A Critical Response To President Jonathan’s Speech In Cameroon On Bakassi Dispute By Debo Adeniyi

President Goodluck Jonathan has said during the interactive session
with the Nigerian community in Yaounde, Cameroon, Sunday night, 23rd
June 2013, that Nigeria "deliberately" refused to appeal the verdict
of the International Court of Justice, which ceded the oil-rich
Bakassi territory to Cameroun on the 10th of October 2002. That the
major reason is just to protect Nigerians residing in Cameroun and he
also said that Nigeria had no new evidence within the period of 10
years given by the ICJ in Article 61 (1).
Let me say that the statement is fallacy, scandalous, cruel and a
grave mistake; it is a known fact today that the Federal Government of
Nigeria erroneously and unprofessionally ceded the oil-rich Bakassi to
Cameroun due to her own laxity.
It is irresponsible for any Government to admit she intentionally
gave out her own territory for any self-centered reasonsat the expense
of her own National interest, territorial integrity, and the right of
her own citizenry. One of the basic foreign policy focuses of any
responsible nation is the protection of her sovereignty and
territorial integrity. If our Government is claiming that her
negligence to appeal the ICJ verdict is to protect Nigerians residing
in Cameroun, what about the citizens in the Bakassi itself? Do you cut
off a man's head justto curb a headache ailment? The action in return
negates the interest of the Bakassi people and it is a total denial to
their right of self-determination.
The president's premise that Nigeria had no new evidence within the
10-years grace as stated in Article 61 of the Statute of the ICJ is a
bogus and gigantic fallacy, as several facts emerged during the
10-year period that were sufficient to file an appeal.
SOME FACTS THAT EMERGED ARE:
1. Prof. Walter Ofonagoro, a historianand former Nigerian
Information Minister disclosed while speaking to Nigerian public on a
topic: - "Nigeria, Cameroun and the Bakassi Question: The Unfulfilled
UN Mandate" organized by the Nigerian Institute of International
Affairs which was held on Thursday, August 23, 2012 in Lagos said:
"fresh facts have emerged to show that the Cameroonian legal team
deceived the ICJ into believing that before the Anglo-German treaty of
1913 upon which it rested its case, there were no other treaties that
delineated the land and maritime boundary between Nigeria and
Cameroon, which is a fraudulent claim". Prof. Ofonagoro said that he
has in his possession, 1822 documentswhich vested ownership of the
Bakassi Peninsula to the Old Calabar Chiefs, by extension to Nigeria,
and debunked claims that the 1913 Anglo-German treaty was the first
recognised treaty on the land and maritime boundary between Nigeria
and Cameroon. Said Prof. Ofonagoro: "This is not true because as far
back as1811, the British had already established a strong sphere of
influence over the territories that eventually became Nigeria in 1914.
The Anglo- German treaty upon which Cameroon built its case was
contestable because after the First World War ended in 1919, all the
territories controlled by Germany were taken away from them and given
to the League of Nations. Cameroon of 1919 was not the Cameroon of
1913, because after the end of the First World War, Germany was forced
to give up all its territoriesin Africa, which came under the mandate
of League of Nations. Germany renounced all its claims to territories
and all the treaties it entered into which gave it control of
territories, became a nullity. The League of Nations consisting of
Britain, France and Italy, oversaw the territory of Cameroon carved up
by France which took the Northern part.
2. There were also clear cases of ethnic cleansing in Bakassi
peninsula in the past 10 years in violation of the Green Tree
Agreement of 2006, increasing violation of rights of Nigerian
inhabitants of the Peninsula,the militarization of the place and
theobstruction of lawful economic activities of the inhabitants. All
these could serve as grounds of appeal which the FG neglected; Reports
of intimidation and terrorizing of Nigerians in the Peninsula
constitute what is called a material-breach of the Green-Tree
Agreement. It is a sufficient ground for Nigeria to terminate the
Green-Tree Agreement.That would be in conformity with Article 60, of
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty of 1969.
3. According to international practice, consent of people residing
in the territory (by way of plebiscite), is a condition-precedent to
any transfers or changes in title over the territory that they occupy.
Even when the fate of Northern and Southern Cameroun were to be
determined, a plebiscite was conducted in 1961, under which Southern
Cameroun opted to join Cameroun, while Northern Cameroun opted to join
Nigeria. That could be a case, which confirmed what is called Right to
Self-Determination. I am of the viewthat it is still part and parcel
of international best practices that inhabitants of the territory are
consulted and allowed to make their own choice. I think the interest
of the inhabitants ought to have been givengreater resonance. This
point is critical enough to be raised before the ICJ for appeal.
4. Another fact is that the said ViennaConvention on the Law of
Treaties as contained in Article 46(1) where it states: - "A State may
not invoke the fact its consent to be bound by a treaty has been
expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding
competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless
that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law
of fundamental importance."
Article 46 (2) further presented some clarifications to the above
provisions: "A violation is manifest if it would be objectively
evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance
with normal practice and in good faith."
These provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
equally present Nigeria with an option to challenge a violation of its
internal procedures for legitimising treaties/agreement, which the
Green Tree Agreement of 2006 did not, observed. Under the Nigerian
Constitution the Treaty cannot apply, except and unless and only to
the extent that such a treaty has been transformed into the Nigerian
law. Since the (Nigerian) National Assembly did not approve the treaty
for the domestication, Nigeria cannot carry out the provisions of that
agreement. The treaty ought to have been transformed into Nigerian law
before the Nigerian government either ratifies it or implements it.
That is why the residents of Bakassi feel aggrieved that the necessary
measures had not been taken before their territory was transferred to
a foreign country.
All the aforementioned premises were enough grounds for our callous
one-sided government to utilise but due to some selfish self-centered
reasons known to the government, she decided not to appeal the
Judgment at the expense of the Bakassi people and Nigerians at large.
Way forward
Since the legal window has already been closed, what is needed,
therefore, is a comprehensive framework and strategy to carry out
diplomatic negotiation that represents the interest of Bakassi people
and the interest of all Nigerians at large.
Recommendation
Total buy-out of Bakassi: Negotiation should immediately commence
between Nigeria and Cameroun to buy back the peninsula, which we in
error transferred to them. If we give them an offer that is so juicy
that cannot be refused, then the Cameroonians might reconsider and
sell off the disputed Bakassi. We can settle them, using money. It is
to be pointed out clearly to them that thereare no way they are going
to enjoy those resources without taking Nigeria and Nigerians'
interest into account. Because, if they want to lay claim to the
continental shelf under the law of the sea, their claim would have to
overlap the claim of Nigeria because looking at the geography, at the
map of Cameroun, their shelf locked as it is in international law;
they don't have enough room to utilise or to lay claim to 200 nautical
miles, which international law grants to them. This is because Nigeria
too has a claim of 200 miles, so there is going to be a conflict.
Therefore, Nigeria might propose to them to engage in 'unitisation or
joint development zone' for the exploitation of the resources. And
bring them within the arrangement that we have established with
country like Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe under which
Nigeria and say Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe will
jointly exploit the resources and the proceeds are shared on 60:40
ratios. In other words, Cameroun should be properly advised to think
of the future and think of the larger thing that lies ahead for that
country in terms of its relations with Nigeria.
This is exactly what I think should be the paramount concern of the
FederalGovernment now, rather than making statement that will unleash
the already inflicted pains and heartbreakthat is being nurtured by
the Bakassi people and Nigerians at large.
Debo Adeniyi
A political/human right activist, philosopher and
A Master scholar of International Law and Diplomacy,
University of Lagos
debscom1@yahoo.com
08033947904