Echoes Of Ceding Bakassi Peninsula To Cameroon

The ceding of Bakassi Peninsula is once again on the front
burner of national discourse.

Agitators against the ceding of the oil-rich peninsula want
the government to revisit the judgment of the Oct.10, 2002, International Court
of Justice (ICJ), ceding the area to Cameroon.

The House of Representatives in July, passed a resolution
urging President Goodluck Jonathan to re-present Nigeria’s case before the ICJ.

The legislators said Nigeria had fulfilled the two
conditions for re-presenting such cases before the court.

These are compliance with the court’s ruling and the
discovery of new facts on the Anglo-German Treaty of 1913, premised on the
British Conference of 1816 on the partitioning of the disputed Nigeria-Cameroon
boundaries.

Mr Essien Ayi (PDP-Cross River South) moved the motion which
was unanimously adopted without debate.

He said that Article 61 of the ICJ Statue provided for
revision of judgment of the court, based on new facts, adding that countries
like El Salvador, former Yugoslavia and Tunisia had applied for a review based
on that section.

He said that the people of Bakassi insisted on having a
United Nations supervised plebiscite, where their right to self determination
would be exercised.

He said that there was the need for a review as the judgment
was reached in error.

“One of these facts is that the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty
relied upon by the ICJ to cede Bakassi to Cameroon is in breach of Article 6 of
the General Act of Berlin Conference, that enjoined European powers to watch
over the preservation of the native tribes and not to take over or effect
transfer of their territory.”

He said the Federal Government should initiate the process
toward the conduct of a United Nations supervised referendum in Bakassi.

Rep. Albert Sam-Tsokwa (PDP-Taraba) who pleaded with members
to allow for the adoption of the motion, said that until the ICJ ruling was
ratified by the National Assembly, it would not be binding on Nigeria.

Sam-Tsokwa noted that as a country, Nigeria had the right to
apply for a review of the judgment.

“We are within the confines of the law to apply for a
review. We have the right to apply for a review under the ICJ laws.’’

According to him, Nigeria has up to October 2012 to seek for
the review of the judgment but at the expiration of the date, it can no longer
seek any review.

The Cross River Elders’ Forum has also lent its support for
a revisit of the ICJ judgment.

The group said it was imperative based on new evidence as
the Supreme Court hinged its judgment to cede 76 oil wells hitherto belonging
to the state to Akwa Ibom on the ICJ judgment.

The group also requested that appropriate Federal Government
agencies should “immediately ask for extension of the 10-year period for the
completion of the handing over process of Bakassi, beyond October 2012. ’’

They expressed displeasure at “the twists and dislocations
in the handling of the Bakassi matter’’, before and after the ICJ ruling and
demanded that “the 76 oil wells be returned to Cross River.’’

Dr Etim Edet, the Paramount Ruler of Bakassi Local
Government Area, also called for a return of their homeland which was given out
without a referendum.

“Having waited for almost 10 years for the Federal Government
to act and show good faith without any hope in sight, we demand for the return
of our home land which was given out without a referendum.”

The traditional ruler also demanded “adequate compensation
to Cross River and the Bakassi community in perpetuity for ceding their land’’.

Chief Akin Ricketts, the Cross River Commissioner for
Information and Orientation, said the Supreme Court judgment, based on the
judgment of the ICJ, has wider implications.

“The first is that we have ceded both our national and
international territorial waters, which naturally serve as commerce ground for
the country.

“If the ceding is allowed, we will lose control of naval
ships coming into the country through the bodies of the waters, which the ICJ
called territorial waters.’’

“This is the implication and as a state with vested
interest, we should not fold our arms to watch this happen. ’’

However, a legal practitioner in Cross River, Mr Utum Eteng
noted that there was no dissenting voice in the Supreme Court judgment.

“The fact that it was a unanimous judgment of the full panel
of the Supreme Court, given without a dissenting voice tells the complete story
of a weak or empty case, presented before their lordships by Cross River
Government.

Eteng said that Cross River should press for a political
solution.

“It will appear from a dispassionate reading of the Supreme
Court judgment, that it is only when Bakassi is returned to Nigeria, that Cross
River may retain the 76 oil wells based on the Obong Attah and Donald Duke
agreement. ’’

Lawyers say that all the necessary legal machinery should be
put in place to reverse the ICJ judgment based on new facts.

They say that will, to a large extent, resolve the oil well
issue between Cross River and Akwa Ibom as the ceding of the wells stemmed from
the ICJ judgment.

Effiong is of the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)

Dianabasi Effiong