Leadership (Abuja)
Stanley Udi
22 July 2008
analysis
The ceding of the oil rich Bakassi peninsula by the International Court of Justice sitting at Hague, during the last administration of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo has drawn a lot of misgivings from Nigerians over the way and manner the government handled the issue.
It would be recalled that after the verdict by the World Court, former President Obasanjo signed the agreement ceding Bakassi at Green Tree in a deal brokered by former UN scribe, Kofi Annan, with the assistance of the U.S. Britain and France in June 2006 and for which the UN provided money for the resettlement of the indigenes of the area who wished to relocate.
However, the people directly affected by the judgement are not comfortable with being assimilated as Cameroonians and have been mounting pressure on the federal government to rescind the agreement.
The Nigerian Senate on its part set up a committee to conduct a public hearing on the Bakassi issue. The lingering crisis has both political and legal argument in favour or against the Green Tree agreement.
In considering the legal angle, the kind of advice given to the government has to be analysed. Did the government know the implication of going to the World Court? Did it appreciate that it could have backed out willingly before commencement of the matter and sought a political solution, i.e through a plebiscite?
The legal perspective throws up a number of interesting facts. For one, the rules and procedure setting up the International Court of Justice is such that once a party (country) submits to its jurisdiction, it is bound by the outcome of the case. This is further exacerbated by the fact that a judgement handed down by the court is final and cannot be appealed against.
Bearing all these legal implication in mind, was the federal government adequately advised on the possible ramification and did it go ahead to submit to the court with the full knowledge that it cannot go back on any verdict given?
The second postulation offered by the legal theorists on the Bakassi issue centres on the age long conflict of laws dilemma. To wit, does international law supercede municipal/national law or vice-versa?
The operation of international law as propounded by its famous authority, Hugo, is centred on the principle of jus sevante. This implies that nations of the world have to act in good faith and trust when dealing with one another. The nexus here is that Nigeria has a duty to act in good faith in line with the judgement of the World Court.
On the other hand, the advocates of the superiority of municipal law posits that the grundnorm of the land (the Constitution) over-rides the norms of international law. They point to section 12 of the 1999 Constitution which states that "No treaty between the federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to the extent in which such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly."
Those convassing against the Green Tree agreement further point out that the National Assembly during the OBJ administration did not and have not, up till now, enacted the treaty ceding Bakassi as law. Therefore, Nigeria cannot be legally bound by it.
In addition, part 1 of the first schedule of the Constitution lists Bakassi as part of the sovereign territory of Nigeria. Since there has been no constitutional amendment deleting Bakassi, it implies that it is still part and parcel of Nigeria.
Regarding the political viewpoint, the federal government could have opted in the first instance for political settlement of the issue in the interest of peace. This may involve collaborating with the Cameroonian government in conjunction with the UN to hold a plebiscite in the territory to decide which country the inhabitants prefer. The only snag here is that since the territory is blessed with oil, Cameroon might not be disposed to any plebiscite, since it is well known that the people of Bakassi have Nigerian sympathy.
The problem of the Bakassi is complex and goes beyond the Nigerian/Cameroonian relationship. The international community is a significant observer. Interestingly, there was a precedent for Nigeria to have followed. The Falkland Islands was a source of conflict between Britain and Argentina, for which both countries actually went to war in 1982. Despite the strong Argentina claims to the Island, Britain has maintained an intimidating military control of the Island, knowing full well that if she accepted to go to the court, any outcome would be fraught with landmines that might embarrass her.
Let us propose the political solution to Cameroon, who knows, they might be amenable to it so as to possibly ensure lasting peace in the region.
Stanley Udi works with LEADERSHIP
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2008 Leadership. 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.
STANDLEY UKI JUST LKE OHER MLLIONS OF NIGERIANS , YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND NAIVE ON THE WORKING OF AFRICAN STATES AND HOW THE WHOLE WORLD ACTUALLY WORKS. THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS WORLD COURT, THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS CAMEROUN, CAMEROUN IS MADE UP OF 2 INDEPENDENT COUNTRIES SOUTHERN CAMEROONS AND CAMEROUN, CAMEROUN IS ILLEGALLY OCCUPYING SOUTHERN CAMEROONS, AND IT DRAWS ITS WEAPONS FROM FRANCE TO PERPETRATE THIS. WONDER WHY ALL THE ARMS, THE MILITARY ADVISERS, THE FRENCH AMBASSADORS IN CAMEROUN ALL HAVE BEEN TO BAKASSI, BECAUSE THER IS OIL UNDE BAKASSI, JUST AS THER IS OIL IN SOUTHERN CAMEROONS, FRANCE AND CAMEROUN HAVE COLONISED SOUTERN CAMERONS AND ARE MOVING INTO NIGERIA, AFTER BAKASSI, NEXT IS PRT HARCOURT, ALREDAY CALABAR IS BEEING DISCSS IN FRANCE. BY THE FRNCH AMBASSOR, WONDER WHY THE JUDGES, THE MARGISTRATES AT THE ICJ ARE ALL FRENCH? WONDER WHY CAMEROUN PEEOPLE HAVE NEVER ELECTED THEIR PRESIDENT, INSTEAD PAUL BIYA AND AHMADU AHIJO ARE ALL APPOINTED BY FRANCE. THY HAVE NOCURRENCY, INSTEAD THE SES FRANCS,A FRENCH CURRENCY, THE EAT FRENCH, SPEAK FRENCH, AND SHIT FRENCH, THE ALSO VIEW THE WOLD IN FRENCH EYE GLASSES. ANY FRENCH COLONY I AFRICA , THAT ONE CAN BOAST OF? NONE/ AFTER ALL THE FRENCH STILL BOAST OF MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE DARK CONTINENT, 50 YEARS AFTER COLONIZATION ENDED. FRENCH COMMIT GENOCIDE HERE AND THERE. IN CONGO. TOGO. RWANDA, COTE D IVOIRE , CAMEROUN , SOUTHERN CAMEROONS, YET IGERIANS RULE BY ILLETRATE CURRUPT OLD MULLAHS. PREFER BRIBE TAKING FROM FRANCE THAN LOGIC SOO OBASANJO JUMP TO NEW YORK, WHEN HIS PART OF THE MONEY WAS WIRED INTO HIS ACCOUNT BY FRANCE, KOFO ANAN, HD HIS HARE. THE TOUPOURO MAN FROM SENEGAL AMAUO ALI. HAD HIS, THE OTHER YORUBA NGERIN FOREIGN MINISTER HAD HIS TOO.NOW THEY GOO AROUND SPREADING LIES, NO ONE HAD HEARD FROM THE LANDLORDS WHO OWNS BAKASSI. UST LIKE SLAVERY DAYS, THE CHIEF GES THE LOOKING GLASS, AND A BOTTLE OF WHISKY. AND BOYS AND MEN, GIRLS ARE DRAG OFF FROM THEIR LAND TO THE WAITING SHIPS TO AMERICAN PLANTATIONS. SHAME ON NIGERIA IF YOU LET BAKASSI GO, FRANCE ILL TUEN NIGERIA UPSIDE DOWN, BY SETTING UP ITS MILITARY INTELLIGENCE HEADQUARTERS IN BAKASSI AND COUSING ANOTHER CIVIL WAR IN NIGERIA, AFTER LL , NIGERIAM WAR SHIPS WONT BE ALLOW TO LEAVE SHORE BY THE GTA AGREEMENT. NIGERIA ARMY WAKE UP AND STAMP OUT THS OLD , FAGGAT, FRENCH CAMEROUN PAUL BIYA ARMY. FIGHT AND WIPE THEM OUT FIGHT FOR FREEDOM. FIGHT FOR BAKASSIFIGHT FOR SOUTHERN CAMEROONS FIGHT FOR PEACEFUL AND FREE AFRICA.