The Bakassi Mockery And Irrelevance Of International Court Of [In]Justice

By

N. Godson

criticalsolu@yahoo.com

 

Ever since the story of the Bakassi “fishing/oil pond” came to my awareness I have often wondered what really pushes the Nigerian system, patriotic instincts or the irritant master-servant relationship where the black man must always yield to the pleasures of the Anglo-Saxon slave traders. Unless and until our leaders wean themselves from archaic mindset as described, the so-called civilized world will continue to take advantage to dominate and dictate. From the tidbits known thus far the Bakassi fumble or should I say curse started with an obscure boring one-sided treaty between Britain and Germany - two invading foreign countries on African soil. This 1884 treaty is hardly ground to ignore the protest registered by the Bakassi people as far back as 1913 when the Germans were smuggled into the picture. Britain as Nigeria's colonial lord despite signing this self-serving treaty with Germany maintained control of the area, which after their exit from the continent was left in total Nigerian management. People have pointed to the 1913 treaty as defense, but drawing contracts that did not address the concerns and needs of the indigenes does not show good faith. For any contract to be binding as we know three variables must be in attendance, offer, acceptance and interest. Where is the interest and acceptance in all these for the Bakassi people?

 

The motivation of Chief Mathew Aremu Obasanjo for committing such a sacrilegious arbitrary signing away of a part of Nigeria against her constitutional dictates should be called to question. A friend whom I shared my intent to write on this suggested that Obasanjo might have taken some money from some foreign interests and who can blame him for thinking so? All through his eight years he danced around Washington and London on a matter that required deep consultations within unconcerned that the constitution he swore to uphold still have the peninsula in dispute as part and parcel of Nigeria. Granted the Vienna convention of 1969 stipulations about the invalidity of states to use her constitutional provision as grounds to cancel a “contract,” I stand to challenge the treaty on the basis that the people never assented, not then and definitely not now. Even at that, the same Vienna convention provided for outright cancellation if at the time of concession there was a violation of the country’s constitution, which indeed is the case. The failure by Chief Obasanjo and his team of legal dwarfs to first get legislative approval can be pointed as infringement at the time Bakassi was negotiated away. The Nigerian constitution is eloquent about the legislative process to be taken before the enforcement of any contract with any other sovereignty especially one that has potential to be inimical on the people. Nigerians should feel affronted that a man who only observed the constitution in the breach could exact such poor influence without the responsible parties waking up to begin the reversal process. Chief Obasanjo with all due respect is only one out of many who call Nigeria home and thus not above censuring for his lack of discipline and open violation of our constitution. Nigeria is certainly bigger than all, the Chief included. Ok, I get it, he was scared that the West, U.S. and all would invade Nigeria and kick him off his imperial throne? If this thesis is acceptable the question turns to national interest, what happened to it?

 

African heads of states and presidents annoyingly allow the West to exact undue influence that is almost always disadvantageous to their people. This is what a typical African president will do, so happily give catablanche to his counterpart in the Western hemisphere just because he was invited to a tea and crackers party. And once this gold card, lunch visit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or 10 Downing Street is secured, his host will turn around to repeatedly rape him into pre-Adam times. Unfazed about the collateral effect their venality is causing the people. Please count me among the school of thought that believe that the second fiddle African presidents play to the greedy West is at the root of what the traveling Africans suffer at airports around the world. Contrary to the hogwash by one former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, from all historical calculations, a person vigilant enough could conclude that Bakassi which was under the control of our colonial lord, Britain, is a territory of Nigeria. To hear a former Attorney General of Nigeria base his argument in defense of the Cameroonians solely on the coerced 1884 and 1913 treaties that were protested at the time by the Efiks, is to wonder about his competence. The erstwhile Minister of Justice went further to argue that Nigeria never had physical control of the area since it was under British supervision and I add, so too the Cameroonians. They never had any control! As a former member of the body that ruled against his natal country one would have expected his argument to be on the side of his country opposite of the balderdash spattered. Try imagining an American justice making public comments that go against the national security of the U.S. No justice of U.S. origin would proffer or support the handover of any part of the U.S. to a foreign and hostile country. In view of this, I say the Nigerian AG was wrong to have based his support for the impending parting of Bakassi on unavailability of crude oil in the area and the citation of the phony treaties that never represented the interest of the Efik people. In a contract, if any one of the necessary variables, offer, acceptance and interest is missing it is considered non-grata and as far as the Efiks are concerned there is zero interest. Although one is not an attorney still could argue that the coerced treaties were rendered ineffective the moment the British absconded from the African continent else they would be there today defending the Efiks as the treaties promised.

 

Just days ago and to my happiness, the great state of Texas snuffed life out of a double murderer and rapist, Jose Medellin. An immigrant Mexican national whose brutal rape and murder of two fifteen year old young beauties was a subject for the useless world court. The criminal, Jose that is, anchored his defense on his belief that he was never informed about his right under international law to have consular access in relation to his arrest. As a result his attorney argued that his conviction should be tossed. And as expected of the clueless body, the world court, they agreed that Mexican officials should have been notified about his arrest. A stupid technicality as if a visit by the embassy personnel would have declared the murderer innocent of the chargers! Based on this, the bench of yoyos directed the great state of Texas to free or retry Jose who as a murdering rapist belonged in one place alone, death chambers. Good thing the governor of Texas, Mr. Rick Perry never paid mind and rightfully so, to the International court’s opinion. To give backing to the governor, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas is not under the jurisdiction of the world body, that the U.S. congress (Nigerian Legislative House) never passed such a treaty. It went further to say that only the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court matters. With that they wrote the epitaph of the double-murderer and his life effectively extinguished by the long arm of justice. Way to go governor! Public opinion even in the double-murderer’s native Mexico was inaudible; his extinction drew little protest because they recognized the heinous and criminal nature of his murdering spree.

 

If a state in the U.S. could exercise such independence to in fact say to hell with the world court, why can’t the nation of Nigeria be guided by common sense to know that only the people of Bakassi and Nigeria can decide on this matter? The good people of Bakassi ask not much from the Nigerian state all they want is to be left alone to continue to navigate the creeks and ponds in their land under the Nigerian flag. A reasonable expectation to all prepared minds that recognizes the injustice of the world court opinion. Nigerian government should avoid any action that will shake the people’s faith mindful that the least expected of them is protection under the constitution and this seems a far cry from what is about to happen. Current legislative leaders should take advantage of the ripe political atmosphere to end the legislative farce of the past by not okaying this bizarre one-man squad agreement. With the benefit of living in the U.S. for many years I add that the International Court of [in]justice is a weak system that only bullies cowering African presidents to submission. They should be snubbed and Bakassi control maintained by the federal government of Nigeria. Doing less will send a very dangerous and wrong message. Many who have come out against this folly about to take place obviously are making ado about something.

 

In the past the world court has dispensed opinions upon more that were ignored by other countries so why should Nigeria totter on this very national issue without realizing the implications of her actions? It does not make sense for Bakassi to be ceded to a hostile country against the constitutional call for the legislators to first ratify any treaty or contract. This is what gets me, not long ago the noise screeched out of control about the combat readiness of the Nigerian military to defend and protect her territorial integrity, what happened? If the same world court shows less muscle in delving into any matter for example that calls for ceding Louisiana to the French or the Alaskan wilderness to the Russians, by gosh they have to stay the hell away from Nigeria and our government ought to know this little! Bakassi belongs in Nigeria and nothing Chief Bola Ajibola or anyone on his side say that would convince the generality of Nigerians to believe otherwise. At the minimum all the folks who hurriedly signed off on that Green Tree Agreement ought to have kept national security at the forefront. Such that I call on the president Mr. Umaru Yar’Adua to please work with the National Assembly to put brakes to this national shame about to unfold. The government of Nigeria should apply prudence to the Bakassi merry-go-round in favor of our fellow countrymen and women who are under severe burden of uncertainty. To zigzag through this national call and giveaway a part of the country to the Cameroonians will be a regrettable error. Many other things exist that could pony up Nigeria’s image and handing out a part of the sovereignty is not one of them. If Nigeria wants to spruce up her image a good place to start will be a positive attention to the Niger Delta issue! Our National Assembly should end this Bakassi ping-pong already!