Sufuyan Ojeifo
17 July 2008
Abuja And Ernest Chinwo in Calabar — A startling revelation emerged yesterday about the Green Tree Agreement (GTA), the treaty ceding the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, as military authorities spoke about the security implications of the agreement.
The Senate Joint Ad Hoc Committee on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment, which paved the way for the GTA, was told that the nation's naval warships could only operate to a certain level in the Calabar Estuary following the treaty.
Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Andrew Owoye Azazi, and the Director, Training, Nigerian Defence Headquarters, Commodore Dele Izioba, painted to the committee a picture of how the movement of the nation's naval warships in and out of Calabar waterway would be encumbered if the relevant provisions of the GTA were not revisited.
But also yesterday, the Acting Governor of Cross River State, Hon. Francis Bussam Adah, said the scheduled handover of the remaining parts of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon would go on as planned.
The GTA, which was dated June 12, 2006 and entered into by former President Olusegun Obasanjo and Cameroonian President Paul Biya, had transferred the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.
Controversy had dogged the treaty since the ceding of the peninsula with the National Assembly saying Obasanjo did not send the agreement to it for ratification.
Azazi and Izioba told the Senate commitee that the provision of the GTA if allowed to pass would entail that Nigeria would have to write Cameroon for permission for her naval warships to move into Calabar waterway.
Specifically, Azazi told the committee that the former CDS, General Martin Luther Agwai, accompanied Obasanjo to New York where the GTA was signed, adding that there were no concrete documents on the input of the military in the agreement.
He expressed concern about Article 4 (d) of the agreement which provides that Cameroon would exercise sovereignty on the waterway after five years, a development that will completely forbid the movement of Nigeria Naval warships through the waterway to Calabar except by official permission.
Azazi said: "The Boundary Commission talks about an agreement that was written in 1975 and we are talking about a document that was signed in 2006, which says our warships can only operate up to a certain level.
"The estuary itself is about 12 nautical miles wide and how many of that are deep waters? We are saying that that from the boundary, what access could Nigerian ships have if you say Nigerian ships cannot ply on the Cameroonian side, with the level of deep waters?
"It is of concern to us. If we cannot go through the deep waters, it means on the Nigerian side that is shallow, we cannot make any movement. I would like Commodore Dele to make an explanation."
In his explanation, Izioba said: "The CDS has aptly described what the scenario is, but I will look at it from a professional point of view within the context of legal framework.
"Under United Nations Conference on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLAWS 3) which clearly establishes territorial waters, contiguous zones and exclusive economic zones measured from the baseline seawards; from the arbitrary boundary that the DG of the National Boundary Commission has highlighted on the chart-from Akwaefo Rivers out to sea, it, kind of, divides the entrance to Calabar channel into two integral parts, ceding the right side of it to the east to the Cameroon and the west to Nigeria.
"Based on the provisions of this law, it means that the territorial waters of Cameroon, measured from baseline seawards, automatically impinges on what is acclaimed to be our own waterway and vice versa. In other words, it means there is a conflict, whichever way you look at it."
Izioba continued: "So, what we are saying in this context within the provisions of UNCLAWS is that the issue of maritime delineation should be considered such that both parties would have right of access and let me make it categorically clear here that the area in contest is of more strategic importance to Nigeria than to Cameroon because of Calabar."
He warned that under no circumstance should the nation compromise that security implication because it would have great consequences for national security.
He also drew the committee's attention to "the strategic maritime assets within this strategic area," saying "we have always had our ships go in and out and they may have informed paragraph 4d, which excluded warships. So we must be very careful."
Izioba shared the position of Chairman of the Senate Committee, Senator Jibril Aminu, that there were no Naval men on the delegation to guide the Federal Government on the implications of the GTA.
He said: "Absolutely, sir. The CDS also alluded to the fact that this particular area is characterised by shallow waters on both sides but the area that is deeper is towards the Marwa boundary that has been highlighted on the chart.
"Even with the encumbrances as it exists right now through the Calabar approaches, the same UNCLAWS with some articles within the illegal framework has provided for mutual co-existence and delineation of this maritime boundaries to allow for both countries that have this kind of boundary issues to develop a framework that will allow both of them to mutually have access to this waterway.
"When it borders on national security, it must be clearly defined within the context of what the laws permit. So, we as a people must sit down and articulate what we think will be better for us."
He added: "We have to look at the provisions of UNCLAWS and we have to look at it in context and marry it with 4d of the Green Peace Agreement because the issue we are looking at here is the issue of maritime delineation.
"The other issue, the North has already been handed over. But this is where we have some issues. The CDS said national security concerns. We do not have to be writing letters or note verbal to take permission to Cameroon to allow our ships to go in and out of Calabar. It is not acceptable."
The CDS again interjected in response to another question by the committee: "It is very important to us because we have Calabar and now we have forward operational base in Bakka. The Cameroonians do not have any facilities on their part except for oil installation.
"I do not know how to couch the word in legal language but it is important that we have a provision that says our naval ships have free access to that area. You could talk about some kind of arrangement where if you are coming in everybody knows about it without threatening the other side.
"This clause exclusively forbids our ships from doing anything in that area and we are saying the clause must provide for our ships having access to that area."
In his reaction, Senator Aminu said it was clear that the Navy did not have the opportunity to direct the Federal Government on the GTA.
According to him, "It appears to me that our Navy was not on the driving seat when they were doing this entire thing. The reason is very clear. If there were knowledgeable naval persons there, they would have advised on what to do on the issue of nautical mileage.
"I think with all respect, the whole agreement was simplistic in this respect. This could have been avoided if they had consulted the professionals namely our Navy and I feel this is a point which we have to make to Senate very clearly."
He called on the military authorities to furnish the committee with more documents that it (committee) could use in reviewing the GTA.
He said: "If you have any more documents that we can use, clearly it is an area in my opinion we have to look at this GTA again. I am not talking about the judgment. I am talking about GTA. It has got to be looked at again."
A member of the committee, Senator Bassey Ewa-Henshaw, called the attention of the panel to a clause in the GTA which said that after five years, Cameroon could exercise its sovereignty, saying this would affect merchant vessels and prevent them from passing through the Calabar channel.
However, in a broadcast to the people of the state yesterday in Calabar, Adah said the August 15, 2008 deadline for the cession of the peninsula would be kept, adding that the provisions of the GTA would be followed accordingly.
He urged contractors involved in the construction of the resettlement site for people displaced by the cession to expedite action and deliver as scheduled and told the Resettlement Committee to intensify the supervision and report any suspected delay to the process for appropriate action.
Adah stressed that Nigeria had a duty to obey the agreement in keeping with her international obligation.
The acting governor also said all ongoing contracts awarded by Senator Liyel Imoke, including those awarded but yet to commence would continue as scheduled.
He directed all consultants and executing Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to ensure that job progressions were according to specification and time lines.
He, however, warned that he would not hesitate to punish any act capable of disrupting the planned programmes of the administration which he said were geared towards impacting positively on the lives of the people of Cross River.
Adah also assured all appointees particularly members of the state executive council of his readiness to parley with them as they go about their normal duties and called for the co-operation of all civil servants especially permanent secretaries while what he called the trying period lasted.
He said his primary duty was to stabilise the polity and prepare an enabling environment for the conduct of free and fair election as directed by the Appeal Court, which recently nullified the election of Senator Liyel Imoke as governor of the state.
The acting governor appealed to Cross River people to remain law abiding and go about their normal duties pending the release of election time-table for a fresh gubernatorial election in the state by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2008 This Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
Gen. Aziz and Comm.Izioba had made clear the security and economic implications of this GTA agreement between Nigeria and Cameroon. Further the ex-president did not employ the services of his military big wigs on this issue. One will wonder what compelled the ex-president to make this decision of ceding the bakassi area without the knoeledge of senators and top military personell who are good in intelligence. The best thing we can do at the moment is to provide evidence to how security will be disrupted by ceding bakassi. One is the security aspect in Calabar, disruption of trade flow in Calabar and environ,vulnerability of Nigeria to foreign attack from that area if our Naval personel dont know what is going on there. I think the senate should file an appeal against the decision of the ICJ. I think the ex-president made a big mistake going it alone on such vital decision that pertains to the security of the country, one wonders what he gained from reaching this decision and i know not for the benefit of the country. Showed he did not have the interest of Nigeria at heart when he made this decision. I think the senate should look into what transpired in this case that made the ex-president make such decision.
Regional security was not considered before GTA agreement was signed between Nigeria and Cameroon.immediate past aministration solely engineered by General Coward ,lied ,conspired with collaborators to signed treaty that undermine the regional security of Nigeria.biased ruling by the ICJ indicated the conspiracy theory of the issues.ICJ itself knew the possible nautical conflict that might arise in decision of ceding the bakassi area to Cameroon. This decision is entirely rejected based on the need to repel and reject issues that might generate to a generation dispute,Nigeria should look into this not to compromise its sovereignty ,security ,history ,culture,tradition ,resources,economy and unity.Fed gov should consider the safety of the future generation.why shy away from your responsiblity?please take note that you cant escape responsiblity can be postponed but cant not be avoided,reappeal this whole priciple and refuse this ICJ prejudice ruling.future generation will probe our grave.
Application by anyone to a Nigerian court to void a judgment of the ICJ, while an expression of freedom of speech, begs of intellectual dishonesty given the well settled principle of jurisprudence that a lower court cannot review a decision of a higher court. In fact, the lower court in this case, a Nigerian High Court, is bound by the decision of the higher court, the ICJ, recognized as such by the sovereign. Similarly, the suggestion that “the former President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, did not consult the military before the cession of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon,” should somehow invalidate a Judgment of the ICJ is perplexing, irrespective of any security concerns. The last time any one checked, Nigeria was a constitutional democracy and not a military regime.
Former President Obasanjo did not relinquish Bakassi or caused a cession of any territory under Nigerian sovereign jurisdiction to Cameroon. When he signed the GTA on June 12, 2006, Bakassi was already internationally recognized as within the sovereign jurisdiction of Cameroon. Indeed, the GTA provides; “Nigeria recognizes the sovereignty of Cameroon over the Bakassi Peninsula in accordance with the [sic] judgment of the International Court of Justice of 10 October 2002 in the matter of land and maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria. Cameroon and Nigeria recognize the land and maritime boundary between the two countries as delineated by the Court and commit themselves to continuing the process of implementation already begun.” Consistent with the clear understanding of the parties, “No part of this [sic] GTA shall be interpreted as a renunciation by Cameroon of its sovereignty over any part of its territory.
Thus, the GTA does not convey any land to Cameroon, but was rather intended to be a guide for the implementation of the judgment of the International Court of Justice of October 10, 2002. Specifically, “This Agreement shall in no way be construed as an interpretation or modification of the judgment of the International Court of Justice of 10 October 2002, for which the Agreement only sets out the modalities of implementation [emphasis added]. The GTA is not a treaty permitting cession of Bakassi by Nigeria to Cameroon, but an embodiment of the modalities by which the administration of the peninsular by Nigeria would be transferred to Cameroon. The scope of the GTA is, therefore, analogous to an instructional mechanism for the consolidation of the de facto and de jure sovereignty of Cameroon over its own territory.
That Nigerians should sit and watch supinely as their compatriots in the Bakassi peninsula are tossed out to Cameroon with a stroke of the pen is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in peacetime! This cowardly act by a president who, not only was forced on Nigerians, but came in the guise of a born-again Christian clearly underscores Nigeria's continuous state of quandary.
Like many activities during his undemocratic 8-year tenure, Obasanjo's unilateral sacrifice of Bakassi for Cameroon would not have been possible if the region had included his own village of birth. Believe me, Obasanjo would not have ceded so easily an inch of Yoruba territory! Because, the like the Niger Delta, the people of Bakassi are expendable, and their resources, exploitable.
There is no international agreement that can compel a nation to cede part of its territory to another even without the consent of the people directly affected. People often forget that Southern Cameroon was initially and originally an integral part of Nigeria until a referendum was conducted and the people of southern Cameroon overwhelmingly voted to join Cameroon.
The people of Bakassi were never given the same opportunity to determine their own fate. Neither Nigeria under Obasanjo nor the world court thought it useful or humane to involve the people of Bakassi in the so-called decision.
Ordinary Nigerians are not unaware of France's bad intentions for Nigeria dating back to before the secessionist war in Nigeria between 1967 and 1970. Go ask one of Nigeria's most principled but uncelebrated top army brass, Gen. David Ejoor about the great injustice occasioned by Obasanjo's act of betrayal in the Bakassi saga, and you'll be pointed to where to find relevant documentations and other cogent, irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
There comes a time in the life of either a person or nation when defending one's honor and principle is inescapable. And I submit to you that Bakassi is one such circumstance.
Who says this foul, stinky world court decision is irrevocable? Especially so when in the considered opinion of our nation’s top military experts point out that the decision of the world court dangerously undermines Nigeria’s national security?
Nigeria should damn the decision of the world court and the consequence, and for once use the same army it needlessly unleashed on the peoples Odi, et al to defend once and for all, the Nigeria's honor if any, and principle! Now is the time for Nigeria to show its spine. If at all, it has one.
DIESOLE. PLEASE CORRECT YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF CSOUTHERN CAMEROONS HISTORY. THE CORRECT VERSION IS, THAT IN 1961, SOUTHERN CAMEROONS, WHICH HAD SINCE BEEN FIGHTINGFOR INDEPENDENCE FROM BRITAIN, JOINLY RULED WITH NIGERIA. VOTED TO BECAME INDEPENDENT, IN A (FEDERAL STATE OF TWO EQUAL COUNTRIES) THOSE ARE THE WORDING USE TO EXPLAIN TO THE MASSES , BEFORE THEY VOTED,
AFTER12 YEARS, CAMEROUN RE-COLONISE SOUTHERN CAMEROONS BY MOVING ITS MILITARY CROSS THE BOUNDARY AND DECREEING FOR THE DEATH OF THE FEDERATION.
SOO SOUTHERN CAMEROONIANS BECAME MAD AND HAVE VER SINCE BEEN FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE, PAUL BIYA CAME IN 1982, AND INSTEAD REINFORCE THE FRENCH CAMEROUN COLONIAL OCCUPATIO AND ILLAGAL ADMINISTARTION OF SOUTHERN CAMEROONS, THROUGH THE USE OF ARMS. FROM FRANCE AND FRENCH SPEAKING PREFETS T FOREIGN TO SOUTHERN CAMEROONS SENT TO RULE THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE, THE SAME WAY THEY ARE TODAY TRING TO DO IN BAKASSI, ANDFRANCE CAN PASS CLEANLY THROUGH PAUL BIYA AND THE FRENCH BROTHER TO DRILL REE OIL, GAZ, AND AGRICULTURE IN SOUTHERN CAMEROONS WITHOUT ANSWERING TO THE LAND OWNERS.
THATS THE TRUE HISTORY, NO SOUTHERN CAMEROONINANS EVER VOTED TO JOIN A FOREIN FRENCH CULTURE TO BECAME ITS SLAVES, THEY VOTED TO BECAME INEPENDNT AND NOT A PROVINCE OR COLONY OF CAMEOUN
There is a hunch, judging by the theatric around the Bakassi, that some politicians that may be under the influence of foreign powers are trying to drag the country progresasively and surreptitously into all out war with the Cameroons counting on the weakness of the leadership in the country. The people should avoid being gullible and shout and cry out for deliverance to avoid being subjected into an unnecessary war. LONG LIVE NIGERIA AND LONG LIVE PEACE.