GOING by the lingering problems over the ceding of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, following the 2002 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the demand of the House of Representatives that the judgement should be revisited is reasonable and warranted. Almost 10 years down the line, the controversial verdict has left more bitterness and confusion than resolution. One of these is the recent Supreme Court judgment that awarded 76 disputed oil wells to Akwa Ibom against Cross River State. Equally worrisome is the continued dislocation of the people of Bakassi from their ancestral land; and the agitations for respect for the fundamental rights of the affected people to self-determination. Against this background, the House of Representatives, the other day, called on the Federal Government to initiate the process of reviewing the ICJ judgment.Effectively, the judgment dislodged the indigenous people of Bakassi from their home and left them out in the cold. And, following the 2006 Greentree agreement signed between Nigeria and Cameroon in New York, by which the Obasanjo administration relinquished Bakassi territory to Cameroon while the people were relocated to Cross River State, the issue of Bakassi has remained contentious. The Supreme Court judgment has only rekindled and compounded the problem, generating a situation where Bakassi oil wells are located in one state while the people who ought to own it are on another side. This dislocation, undoubtedly, has far-reaching implications on the stability of that region.The absence of an enduring solution on the Bakassi issue perhaps explains why the citizens concerned are restive, threatening to return to their homeland notwithstanding the extant judgments and agreement. This is yet another reason why the Federal Government should revisit the issue in a more systematic manner and have it settled once and for all. So far, the half-hearted measures adopted have failed to assuage many Nigerians.Moving the motion on the floor of the House, Mr. Essien Ayi, member representing Calabar ' South/Bakassi Federal Constituency, observed that under Article 61 of the ICJ Statute, a judgment of the court could be reviewed whenever new facts emerged that were not known at the time the judgment was delivered. He stated that one of such new facts that has emerged is that the 1913 Anglo-German treaty, which the ICJ relied on to cede Bakassi to Cameroon, breached Article 6 of the General Act of the Berlin Conference that enjoined European powers 'to watch out the preservation of the native tribes and not to take over or effect transfer of their territory.'Furthermore, he pointed out that the process for such a review should be filed before the expiration of 10 years of the delivery of the judgment, the expiration in the instant case being October 10, 2012. He reportedly cited three cases where countries applied for the review of ICJ judgments. The lawmaker decried what he called 'gross injustice' meted out to Bakassi people by both the Federal Government and the United Nations. Cross River State is clearly bearing the brunt of the Bakassi fallout.By awarding the 76 oil wells located in western Bakassi to Akwa Ibom, the Supreme Court seems to have dealt a final blow on the people of Bakassi. The judgment was sequel to the ceding of Bakassi to Cameroon by the ICJ, which redefined the international boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon thereby wiping out the estuarine extension of Cross River State into the sea. The implication is that the territory of indigenous Bakassi people has been transferred to another country, seemingly in contravention of Article 6 of the General Act of the Berlin Conference.The Federal Government obviously made a mistake by taking the matter to court instead of exploring concerted dialogue and engagement with Cameroon, which could have served a better purpose. Worse still, the Obasanjo administration in June 2006, acted rather hastily to enact the Greentree Agreement with Cameroon under the auspices of Mr. Kofi Anan, the then UN Secretary General, and France.The Greentree treaty did not receive the blessing of the National Assembly as required under Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, which failure implies that Bakassi is still part of Nigeria. Nigeria should discuss with Cameroon with a view to rescuing Bakassi people. There is need for more sincere bilateral discussion to redress the pain being suffered by Bakassi people. Government should adopt that strategy in the light of the emerging issues and the constitutional controversy of transferring Bakassi to Cameroon without the National Assembly approval.
Click here to read full news..
