Bakassi: Matters Arisin

The judgement of the International Court of Justice, which purported to award the Bakassi Peninsula to the Republic of Cameroun, is to all intents and purposes outrageous, blatantly unjust and patently unsupportable. The judgment which was the consequent of a suit instituted by the Republic of Cameroun's claiming sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula and some parts of the Lake Chad region is the climax of the dream of Cameroun to exercise control of this area particularly the Bakassi Peninsula. Before the suit was filed by Cameroun, she had long been subjecting Nigerians in Peninsula to all sort of brutalities ranging from false imprisonment, murder and intimidation. In 1981, the Cameroonian armed forces made an incursion to the Peninsula and murdered a contingent of Nigerian troops from the 13th Amphibious Brigade, Calabar. Nigeria reacted forcefully by moving troops to her boundary with Cameroon, some how Cameroun realised the foolhardiness of her armed forces and profoundly apologised. The Nigeria Federal Government under the then President Shehu Shagari balked down. It was an opportunity to call off the bluff of Cameroun as far as the ownership of the Bakassi Peninsula was concerned. It was insinuated in some quarters that President Shehu Shagari backed down because he did not want to confront the then President Ahmadu Ahidjo, who is a Fulani like him. This matter was not squarely resolved throughout the period of the Babangida, Buhari, and Abacha military dictatorship. The Cameroonians army was allowed to roughshod on Nigerians of Efik, Ijaw, Oron and Ibibio ethnic nationalities who inhabit this Peninsula. This was the bleakest period of Nigerian political history. These military leaders were so steeped in looting and violating the Human Rights of Nigerians that other facts of national endeavours suffered blithe neglect. It must be stated that if we finally lose this part of Nigeria the blame must be totally put on the footsteps of these military potentates who seized political power in Nigeria for more than thirty years. It must be noted one of the documents that the International Court of Justice relied on heavily in its judgment was the so-called Maroua and Yaoundé 11 Declarations, which were entered into between President Ahidjo of Cameroun and the then Nigeria Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, which purport to vest the ownership of the Bakassi Peninsula on the Republic of Cameroun. However, it is on record that this document was shrouded in the usual military secrecy and capriciousness. It was never presented for ratification before the then Supreme Military Council, which by the Constitution (suspension and modification) Decree No. 1 of 1966 was vested with legislative sovereignty over the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is sad that this matter has been caught up by the ineptitude, irresponsibility and bad governance, which characterised military regimes in Nigeria. The Murtala/Obasanjo military dictatorship, which took over from General Gowon had denounced this document. Curiously, no steps were taken to get them quashed by the Supreme Court. As military rule took it tolls in the country, Cameroun shrewdly filed the suit in the International Court of Justice. The pertinent question is what becomes of the ethnic nationalities in the Bakassi Peninsula, which are basically of Nigerian origin? The International Court of Justice surprisingly relied on Article XII of the Anglo-German Agreement dated April 12, 1913 in its judgment. This treaty underscores the arbitrariness and capriciousness of colonial International Law. As a "conquered" people these ethnic nationalities of Nigeria were never not consulted before the British Colonial Government enacted this treaty, which effectively separated them from their brothers and sisters in the present Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Rivers and Cross River States of Nigeria. The arbitrary carving out of countries in Africa by European imperialists at the infamous Berlin Conference of 1888, without the slightest regard for demographic composition of these countries was one of the hallmarks of colonialism in Africa. The consequences of this is, that in the continent of Africa you find people of the same ethnic nationalities straddling more than two countries for instance. Ewes in Togo and Ghana, Yoruba in Benin and Nigeria; Ejagham in Nigeria and Cameroun. Colonialism has effectively ended. However the question is must: we Africans allow this state of affairs to continue. I think the rules of international law which were largely formulated by European imperialists in the eighteen century must be completely and totally jettisoned by Africans. International law based on racism, imperialism and the positivist school of jurisprudence is completely outdated. Undoubtedly since the end of the Second World War the influence of the positivist school of law has considerably waned in the Municipal law of many countries in the World. However, in international law the influence of the positivist is still prevalent. It is submitted that the concept of international law predicated on racial superiority and colonialism must be rejected. Happily the right to self-determination has been implicitly asserted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international covenants. Undoubtedly the people of the Bakassi Peninsula have unequivocally demonstrated their will to be an integral part of Nigeria. To insist that these people are in Cameroun under the umbrage of a benighted colonial treaty foisted on them by some paternalistic colonial masters to feather their capitalistic instincts and imperialistic designs would amount to an egregious injustice unprecedented in the annals of world history. In this wise, it is incumbent on the United Nations as the repository of international peace and the custodian of Human Rights to immediately organise a referendum in the Bakassi Peninsula, so that these Nigerian ethnic nationalities would have the opportunity of deciding in a democratic manner whether or not they want to belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Otherwise the Federal Government of Nigeria must as a matter of urgent national interest take effective measures to safeguard the sovereignty of Nigeria in the Bakassi Peninsula. This would surely be seen in the international community as an outrage and an affront. But how many countries which the International Court of Justice had found against have obeyed its decisions? How many times has the State of Israel arrogantly and with reckless abandon flouted resolutions of the United Nations urging her to respect the right of self-determination of the hapless Palestinian people? What of the case of Morocco in the Western Sahara? Has the United States, which is the supposed bastion of International Constitutionalism, not defied the principles of international law and the United Nations in her present face-off with Iraqi over weapons of mass destruction? There must be no double standard in international relations. Furthermore, the 1999 Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the country, has expressly asserted that Bakassi Local Government Area is an integral part of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It follows therefore that the judgment of the International Court of Justice cannot supersede the basic law of the country. This principle was given judicial approbation by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, in the celebrated cause of The Guardian Newspapers Ltd. V. Federal Republic of Nigeria, where the Supreme Court baldly asserted that an international treaty cannot override the provisions of the Constitution, where there is a conflict. Okoi Ofem Obono-Obla