|
Bakassi, Obasanjo, And Senate By Max Gbanite
“What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you.”..... Friedrich Nietzsche
According to a report published in the Daily Trust Newspaper, Thursday, November 29, 2007 former President Olusegun Obasanjo in defending his action on the ceding of Bakassi said “that the last senate and the House of Representatives under the Leadership of Senator Ken Nnamani and Hon. Aminu Bello Masari were duly served the Green Tree Agreement between Nigeria and Cameroon on the ceding of Bakassi Territory for ratification by the National Assembly.” And in response to this, the then Senate President Ken Nnamani said, “I cannot say if we received such letter or not, but that can be checked at the office of the clerk to the National Assembly. If we received it and did not treat it, that was because we didn’t deem it appropriate. We were not rubber stamp.”
If compelled to discern the truth between the two statesmen, I and many Nigerians would be on the side of Senator Ken Nnamani. Obasanjo during his 8 tormenting years of Maladministration, misappropriation & misplacement of funds, institutionalization and absolute Indoctrination of corruption (both political & economical) into our national psyche, has told us many lies, and the most profound being his recent denial of even wanting a third – term extension. What a shame!
Undeterred, I went to the office of the clerk of the national assembly to find out if, and when Obasanjo sent the said agreement to the National Assembly. Records showed that the National Assembly received the Presidents letter on the Bakassi matter on the 14th of June, 2006. But the actual agreement was signed in New York on June 12, 2006; Two days before he (Obasanjo) sent a notice to the National Assembly. So who is lying?
If ex-president respected the views of Nigerians and that of National assembly, he would have written earlier and allowed them to debate the matter on behalf of Nigerians, after which, the National Assembly will issue a statement indicating their position before the signing takes place; i.e. if they assent or not to the idea. But the ex-president never gave it a thought; rather he hurriedly went and signed the agreement ceding the peninsular because of his selfish – ego of wanting to win international awards as a peaceful leader.
If the territory was Badagry or part of the Western Region of Nigeria, would he have hurriedly done such? Definitely not.
The same coy was employed when in an attempt to extricate himself from the PTDF scandal; he intimidated his minister into signing back-dated documents dealing with the handling of oil contracts (according to media reports).
Friedrich Nietzsche must have Obasanjo in mind when he issued the statement used as opening remark.
Let us get back to the statement issued by the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in respect of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in the Haque, in this Bakassi case:
“The Federal Republic of Nigeria makes the following statement in respect of the judgment by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, in the case concerning the land and maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria.
The Government of Nigeria has substantially examined the implication of the judgment delivered by the International Court of Justice in the Hague on October 10, 2002. The decision of the Court covered five specific areas:
· Lake Chad · The Land Boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon · Bakassi · Cameroon’s claim to a major share of offshore resources-particularly oil in the Gulf of Guinea, and · Claims of both sides for reparation involving state responsibilities.
Bakassi
In 1889, the Kings, Chiefs and people of Old Calabar signed a treaty of protection with Great Britain. That treaty did not give the British power to alienate all or any part of the land which they were supposed to protect. The protectorate included Bakassi. This is what they claimed to have done in 1913 when Great Britain allegedly ceded Bakassi to Germany. The Court in disregard of the inalienable rights of the Kings, Chiefs and people of Old Calabar to their Land and ancestral homes, upheld the Anglo-German Treaty of 1913 by which Britain ceded the Bakassi Peninsular to Germany. This treaty was essentially the basis of the judgment giving sovereignty over Bakassi to Cameroon. The Court, without any justification whatsoever, failed or refused to follow its own precedent set in the Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara where it recognized the local rulers’ possession and title as superior to other forms of title. In the case of Bakassi, the root of title belongs to the King, the chiefs and the people of Old Calabar. Neither Germany nor for that matter Cameroon could therefore claim Bakassi as terrace nullius. In the judgment in the case of the frontier dispute, Burkina Faso –Mali which the Court relied upon in the Nigeria vs Cameroon judgment, they interpreted the first part of that paragraph (i.e. para 63 of that case) as being in favour of Cameroon but failed to take cognizance of the latter part of the paragraph which states that effectiveness must invariably be given consideration. The Court failed to give that consideration.
The court decided that during the League of Nations Mandate, and subsequently, the United Nations Trusteeship, Bakassi had been administered by Nigeria as part of the Mandate/Trust Territory. However, the Court, having admitted that the Southern Cameroon’s plebiscite order of 1960 “made no mention of nay polling station bearing the name of a Bakassi Village” (and Nigeria knowing as a fact that they never participated), went ahead to presume that the inhabitants of Bakassi had indeed exercised their rights to self-determination.
Furthermore, the exercise of authority of traditional rulers, the Efik and Efiat toponymy of the territory, its ethnic affiliation with Nigeria and not with Cameroon, the long established permanent settlement of Nigerians which continues to exist undisturbed and the manifestation of sovereign acts, such as tax collections, census-taking, provision of education, judicial and public health services, which formed the basis of Nigeria’s historical territorial title was totally disregarded in the judgment of the court.
In the instant case, for purely political reasons, the Court, headed by French President, upheld a legal position which is contrary to all known laws and conventions, thus legitimizing and promoting the interests of former colonial powers at our expenses. The French President of the Court and the English and German Judges should have disqualified themselves since the countries which they represent are, in essence, parties to the action or have substantial stakes. These judges, as citizens of the colonial powers whose action had come under scrutiny, have acted as judges in their own cause and thereby rendered their judgment virtually null and void. Nigeria does not accept that a Protectorate Treaty made without jurisdiction should take precedence over a community’s title rights and ownership existing from time immemorial. Great Britain could not have given to Germany what it did not have. For a stronger reason, what Germany did not have could not have been transferred to Cameroon.
Bakassi and the thirty-three villages in the Lake Chad area in issue have, from time immemorial, been inhabited by Nigerians who owe their allegiance to local Nigerian rulers, State Governments and the Federal Government. These areas have always been administered by Nigerian authorities and there is no record or any evidence of their having come under Cameroonian rule. The Court did not dispute this evidence but maintained, quite erroneously, that the colonial treaties took precedence over the inalienable rights of ownership of the land by the Nigerian inhabitants.
Furthermore, all land and territory comprising the nation of Nigeria is specified in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. Bakassi as a Local Government is so specified in Part I of the First Schedule to the Constitution. Being a nation ruled by law, we are bound to continue to exercise jurisdiction over these areas in accordance with the Constitution. The responsibility for the amendment of the Constitution being that of the National Assembly of Nigeria and the State Assemblies, the Federal Government, all affected State Government and Local Government Councils will continue to exercise their constitutional responsibilities over all Nigerian territory as specified in the Constitution until the National and various States Assemblies effect amendments to the Constitution.
Access to Calabar
The Court also held that the Maroua Declaration of June 1, 1975 was a valid international treaty binding on both Cameroon and Nigeria. The Maroua Declaration purported to delimit the maritime boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon from the point the relevant colonial treaty ended, down the Calabar and Cross River estuaries and out to sea to a point south of Bakassi. This is not acceptable to Nigeria.
Whilst the effect of the Court’s decision is to grant sovereignty over Bakassi to Cameroon, it does not affect the right of innocent passage enjoyed under international law by all vessels, including Nigerian naval vessels, traveling to and from the sea to the west of Bakassi, whether on the Nigerian of the Cameroonian side of the Maroua line.
The Court, in its ruling, has indicated to Nigeria and Cameroon the direction of their international boundary south of the Maroua line. The line to be drawn between them will rapidly reach the outer limits of Equatorial Guinea’s maritime space. The effect of this line is to cut Cameroon off completely form access to Nigeria’s offshore fields.
The land boundary
Cameroon, of her own violation, put in issue 1,800 kilometers of land boundary between Lake Chad and Bakassi; Nigeria made detailed submissions which identified areas of uncertainty and dispute. Nigeria did this in order to settle once and for all the outstanding boundary issues between the two States.
In the event, the Court examined some 17 areas along the boundary, in each case ruling exactly where the boundary should run. The net result of this exercise has been that some 17, 000 hectares of land have been affirmed as being Nigerian Territory, including some significant Nigerian settlements, such as Sapeo, Tipsan, Lip and Mberogo. By contrast, some 4, 000 hectares of disputed territory were held to be within Cameroon. In some areas, such as at Turu in Adamawa State, the Court found that there has been substantial encroachment by Cameroon into Nigeria territory. The Court directs Cameroon to withdraw her administration and military or police forces from all the areas along the land boundary which are now confirmed as being under the sovereignty of Nigeria, including Turu, Bourha Ouango and Nyaminyami.
Lake Chad
The main problem with Lake Chad has been the gradual drying out of the Lake, which has taken place over the last 30 years. The Lake, exceeding 25, 000 sq kilometers in area (previously the fourth largest fresh-water lake in Africa), has been reduced to less than 2, 000 square kilometers. The drying out of the Lake has had a huge impact on the local population. Many people depend on the lake for their livelihood, both for the fish it provides and on the farmlands of the region.
The Nigeria Local Government Areas in the North-East have traditionally provided administrative services and infrastructure for the 60, 000 or so Nigerians living in this area. Nevertheless, the Court has ruled that the colonial boundaries are to be respected.
In the Lake Chad area, an international body, the Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC), comprising Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Niger and the Central African Republic has long been established. Representatives of the five States meet on a regular basis in order to coordinate efforts to preserve and protect the environment and people of this ecologically fragile area. The people are well used to co-operation under the leadership of the LCBC. Nigeria provides over 50 per cent of the budget of he LCBC and looks forward to continued cooperation between the member States, including Cameroon, in managing this area.
Reparations
In addition to her territorial claims, Cameroon made substantial claims against Nigeria for reparations to be paid on the basis that Nigeria has encroached on sovereign Cameroonian territory. Nigeria made corresponding claims against Cameroon. Both claims were rejected by the Court. The Court ruled that it was sufficient for both Nigeria and Cameroon peacefully to return territories and did not require the parties to pay any compensation to one another.
Conclusion
Having studied the judgment as entered by the Court, it is apparent that a lot of fundamental facts were not taken into consideration in arriving at their declaration. Most disturbing of these being the difficulties arising from the Orders contained in the judgment, relating to Nigerian communities in which their ancestral homes were adjudged to be in Cameroon Territory but which are expected to maintain cultural, trade and religious affiliations with their kith and kin in Nigeria. Nigeria takes cognizance of these serious implications and therefore appeals to all her citizens at home and abroad to remain calm, positive and constructive until we can find a peaceful solution to the boundary issue between Nigeria and Cameroon.
We appreciate and thank the Secretary General of the United Nations for brokering a meeting at the highest political level between Nigeria and Cameroon before the judgment was delivered and for offering his good offices to broker a similar meeting now that the judgment has been delivered with a view to effecting reconciliation, normalization of relations and good neigbourliness.
Nigeria thanks all leaders of the international community who have expressed concern over the issue and re-assures them that she will spare no efforts to maintain peace between Nigeria and Cameroon and indeed in the entire region. However, Government wishes to assure Nigerians of its constitutional commitment to protect its citizenry. On no account will Nigeria abandon her people and their interests. For Nigeria. It is not a matter of oil of natural resources on land or in coastal waters; it is a matter of the welfare an well being of her people on their land.
We assure the people of Bakassi and all other Nigerian Communities similarly affected by the judgment of the International Court of Justice on the support and solidarity of all other Nigerians. Nigeria will do everything possible to maintain peace in Bakassi or any other part of the border with Cameroon and will continue to avail itself of the good office of the Secretary General of the United Nations and other well meaning leaders of the International Community to achieve peace and to maintain harmony and good neighbourliness.”
(Submitted by Mr. N.K Obasi of International Crisis Group during our discussion of Bakassi on AIT- Democratic license program on Nov. 26th, 2007).
Based on the conclusion submitted by Obasanjo’s government, affirming its commitment to Nigeria’s constitution to protect its citizenry; the reasons and arguments presented in the entire report; it is easy to adduce that Obasanjo made a monumental mistake to cede Bakassi to Cameroon.
It is, therefore, appropriate for the Senate to rise and condemn the modalities employed by Obasanjo in the handling of the matter. In addition to that Deputy Senate Leader Victor Ndoma – Egba (SAN) revealed that, “Bakassi is mentioned in the first schedule of the Constitution of Nigeria and for us, full implementation of ICJ judgment cannot be considered until during the constitutional amendment.” And this position was further supported by that of Deputy Minority Leader Senator Olorunimbe Mamora, who queried Obasanjo for not involving the national assembly in the implementation of the ICJ ruling on Bakassi, and he further said, “Everything that was done was supposed to have involved the parliament because that is what divides democracy from autocracy. If you leave out the parliament, what you have is autocracy. Just like the Europeans shared out Africa as an international cake, Bakassi was shared out as a national cake.”
Many newspaper and broadcast journalists did condemn the actions of these noble senators. Some called them cowards who could not stand up to Obasanjo. Well, in my opinion, it is better to be a surviving coward who lives to fight another day than a dead and buried hero or one who is stopped from re-contesting the election. Therefore, I strongly commend the distinguished Senators for their position on the matter.
The Senators are not suggesting that Nigeria should go to war with Cameroon over Bakassi and take back the peninsula. However, even if that were to be the case, then it is indeed welcome refreshment; Nigeria probably needs a war with another country to really re-unite the country into a nation.
The civil war dislodged the unity of the nation, and Obasanjo’s eight years of brigandage further disjointed the nation. But before that starts, the following questions need to be addressed.
- Is the military that has been so brutalized by the media, and starved of funds by the politicians ready to retake Bakassi?
- Has the National assembly disbursed enough funds to the Military to make sure that all materials needed for the prosecution of the war is at hand?
- What does the intelligence community know about Cameroon’s force strength and the psychology of their troops? Has defense intelligence Agency (DIA) National Intelligence Agency (NIA) done their home work by networking with other interrelated agencies to make sure that facts are presented to the National Security for analysis.
- How can the indigenes of Western Cameroon be encourage to seek a plebiscite akin to that of 1960 to determine where they wish to belong
- Should Northern Cameroonians be encouraged to begin to ask Paul Biya why the deliberate marginalization of Northerners, and agitate for a separate nation.
- How the issue of combatant enemies (Niger Delta Militants) should be addressed before hostilities commences.
As a matter of fact, Nigerian Military must, and should be encouraged to start flexing their muscles within the region. This hopefully will call the attention of Cameroon that Nigeria means Business; and negotiations will begin afresh.
Nigeria must insist that both countries work collaboratively to develop the region, just like that of Sao Tome & Principle (JV - Program) on a 50 – 50 ratios.
Nigeria must bear in mind that it must do whatever is necessary to get a permanent seat with veto powers at the United Nations. Obasanjo definitely missed an opportunity; he could have bargained with Bakassi.
One must ask why Britain went to war 3, 000 miles away to retake the Falklands Island from Argentina. What was the ICJ ruling on that? It is indeed in Britain’s National interest, to dislodge Argentina from the Island; and that they did.
Do you think United States of America will ever give up the Island of Quantanamo bay (originally belonging to Cuba) or prepared to give up the US-Virgin Islands, no matter the ruling of ICJ and the United Nations? And if you think that the US will get out of Japan, you better think again.
Nigeria should start borrowing from US/Britain the Culture of protecting what is in their nation’s interest as part of the new strategic initiative, especially now that Nigeria is a serious power broker in Africa.
Since the national assembly, now know that Obasanjo breached the Constitution of the Federal Republic or Nigeria; clearly an impeachable offence, but, the man is no longer in office to be impeached. However, as a favour to Nigerians, they can stop his ambition by making sure that he does not continue or emerge as the Board of Trustee (BOT) chairman of Peoples Democratic Party ever, or even be given any traditional title any where in the country.
While at it, they must begin to initiate a probe to ascertain how much millions of dollars was paid to Prince Bola Ajibola and the team of lawyers that represented Nigeria in the case; and who disappeared the millions of dollars earmarked for the resettlement of the people of Bakassi.
These actions must be taken by the national assembly to continue to restore their dignity in the eyes of Nigerians, and the International community.
Long live the Federal Republic of Nigeria. |