Tension in Bakassi ahead appeal deadline

Barely 48 hours to the deadline allowable for the review of the 2002 judgment on the ceding of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has rejected an application by a law firm in Nigeria to appeal on behalf of some aggrieved people.

The ICJ said only states (sovereign governments), can file an application before it.

This development has also put legal obstacles before Bakassi Support Group which has engaged Mrs. Cherie Blaire’s International Legal Consultancy firm, Omnia Strategy LLP, on the review.

Also, the Federal Government has got a legal advice from London counseling Nigeria against any move to review the judgment.

The government got security report that tension was already mounting in the Peninsula with Cameroon determined to protect the place.

An Abuja-based law firm, Victory and Rose Associates had through its lead partner, Barrister Ugochukwu Osuagwu, written ICJ on its plans to seek a review of the 2002 judgment on Bakassi.

The letter reads in part: “With barely two weeks to the expiration of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), ruling which ceded Bakassi Peninsular and other territories to Cameroon on October 10, 200 2, my firm wishes to lodge a review over the judgment.

“We therefore seek permission to file an application to review the said judgment delivered in favour of Cameroon against Nigeria.”

But in its response, the ICJ said only states(sovereign governments or nations) could file an application before it.

The ICJ through its Information Department said: “In reply to your e-mail, I have to inform you that the International Court of Justice is not authorised, in view of its functions strictly defined by its Statute (Article 34) and Rules, to give advice or make observations on questions such as those raised in your communication.

“The Court’s activities are limited to rendering judgments in legal disputes between States submitted to it by the States themselves and giving advisory opinions when it is so requested by UN organs or specialized agencies of the UN system.

“It follows that neither the Court nor its Members can consider applications from private individuals or groups, provide them with legal advice or assist them in their relations with the authorities of any country.

“That being so, you will, I am sure, understand that, to my regret, no action can be taken on your communication. Yours faithfully, Information Department, International Court of Justice.”

A source, yesterday, said: “By implication, the Bakassi Support Group which has hired Mrs. Cherie Blair cannot seek any review without applying through the Federal Government.

“What the Bakassi Support Group is trying to achieve is to internationalise its agitation and probably pressurise the Federal Government to back its request for review.

“But the President has tried to be as transparent as possible by raising a committee, headed by the Attorney-General of the Federation to look into fresh factors and documents being canvassed by Cross River State and other agitators.

“In the last 72 hours, the Federal Government Committee has not received relevant documents to be evaluated.

“The counsel to the Cross River State Government, Mrs. Nella Andem-Rabana, has so much relied on the fact that the 1913 Anglo/German Treaty which ceded Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon was not signed.

“This same evidence was tendered at the ICJ between 1994 and 2002 where it was confirmed that the treaty was actually ratified. We cannot go back to argue on the same issue of which judgment had been delivered.”

Meanwhile as Bakassi Support Group was hiring Mrs. Blair’s firm, the Federal Government has also sought legal advice from experts in London.

Another source added: “The legal advice has been received, it does not support any application for a review of the judgment at all.

“The Bakassi Support Group has forgotten that the judgment of the ICJ covered alignment of borders from Lake Chad to the Atlantic Ocean.

“With Lake Chad involved in the judgment, there is also need to protect the border interest of some Northern states too. No one is talking about protecting these Northern states.

“That is why we are saying that the issues surrounding the judgment have to do with maritime and land boundaries. How do you seek a review for one part of the country without carrying the other part along? Have they forgotten that some Nigerian villages around Lake Chad were also relocated.

“So, there is no way Blair’s firm could go to ICJ for a review without the consent or authority of the Federal Government. There are no facts known to law as I am talking to you for Nigeria to make a U-Turn on the ceding of Bakassi.

As at press time, it was gathered that there had been tension in Bakassi Peninsula with Cameroon ready to protect the place that was handed over to it in 2008.

A government source added: “We have got reports about tension in Bakassi Peninsula, but we are trying to manage the situation so that there won’t be crisis between Cameroon and Nigeria.

‘The Cameroonian Government is determined to protect the Peninsula. We are suspecting that it is moving troops towards the area to secure the place.”

Notwithstanding, the Cross River State Government and other support groups have explained why they are adamant on the review.

A document prepared by Andem-Rabana(SAN) which was also submitted to President Goodluck Jonathan reads in part: “Cameroon does, of course, dispute Bakassi’s current status as part of Nigeria. But, as Nigeria has shown, there is no doubt that historically Bakassi is Nigerian. Nigeria’s forerunners in this area were the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. They were not just a miscellaneous group of undeveloped tribes. They were, rather, an entity with recognized sovereign status. Within their territory, they ruled with sovereign authority.

“With the outside world, they conducted their relations through an extensive network of treaties including treaties both with Great Britain and other European States. Nigeria’s Counter Memorial contains a long, but even so not necessarily complete, list of such treaties.

“The Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar exercised their sovereign authority over a large area around the Calabar Estuary. That authority extended a considerable distance to the East. The Bakassi Peninsula was therefore clearly within their domains. Of that there can be no doubt.

“One must therefore ask, Mr. President, what can have happened to change that clear position. Nigeria’s answer is simple-nothing. A century ago, Bakassi was clearly and admittedly Nigerian; the same remains true today. Bakassi was, and still is, Nigerian territory.

“Cameroon is misguided in its legal arguments and this is equally apparent from a simple statement of what those arguments amount to.

“In the first place, they involve giving weight to a series of proposed agreements as if they had entered into force but they never did enter into force.

“In the second place they involve the astounding proposition that a State can give to another State something-in this instance, a piece of territory-which the first State does not itself have.

“Mr. President, there can be few, if any , legal principles more universally respected than that expressed in the maxim memo dat quod non habet.

“Yet Cameroon wishes this Court to agree that Great Britain, which did not have sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula, could nevertheless give that territory to Germany and thus, later to Cameroon.”