been done in the past. Let’s look at the agencies and organs of government that are involved in administration of justice. For example, the National Human Rights Commission, the international community has complained so loudly in the past that the law setting it up is defective in that it does not guarantee its independence as is done elsewhere.  Are you developing a master plan, a land of national action plan for the administration of justice? 

First, let me address the two questions you have asked me.  We discovered the inadequacies because part of the number of people in detention who need help are outside the scope of the statutory powers of the Legal Aid Council.  Like most of the people that you see in detention are people standing trial for capital offences.  But incidentally, they have no power to give legal aid to capital offences.  And that has been the bulk of the headache of this administration that government has to intervene now to engage the defence counsel because somebody who is charged with capital offence is entitled by law to a counsel as a right.  If he does not, government must give him a counsel.  So, the government has set aside some amount, we engage counsel  to defend them, to offer them legal services in their defence. Now, we have amended the law, it is now being processed. 

  The president has given approval to be sent to the National Assembly, enlarging the jurisdiction of the Legal Aid Council. This issue of intervening and getting lawyers, we believe that if we are able to expand the law, employment will be there for young lawyers and therefore they will also go in to defend these  people charged with capital offences; to give them a wider jurisdiction to cover all criminal offences so that they can give legal aid to those who cannot afford the services of  lawyers.

There is amendment with the National Assembly on that? 

Yes. Then we are also amending that of the Human Rights Commission.  First of all, we have rolled out, upgraded the human right action of 2006. It is going to be sent to council, this next council, to upgrade it and make sure that all the actions we have also intended to comply with all the international stipulations. But more interesting, I am intending to amend the Human Rights, it is with the draftsmen now to give them compulsory power to investigate. For now, they have nothing to do, but now I’ll give them the basic power to address the issue. 

Right now, beyond the summoning power, they don’t have to compel appearance? 

Yes. They don’t have. And that has been the most difficult problem they have. So, now we want to give them compulsion powers that they can compel you to come.  And then they should be able to prosecute people for gross violation of human rights. The world is becoming a global village and what we are putting in place is to create a check of arbitrary use of government power.  I think that once you  give them, like the power to compel people to attend, because if they don’t have the power to compel somebody to attend, they have to rely on the attorney-general who will use his general powers to compel the person to attend there. But if they have all those powers, that means they can even compel me to attend because, mind you, in terms of investigation, anybody is subject to investigation. It is only in terms of prosecution that certain classes of persons are exempted from prosecution. 

Let’s take a quick look at the prison system in Nigeria, whether the prison administration or the prison system should be under the ministry of justice or should be under the minister of internal affairs.  Where is it now?

The administration of the physical structures of the prison, the feeding of inmates  fall under the ministry of interior.  And honestly, the minister of interior is a person with great passion.  He has approached the job with a lot of great passion.  I went to Makurdi Prisons and the prisoners told me themselves on my inspection of the prisoners to know those who have stayed without trial, and the story is that ‘our feeding has improved since this administration came in.’ And, of course, the passion of the First Lady, Hajiya Turai Yar’Adua, of going to the prison herself to ensure that the welfare of these prisoners has  improved. For instance, she built a whole hospital for females at Suleja Prisons. That might have inspired the leadership of the ministry of interior to do a wonderful job.  And they are doing a wonderful job to transform the prisons. 

Now, why is it difficult to prosecute criminals? 

It is difficult but sometimes when it involves property, everybody runs and leaves the state with the property.  At least, the first step to prosecution of crimes, you have to recover the property. Most defences I have studied, even in Europe, is that when you find these assets, most of the people come in to say, ‘they do not belong to me’. And then you get your court order that day because the property does  not belong to anybody. 

It is because you can use the evidence to prosecute that person when that person no longer enjoys immunity? 

Yes.  You can use the evidence if you discover strongly that it belongs to the other person. 

The Bills you propose to send to National Assembly are executive bills but then you know the attitude of the National Assembly that they must be lobbied on all bills, even do proper lobbying for these bills to be speedily passed... 

(Cuts in) I think the Senate leadership and the House leadership are personalities and know that the country is in a hurry. The president is in a hurry to turn the economy around. We have a host of legislation that we are sending to them. The one  on the power sector reform.  The one on the petroleum sector reforms. As I told you, the president wants to govern according to law. And Nigerians are waiting to have result. 

 We are all waiting and they have always been partners in progress because there is one government. We do not see any good reason why by the time these bills are there, they will have any reason to expect lobby.  They will look at the merit of the bills and they also have a right to make sure that the overall law that comes out governing that sector is in the interest of Nigerians. 

Is the Freedom of Information, FOI  Bill in the interest of Nigerians? 

The ball is in their court.  If you look at the Freedom of Information Bill, it is viewed from the Freedom of Expression which is already in the constitution. And the Court of Appeal has  in the Tony Momoh’s case who was a journalist who published and somebody wanted him to reveal the source of information, the court said, you cannot do that. I think you have always been protected.  And no Nigerian journalist can complain during President Yar’Adua’s administration. 

But when you don’t get it and you need to have it and you don’t want to speculate, you need to have a law to back you to be able to demand for some information? 

The spirit of the peripheral gain is we send the bill, it is under consideration and I believe that no matter the set up,  issues will be ironed out and the bill will one day come out to assist Nigeria to develop.

Do you believe that the office of the attorney-general should be separated from the office of the minister of justice? 

For now, it needs a constitutional amendment for the office to be separated.  But I really don’t see the difference between the two of them.  It is just but one job.   

The attorney-general is the attorney-general of the federation and he should be able to give interpretation to legal situations  irrespective of  whether it affects its employer or not. The minister of justice ought to be a cabinet minister who could be a politician and card carrying member of any political party? 

What is he supposed to do? 

The attorney-general is supposed to be a professional.

To me, since I came in as the president appointed me as  attorney-general, I’ve not had any inhibition. No political consideration. The powers of the attorney-general are statutory. I’ve given you examples where I’ve ruled against government and the president has accepted NICON issue. You are a living witness and the president accepted the decision that the law had to be followed. And since then, the president had always insisted that the opinion of the attorney-general be sought.  And what we have tried to do is to be as professional as possible within the limits of the law to give the president the professional advice and the president has always accepted professional legal advice. 

The interview though culled from Vanguard Newspaper was actually the same interview broadcast on Focus Nigeria, AIT TV

'Nigeria Has Disappointed Us'
THE GUARDIAN, Saturday August 9, 2008

His Royal highness, Etinyin Etim Okon Edet is the paramount ruler of the embattled Bakassi people. A doctorate degree holder and former Akpabuyo council chairman before the creation of Bakassi council area in 1996, he is bitter that the relocation and resettlement exercise had not gone the way it should, as in the case of Borno people in the Lake Chad area also affected by the World Court judgment. He told GODWIN IJEDIOGOR in his Calabar temporary abode that the Nigerian government has failed and disappointed his people.

What is the way forward for your Bakassi people?

The way forward is best known to God. I can only say that God would be our judge. The people are waiting for the government to come and address them to move. My palace and property are still there. I am waiting for government to ask us to move and relocate us.

If my people see me moving my things, they would also move; they are waiting for me to give them the signal to move. But to where? That is the question government has to answer before August 14.

I earlier told government the sequence the relocation process should take and they became angry with me. I told them to first of all get a place, delineate it into clans and put up infrastructure and basic amenities and resettle the people. We need a place we can call our own, retain our identity and be able to elect our own representatives.

I told them, for instance, to create another local government area for us. Instead, what they are doing is building houses for other people to come and occupy, while my people are still in Bakassi. The relocation committee is no longer meeting. At the end of the day, the people in the new area are standing by to benefit from the buildings.

The area has to be first delineated to bear the identity of the Bakassi people, to give them a sense of belonging; their own land. If government had followed my advice, we would not have been where we are today; we would have been relocated and resettled by now.

You are here in Calabar and your people are settled in scattered places. How do you still rule them?

Where are they settled? Though we have been given a new place, it is not properly done because the people are not being carried along. Up till today (August 6), nobody has talked to the Bakassi people or called them to tell them how the whole thing is going to be.

So, they suspect that even the houses they (Cross River State and Federal Governments) are putting up there might even be taken over by people from Ogoja or Obanliku or Calabar. Normally, there should have been a census; the traditional institutions should be able to take a count of their people. Otherwise, the housing estates are for the people of Nigeria. Nobody has spoken with us.

We expected that by now, we would have been called to a meeting and told what shape the whole thing is going to take. In any case, we had ample opportunity of relocation. The media has not stressed that point enough. Are you aware that in the Borno/Lake Chad area, which was also affected in the ruling, the people have since been relocated? Have you visited there to see the massive infrastructure government put in place for them? There was and still is no noise about it because the people were resettled very well. So there was no problem and people didn't go to court. These were people who followed the water as it receded.

We are aborigines, the original owners of the place and the Nigerian government is treating us like this! The other case were small villages, where the fishermen were following the water as it receded and started building structures up to that point. But we are a local government recognised by the Nigerian 1999 Constitution as one of the 774.

In the other case, so much money was spent to resettle these people. But in our own, it is a case of hesitation and peanuts, piece meal for that matter.

Can't the Nigerian government vote adequate money and maybe give it to the Cross River State government to resettle Bakassi people? And we had the opportunity to do so since 2006 when the Green Tree Agreement was signed. It was just last May that the government started rushing to do something after about two years, when it was supposed to hand over to Cameroun in three months time.

What was the game plan? I think it was to scatter Bakassi people so that they would lose their identity. So God would be our judge.

We have accepted the World Court judgment; we have accepted our fate. I have spoken to my people to remain where they are until the government talks to me on what it wants to do about us and how it really wants to go about it. They called me yesterday on what to do but I have asked those of them remaining not to move out. I told them nobody should move until I hear from the government. If nobody talks to me until August 14, I will not talk to them and then God would be our judge and take control. They are supposed to talk to me on a regular basis on how they are going about it.

The returnees or refugees at camp are not Bakassi people but people from Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa Ibom; Ijaws who the Camerounians attacked and they are hungry to go back home. They are not Bakassi people; the real Bakassi people are still at Bakassi. Even those at the refugee camp, can't the government give them money to return to their states? Is that too much for it to do for its citizens?

Could it be that your people were not pushing your case hard enough or that there was nobody to speak for you and your interest?

Check how many press conferences and interviews I had granted since 2002 on the Bakassi matter or how many times I visited the National Assembly. That is why I am angry with our politicians and representatives. They refused to take a position when it mattered most, because they were looking for their selfish interests of Third Term and political appointments.

When we started the Bakassi Self Determination Front, led by Senator Florence Ita-Giwa, we went to see former President Olusegun Obasanjo thrice and he saw the pressure. So, he picked Senator Ita-Giwa and gave her appointment and the organization collapsed at that moment. She took the appointment and became a member of Obasanjo's Presidency and so the pressure on him ended.

Imagine somebody working with Obasanjo allowing her area to be given to another country. She followed Obasanjo to the United States to sign the Green Tree Agreement. That is why I insist that she sold out. No Yoruba (God bless them) would have followed the President to give out their territory; their ancestral home. They would have resigned and made the whole world know why they are doing so and even made the government to have a second thought.

After all, Senators Victor Ndoma-Egba and Ewa Henshaw, whose district included Bakassi were in the National Assembly and did nothing when Bakassi was being given away. What did they do? Instead, they were pursuing the failed Third Term project of the same President. I told them so recently. Now that they have returned to the National Assembly, they are running around holding press conferences at this wee hour. What kind of leaders are they? A leader is known by the position he/she takes in times of crisis; when it matters most.

Why did those initiating or financing the recent court action not do so when it mattered most? It was either they were in government and not ready to take risks or looking for second term in the National Assembly. Why didn't they give finances and ask people to go ahead and do it, surreptitiously? They didn't want to be quoted.

What they are doing now is for something. People have used us to make a lot of money, be it military contractors or those building houses now or whatever. But this is going to be the end.

How do you feel leaving your ancestral homeland?

When you are talking about that, it has been long journey. It is not that Bakassi is completely gone; the problem is just that Nigeria is mismanaging the whole thing. The physical Bakassi may have gone to Cameroun but the people of Bakassi are moving to a new site, which we have accepted, after all, we came from there. In Nigeria, before 1996, for instance, some people had moved, geographically at least, from one local government area to another. But they still remain who they are.

Before 1996, we were somewhere in another local government areas. I was in Odukpani, for instance, and when it was split, I moved to Akpabuyo, where I became chairman of the local government. We know our roots and are merely returning to it. So that is not the issue. As the paramount ruler, the people (of the new location) are not aggressive to me, because I am one of them.

That is not the problem. The problem is how do you relocate the people of Bakassi properly?

Why do you think the Nigerian government was in a rush to cede Bakassi to Cameroun when it could as well have bought more time to iron out this resettlement issue?

It is best known to them. I don't know why Obasanjo did it. He spoke to us three times and even promised to send Julius Berger to build a new palace for me at the new location to replace the one in Abana. That man has disappointed me. I used to have tremendous respect for him, but not any longer.

If I see Obasanjo here today, I will not greet him, because as a President, he was not supposed to disappoint people, particularly people whose means of livelihood had been threatened. Our constitution says that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of the government. But the government did not consider that, only for me to see Senator Jubril Aminu come here some weeks ago, in 2008, for public hearing on Bakassi, years after the World Court judgment had been given and the Green Tree agreement signed. Since the judgment, Nigeria relaxed, only to come and rush people now. God would be our judge.

How easy would it be for your people in the new place?

That is what I keep hammering on. Before 1996, when Bakassi local Council was created, we belonged to a place and it is to those places that we are returning. Before then, most of these characters you see now did not identify with Bakassi.

I was born in Bakassi and went to school there at Abana and it was my primary school record that was taken to The Hague when the court was sitting. Yet the court refused to take cognizance of such things.

The whole thing is not all about leaving the land per see. We know that Cameroun is interested in the land and not the people. So if we leave now, I don't know which people will be there because there is not a single Camerounian in Bakassi. If I even tell my subjects to leave the place now, Cameroun would be afraid to enter there because it would be bare. My people are ready to move once I send the message across to them, but to where?

Do they need to wait till the last minute before they leave the place?

That is a question you should ask government. The Green Tree Agreement was just to help the Nigerian government to solve the problem of resettling Bakassi people. Sovereignty had been given to Cameroun by the court since 2002. Two years after, the Nigerian government cannot relocate us, yet, they want us to leave Bakassi, to why? This nation is not being fair to us.

But if they chose to remain, they would automatically be in Cameroun?

Well, when we get to the bridge, we shall cross the river.

What if there is no bridge?

We will provide a temporary one. That is where there would be trouble, because if you say Nigerians should relocate and it is not done, is that not where the United Nations (UN) would come in? The aim of the UN is to maintain world peace. Our human right as a people is being threatened. Our ego has been bruised and bastardised.

So we can behave as we please; it is only one thing that is holding Bakassi people and their patience and that is me.

How do we differentiate the real Bakassi people from the militants that suddenly started operating in the ceded territory of Bakassi?

It is the militants in the Niger Delta; not necessarily Bakassi people, even though Bakassi is in the Niger Delta. I think the porous environment had emboldened them, because they were not there before until recently. I warned government about something like this. And the Camerounians were in a hurry to take possession of the place. They should have allowed Nigerian military to remain there until the handover, but they refused. They said our soldiers should withdraw immediately and that has now brought militants to the area. But they are not Bakassi people.

How do we secure Nigerians remaining in Bakassi?

It is left to the Nigerian government. What is wrong in government relocating the people properly and buying boats, out-board engines, nets, etc and giving the people their identity back? That is all we want. No right-thinking man would be happy to relinquish or lose his identity, which the late Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha had given to us and which is in the Nigerian constitution. The issue of going to court, to me, has no meaning; it is belated.

How do you ensure that Bakassi people do not become settlers wherever they may find themselves?

It won't be so because we are all Efik people and any Efik person can go and settle anywhere in Efik land without being seen as a settler in that sense of the word.

The problem, I still emphasise, is proper relocation. If before the handover date, my people are properly relocated, I would ask them to move down and this issue would be put to rest.

This call for plebiscite, is it not belated in this matter?

You should ask the UN that question; if it had not breached the fundamental objectives for which the organisation was set up?

How do the Bakassi people see the rest of Nigeria?

They are disappointed in this nation called Nigeria because they are behaving as if we don't have a stake in this country. Nigeria has not helped to minimise our pains of having to sacrifice our ancestral land. We have been traumatised since 2002 and dislocated mentally and psychologically. And now they are traumatising us physically too.

What do you say to your subjects still in Bakassi?

They should remain calm. The Bible says those in authority must be obeyed. They have given us a judgment, we have obeyed. They will relocate us, we are waiting. We will obey till the end to see whether it is a deceit.

Apart from the Federal Government, what has the Cross River State Government done to ameliorate the suffering of the Bakassi people?

It is only this Senator Liyel Imoke administration that showed seriousness in addressing our plight. The previous administration wanted to extinct us completely. Maybe we would have covered some mileage in the relocation issue if Imoke were still in office because he visited the new site regularly.

Gowon and Bakassi
The Monumental lies
by Nowa Omoigui, nowa_o@yahoo.com

I have read all sorts of lies concerning how General Yakubu Gowon gave away Bakassi to Cameroon. I have access to copies of minutes of every meeting Gowon had with Ahidjo (then president of Cameroon) regarding this matter. This fairy tale about Gowon ceding Bakassi is total nonsense. Nigerians have been so lied to regarding this issue, it is unbelievable. In our r grief and wounded pride, we are hanging to all sorts of tales. Official maps and documents published BEFORE Gowon came to power all show Bakassi peninsula in Cameroun. It was a matter of customary international law. When Maj Gen. Ironsi took over he issued a public announcement accepting all Balewa's treaty and international obligations. Ditto Lt. Col. Gowon when he took over from General Ironsi.

When Gowon found out that Chief RO Coker, then Director of Federal Surveys had misled him (against the advice of the Nigerian Technical Committee) first to draw a 3 mile limit maritime line that compromised access to the Calabar Channel in 1971, and then compounded it by subsequently entering into a 'maritime declaration' with Mr. Ngoh (without clearing with his PS, Gray Longe, his Commissioner (for Works), Alhaji Femi Okunnu, or with SHQ or with the Head of State) he was livid. From then on Chief Coker was banned from all contact with Camerounians and specifically not allowed to take part in further meetings of the Nigeria-Cameroun Boundary Commission. Alhaji Femi Okunnu is still alive. Those of you who are journalists can find him in Lagos and get more input. The problem of the Coker-Ngo line reverberated throughout the government of the day back then. These things will all be published in the forthcoming memoirs of some of the key actors. There was no way the UK would have supported Nigeria at the ICJ. When Nigeria became independent, exchange of notes with the UK and acceptance of all UK Treaty obligations (based on the principle of successor states) was entered into. Records of UK Treaties cannot be wished away. There are six (6) treaties that define Nigeria's borders. If the UK repudiated one, then it would have been opening a can of worms with all other borders in Nigeria and Africa. Why dont we attack and take Porto Novo because it is Yoruba speaking?

Nigeria further locked itself in by ratifying the OAU convention recognizing colonial borders. This was in 1964. How do you get out of that? What did that have to do with Gowon? Furthermore, the UK was very much involved in the 1961 plebiscite and actually would have preferred for Anglophone Southern Cameroons NOT to join Francophone Cameroun. But that is not what happened. There was too much hostility against the Eastern region and Nigeria at that time because of all sorts of local political factors and rivalries emanating from NCNC internal politics and the rivalry between NCNC and AG regarding the status of Lagos on one hand (as a potential part of the West) and the status of Southern Cameroons on the other (as a potential part of the East). In the north, Sardauna demonstrated remarkable statesmanship while southern politicians were bickering as usual. The outcome was inevitable. When the Royal Nigerian Army was asked to withdraw from Southern Cameroon in October 1960, it was replaced by the Kings Own Royal Border Regiment which was shipped all the way from the UK (Southampton Port) and stayed on until Southern Cameroon was merged with Francophone Cameroun after the plebiscite. How can the same UK then turn around and go and start telling lies at the ICJ? Nigeria accepted the plebiscite results and voted for approval at the UN.

I have a copy of the UN plebiscite map showing locations of all the polling centers during the plebiscite. It includes sites in the Bakassi peninsula. I have also read the eyewitness account by the late John Percival - "The 1961 Cameroon Plebiscite: Choice or Betrayal" I have a copy of the Nigerian diplomatic note of 1962 recognizing Bakassi peninsula as part of Cameroun. If Nigerian security services withdrew from the Bakassi peninsula in 1960, and there were polling stations in the peninsula during the 1961 plebiscite, and these polling centers had their results published (along with the rest of Southern Cameroon), and accepted by the UN General Assembly (5 years earlier), and Nigeria wrote to Cameroun in 1962 accepting the new border, which peninsula did Gowon cede during the 1967 - 70 war? From 1914 until 1991 no Nigerian map ever showed Bakassi inside Nigeria. It was always either in German Kamerun, British Occupied German Kamerun, British administered UN Trusteeship territory, Southern Cameroon or Cameroun. What has that got to do with Gowon? It is very unfortunate that fabrications have a way of taking on a life of their own. This inability to recognize realities has contributed to our inability to fashion out a strategic approach to the matter.

taken from NIGERIA TODAY ONLINE

Bakassi: It Is Not Over Yet Until It Is Over
by Yunus Ahmed Tijani,

Nigerians have started reaping from the seeds of atrocities planted by the Obasanjo administration. Part of the legacy is the ceding of Bakassi land to Cameroon. I am equally disenchanted with the likes of Ita Giwa, a former senator and all the indigenes of Bakassi in the National Assembly that could not say no to Obasanjo's action at the material time or write the International Court of Justice in Hague that they were not consulted. At least, they have the freedom to decide where they want to belong. They can tell the International Court of Justice boldly that they belong to Nigeria and that they are not going any where. Are those in the International Court of Justice not human beings? The judges could've gone to Bakassi to ascertain the wishes of Nigerians not to be relocated.

I don't know what the Nigerian and Cameroonian governments mean by resettlement or relocation. How can you relocate a whole community to another land away from their ancestral home? For God's sake, these people are mainly fishermen. Where they are being relocated to, do we equally have water there to meet their economic needs? How do you now subject them to learning another trade? Definitely, this will cause unnecessary hardship to these people.

In the olden days people left one community to another as a result of war. Conflicts are common between one community and another. As a result of this, a community that is defeated may decide to relocate to a safer place. Is this a war situation in case of Bakassi? Though, it is good that it was not allowed to degenerate to war but not to our own loss.

Another factor that may necessitate relocation is lust for supremacy. A section of a people may feel cheated and oppressed by other group and may therefore decide to leave that environment.

Another factor is a search for fertile land. In those days, most of our ancient fathers' work was agrarian. They may decide to leave in search of fertile land. All these take place out of their own volition.

I do not blame Obasanjo or Cameroonian government. The people I blame are the Bakassi people themselves who are so docile that they allowed themselves to be cheated. How I wish I am from Bakassi, I will never allow my people and me to be cheated in that way. It will be a "Do or die" affair. I will lead my people to resist any attempt to dislodge us. The worst that can happen is that, if both countries cannot settle their differences, we are going to form our own country, no matter how small we are. We have the freedom to decide our fate. But now, throughout the whole exercise, the people kept quiet as if they don't know what was going on until their destiny was changed. It is pathetic and painful.

It is not yet over. A proverb has it that the white man that produced pencil is the one that equally produced eraser. All the relocation and resettlement were done in paper. Let the people of Bakassi themselves rise up now and said NO to what has happened. Let them sue the Federal government for selling them to Cameroon. Let them file a suit at the International Court of Justice that they want to go back to Nigeria. Let them begin the agitation again. Tell the International Court of Justice that no referendum or plebiscite was conducted before the handover. There was no time their opinion was sought nor were they contacted during the whole process that led to the handover.

If the people of Bakassi know that they have enlightened citizens, let them begin this agitation now, if not I underrate all the dignitaries from that area as been unqualified to be leaders. If they cannot begin this agitation with immediate effect, Senator Ita Giwa and the like who held, or are holding, high political offices should cover their faces in shame.

Nigerians! Why do we always pay eye service? Who are those people accusing Obasanjo of taking unilateral decisions on the Bakassi issue? Didn't they have representatives in the Senate at the time when Obasanjo was going to The Hague about this matter? Even if Obasanjo did not tell them, didn't they hear it in the news where he was going? (As an ordinary Nigerian, I was followed the entire process in the news - though I can't tell if the Senate at that time was consulted). Why did they keep quiet? Couldn't they have called him to order? If he proved stubborn why couldn't they impeach him? This is the only way through which they can check the excesses of a leader. More so this is an issue that touches the life of every Nigerian. It has to be taken seriously.

Why are the military complaining too this time around? Didn't we have the armies at the time and they are now telling us that they were not consulted? I do not want to concur to that. People in high places are representing the masses. The ordinary citizen can do little but nothing.

The general public voted them to the place, to improve their welfare. If Obasanjo is acting outside the constitution, they have the right to impeach him. Obasanjo successfully completed both first and second terms in office. The legislators had the impeachment sword in their hands but couldn't apply it on him. I do not blame Obasanjo for all the woes and atrocities he committed during his tenure because the legislators were there with him. The people in high positions should not toy with our lives. They should remember that they will account for all their deeds to the Almighty Creator.

The enlightened citizens of Bakassi should rise to this challenge. All the agitation should be done peacefully as was done in the first instance. They should not allow themselves to be cheated just like that. They should have it in mind that if they die, their forefathers will ask them in heaven why they abandoned them in their graves and ran away. Likewise, their yet-unborn generations will ask them what brought them here! If they tell their forefathers that that the agitation to go back is still on course, they will not blame them much and likewise if their yet-unborn generations find that they are still willing to go back to their ancestral land, they will not blame them much. They should not be cowards. One philosopher said: "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands at the time of joy and comfort but where he stands at the time of crisis and tribulations."

*Tijani is a lecturer at the Jammatu College of Education, Kaduna.

taken from http://www.independentngonline.com/oped/article03

Guardian, Friday, August 14, 2009

Bakassi: One year later
By Reuben Abati

EXACTLY a year ago, a portion of Nigerian territory known as Bakassi was ceded to Cameroon. That event will for long be remembered as a veritable show of indecent haste and a violation of Nigeria's sovereignty and constitutional order by the same political leadership that had sworn to defend these same values. The government of President Umaru Yar'Adua, which played the role of the undertaker, had declared that "Nigeria had no choice." The country we were told was obliged to respect the 2002 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which gave the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, and the Green Tree agreement of June 2006 under which Nigeria, led at the time by President Olusegun Obasanjo, pledged to give effect to the ICJ ruling. The Bakassi matter was poorly handled from the beginning. Nigeria didn't need to join Cameroon in court in 1994. The embarrassment could have been avoided. Even when Nigeria lost the case, it didn't have to rush to obey the ICJ, and President Obasanjo had no business signing the Green Tree Agreement which seemed to have tied Nigeria's hands.

The Green Tree Treaty was not subjected to due process at home. It is a trite fact of international law that a treaty cannot be enforced unless it is ratified, or approved or passed into law. Section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution on treaties is explicit. In an attempt to impress the international community, the Nigerian government clumsily threw away Bakassi, without first addressing basic issues including the process of the law and the plight and future of the affected people. Yes, a letter was originally written to the National Assembly by the Obasanjo administration. In November 2007, the Senate of the Federal Republic resolved that the cession of Bakassi was illegal. But later, on August 13 2008, the same Senate hurriedly returned from its recess and claimed to have approved the handover. This did not amount to a domestication of the treaty. Why did the Senators change their minds? Were they induced? The people of Bakassi whose lives, culture and sociology were at stake in the matter were also not consulted. Their protests were ignored. Nigeria's Constitution in Part 1 of the first Schedule lists a total of 768 local councils, including Bakassi plus six area councils in the Federal Capital Territory.

It follows that without a proper amendment of the constitution, it would be improper to expunge a whole local government from it. One year later after the fact, a non-existent Bakassi local government is still listed in the Constitution. It will also be recalled that ahead of the handing over, the concerned people of Bakassi, who had been under much pressure, harassment and psychological torture for more than six years took their case to the Federal High Court in Abuja, to seek N356 billion as compensation for the cession of their territory to another country and another N100 billion for the violation of their right to dignity. The presiding judge, Justice Mohammed Umar gave a specific order that the status quo in the matter be maintained by the parties to the suit. The case was then adjourned for further hearing on October 20. The Yar'Adua government ignored this ruling which it could have used to buy time, to allow it address the affected people's grievances. It then hastily went ahead to handover Bakassi to Cameroon in August in flagrant disregard of due process and the same rule of law which at the time, it claimed to be protecting. Similar somersaults on the question of the rule of law subsequently became a defining feature of the administration.

On the Bakassi question, Nigerians have since been confronted with a fait accompli, and so in retrospect, the arguments about the rightness or wrongness of procedure and event may now just be a matter of historical review. But there is a disturbing residue that lingers and it is the plight of the people of Bakassi who have been treated so badly and whose right to dignity continues to be violated. The Cross River state government and Abuja had made all kinds of promises about helping to relocate the people and provide for their needs. Senator Florence Ita Giwa, popularly known as Mama Bakassi, for her defence of the rights of the people in the public domain was also most vocal at the time.

The Federal Government took the additional step of earmarking a sum of N3 billion to cover relocation and resettlement expenses, later a sum of N1 billion was allegedly provided for in the 2008 budget and there was information that a sum of N1 billion was given to the Cross River state government. The management of the Bakassi Fund, as it was called, is now one of the mysteries of the entire episode. Where is the money? How was it spent? Where is the evidence that the money was used for the assigned purpose? One year later, these questions need to be asked. There should be proper accounting by both the Cross River State Government and the National Boundary Commission, more so as it was once reported that the money had been declared missing.

The people of Bakassi continue to be treated shabbily. They had three options: to retain their Nigerian citizenship by moving to a resettlement camp, or remain in Bakassi as immigrants or opt for Cameroonian citizenship, No serious effort has been made to re-integrate the over 300, 000 persons who chose to stay in Nigeria. They are not wanted by Cameroon; they are ignored by Nigeria. At the Mbo and Ikang Resettlement Centres, the people are having difficulties adjusting to a new environment and a new way of life. Essentially a riverine group, they are now compelled to learn a new mode of survival on land. Many of them who used to be landlords in their old homesteads are now refugees in their own country. They cannot be blamed for seeing themselves as "victims" of "dirty local and international politics". The Cross River state government has reportedly built a number of houses for the resettlement of the people, but a whole year later, those houses remain uncompleted and no allocations have been made. No one should be surprised if many of the returnees have found new occupation as Niger Delta militants or kidnappers!

At the handing over ceremony in Calabar on August 14, 2008, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Michael Aondoakaa promised as follows: "I want to assure the people of Bakassi that this administration is very much interested in their welfare, the president is concerned about the welfare of bonafide citizens of Nigeria who have found themselves in a territory legally now another country." This promise has not been kept. In 2006, at the ceremony marking the formal withdrawal of Nigerian Armed Forces from the Bakassi Peninsula, then President Olusegun Obasanjo had also told the people of Bakassi: "We most sincerely thank our citizens living in the Bakassi Peninsula for their patience and understanding. We beseech them not to see our actions as a denial of their ancestral and inalienable rights, rather as an indication of our civility, respect for international agreements, absolute belief in the rule of law and love for peace." In retrospect, these were just words, meant strictly for the occasion.

It all follows a pattern. Nigeria does not care enough for its citizens. In 2008, a register of Bakassi returnees was prepared. Can that register still be traced? Not likely. All the governments involved in the matter: Cross River, Akwa Ibom and the Federal Government have moved on to other matters. Even the once vocal Mama Bakassi has also since moved on. The people of Bakassi have been left to their own devices, the sole beneficiaries of their plight being the managers of the N3 billion or N1 billion windfall that has not been accounted for. Most Nigerians have also forgotten Bakassi. It doesn't matter anymore that Nigeria's map has been redrawn even if many of the maps in Nigerian offices still indicate Bakassi as a Nigerian territory.

The abandonment of the people of Bakassi, the refusal of the authorities to keep all the promises about their welfare and resettlement points ultimately to the general maltreatment of the average Nigerian citizen. Over 800 Nigerians reportedly died in the Boko Haram crisis, but two weeks later, Nigeria is moving on surely. And we will soon forget about it all. Today, President Yar'Adua will jet off to Saudi Arabia for medical treatment and lesser hajj, it is not likely he will ask the Saudi authorities any questions about the regular beheading of Nigerians in that country, even in the face of evidence that such persons, arrested for one crime or the other, are often denied the right to fair hearing. Nor is it likely that the endless foreign medical trips by the Nigerian elite: from President to civil servants would compel an overhaul of our problematic health system as promised. And of course, the Federal Government is not bothered at all that a large population of young Nigerians is idling away at home (for more than a month now) because university teachers are on strike and the Federal Government and state Governors say they are not ready to negotiate with ASUU. One year after the loss of Bakassi, the people of that area can only look back with anger and helplessness.


 

Please visit again for readers' comments on a continuous basis

Please send comments or enquires to cyberschuulnews@yahoo.co.uk

For daily update of news, visit www.cyberschuulnews.com

 To subscribe to CyberschuulNews,
admit  cyberschuulnews@cyberschuulnews.com  into your address book.
Then send subscription request to subscribe@cyberschuulnews.com   
For removal, send removal request to remove@cyberschuulnews.com      

Cyberschuulnews.com Group is published in Abuja, Manchester & Long Island

Readership: over 36,000 telecom/IT executives, professionals, and enthusiasts in all continents