---

---

Nigeria: Military - Bakassi Treaty Dangerous

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."

Read comments. Write your own.

---