By Soni Daniel, Assistant Editor & Ikechukwu Nnochiri, Abuja
The spontaneous excitement that trailed the announcement of the
formation of a team by President Goodluck Jonathan to work towards the
review of the International Court of Justice ruling on the Bakassi
peninsula is being cut short following alleged frantic attempt by a top
government functionary to stall the work of the committee.
Saturday Vanguard gathered that since the formation of the
committee to review the ICJ’s ruling some top government functionaries
opposed the review have refused to attend any meeting where moves to
ask the ICJ to review the ruling would be concretised
Meantime, Bakassi indigenes opposed to Green Tree Agreement have launched a court process to outlaw the agreement.
Bakassi protesters Photo by Johnbosco Agbakwuru
President Jonathan had raised the eight-man committee after a
marathon meeting with stakeholders at the Presidential Villa on
Wednesday night and asked it to work assiduously towards filing a
case for the review of the ICJ ruling, which ceded oil-rich Bakassi to
Cameroon ten years ago.
The committee comprised eight members drawn from the National
Assembly and relevant Ministries, Departments and Agencies, MDAs, whose
heads were also at the meeting where the decision to form the committee
was reached.
Saturday Vanguard learnt that based on the directive of the
President, members of the team quickly retired to their respective
offices to work out modalities for the maiden meeting of the team,
headed by a top government official, which was slated for 9pm on
Thursday.
The members, it was gathered, were however rudely shocked when they
arrived the minister’s office for the proposed meeting only to be told
that the meeting would no longer hold as planned.
They smelt a rat but could not do anything.
Some of the members who made spirited efforts to reach the minister
to get an explanation on why the meeting was surreptitiously put off,
could not reach him. They returned home frustrated at the end of the
day.
The implication of the disappointment is that with only four days to
the end of the deadline for Nigeria to file a review of the judgment,
nothing has been done to that effect.
Furious and deeply upset by the minister’s action, the frustrated
members retired to their respective destinations, wondering what would
become the fate of Bakassi indigenes after next Tuesday, October 9,
2012.
The top government functionary is said to have argued that as far as
he was concerned Nigeria would not review the ICJ ruling so as not to
incur the sanctions of the United Nations.
The minister is said to be working in concert with a former justice
minister, who played an active role when Nigeria lost the Bakassi case
to Cameroon, to ensure that Nigeria does not file any appeal as ordered
by the President.
It was gathered that the two men were unhappy with the position
adopted by those who argued in favour of the appeal of the judgment.
The influential cabinet member is said to have castigated the
protagonists of appeal, saying that they confused Jonathan with
sentiments rather than bring up concrete evidence to warrant appeal at
the ICJ.
Contrary to the clear directive by the President that the team should
work towards the review of the judgment before the October 9 deadline,
the minister is reported to have turned round to claim that Nigeria
would only be compiling the evidence of human rights abuses committed by
Cameroon against Bakassi natives.
He reportedly declared that as far as he was concerned Bakassi had
been ceded to Cameroon and that the country could only ask the ICJ to
compel the latter to respect the tenets of the world court by protecting
Nigerians living in the peninsula.
According to him, Nigerian was not bound by any deadline to file
action against human right abuses by Cameroon, since the ICJ did not
specify any timeline to do so.
It was learnt last night that the minister had taken the position not
to allow Nigeria to seek a review of the case because he wanted to
appease the United Nations so as to be given a juicy appointment at The
Hague after leaving Jonathan’s cabinet.
But the matter is said to have shocked Presidential officials, who
are worried over the attempt by the minister to change the directive of
the President for unknown reasons.
Senate Leader, Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba, told Saturday Vanguard he
was shocked over the latest development over the Bakassi issue.
Ndoma-Egba, who was present when the Presidential directive was given
on Thursday, said: “My understanding is that Mr. President ordered for a
review.”
“Why will there not be a review after the resolution of the National
Assembly and the directive of Mr. President at a meeting with major
stakeholders last Thursday?” he asked angrily.
Senate President David Mark for instance, is said to have defiantly
argued that it was mandatory for the Federal Government to call for the
review of the ICJ ruling since the National Assembly had already passed
a resolution asking the government to do so.
Mark said that the issue at stake was not whether Nigeria would win
the case but taking the first step to ask for a review of the judgment
based on new evidence and in accordance with the resolution of the
National Assembly.
The Senate President pointed out that Nigeria could decide to ask
for review irrespective of the outcome or be prepared for the
consequence of not doing anything
A member of the House of Representatives from Cross River State, who
was at the meeting with President Jonathan, Amb Nkoyo Toyo, in a
statement to
Saturday Vanguard last night, expressed utter
disappointment with the sudden volta face by a certain minister over a
clear directive issued by the President on the matter.
Toyo noted, “After a meeting Mr. President had with the leadership
of the National Assembly, a committee was set up for the purpose of
reviewing the ICJ judgement. It could not have been otherwise.
“Today, we read conflicting stories about the Committee’s Terms of
Reference. This is worrisome as it either means that the entire
leadership of the country is in confusion or someone is playing games or
the entire consultation was a grand strategy to mislead the country.
“The summary of the outing as was captured by the Senate president is
instructive. We do nothing, we prepare for war (I imagine if nothing is
done and people decide to seek self determination) or we do something
and that something is to seek review on the basis of resolutions reached
by both houses of the National Assembly.
“Failure to register our interest to review will leave the country
exposed, the multiple issues of insecurity, threat and frustration by
the militants now moving in the direction of Bakassi will only grow. The
growing criminality and need to police the area will cost the country
even more than an action at The Hague.
“The neglect and human right abuses are going on as though we are
dealing with a people who belong to nowhere. This is a crime against
humanity and those responsible cannot pretend that they do not know the
consequences of their action against its citizens.
“We cannot afford to do nothing as if that is our new foreign
policy strategy. Mr. President must clarify his position on the matter
as too many aspects of the Bakassi story remain unaddressed,” she
stated.
Other aggrieved members of the National Assembly from Cross River
State, who got to know of the minister’s antic yesterday, said they were
meeting to come up with a common position against those trying to
truncate the federal government’s move to get the Bakassi matter
reviewed in the interest of Nigerians and posterity.
Another lawmaker from the state told
Saturday Vanguard that it was wrong for the government functionary to stand on the way of the people for reasons yet to be made known.
“We are going back to see Mr. President on the matter because time is
not on our side and we really want him to call this minister to order
because he may set the country ablaze because of his unbecoming actions.
“What this man is trying to do is not only very provocative but is
also a serious setback to this country and its people,” the lawmaker
said.
The politician called on President Jonathan to take action against
the said functionary if the order to review the judgment was not carried
out successfully.
Green Tree Agreement:
Bakassi indigenes drag FG to court
Embattled indigenes of Bakassi in Cross River
State, on their part yesterday dragged the Federal Government before a
Federal High Court sitting in Abuja with a view to securing an order
quashing the Green Tree Agreement that Nigeria entered with Cameroon in
2006.The suit was endorsed by nine executives of Free Bakassi
Association, Prince Imoh Ukpa Imoh, Mr Godwin Ukpong, Mr Chritian A.
Umoh, Mr Anthony Achibong Ukong, Mr Kingsley Edu, Mr Etim Ekpeyong
Ndong, Mr Offiong Anying Ekpeyong, Bassey Okon Osua and Bassey Ikoedem
Antiga.
In a motion ex-parte that was moved in court yesterday by their
counsel, Mr Festus A. Ogwuche, the applicants, sought leave for an order
of mandamus that would compel the Federal Government to by any means
available to it, repossess, occupy and take full legal and
administrative control of the Bakassi Peninsula.
The motion was filed
pursuant to section 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights(Enforcement and Ratification Act Cap 10, Laws of the Federation
of Nigeria, 1990, as well as Order 34 Rules 1(a), 3(1) and (2) of the
Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2007.
Contending that the controversial judgment of the International Court
of Justice, ICJ, which in 2002, ceded the oil- territory to the
Republic of Cameroon, amounted to a nullity being contrary to the
fundamental principle upon which the court was established, the
applicants, adduced 95-legal grounds why Nigeria should forthwith appeal
the verdict.
Besides, they sought leave for an order of mandamus, compelling the
Federal Government, President Goodluck Jonathan and the Attorney General
of the Federation, who were all joined as respondents in the suit, to
“unilaterally resile from, withdraw, rescind, repudiate and/or revoke
Nigeria’s obligations under the Green Tree Agreement entered into
between Nigeria and Cameroon in Green Tree, New York, USA on the
12th day of June, 2006, for its being invalid and in breach of Articles
1, 2, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples
Rights, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, Article 1(2) of the UN Charter, and the UN Declaration
on the Rights of indigenous peoples, and being inconsistent with
sections 1-3, 2(1) and (6), 13, 14(1) and (2)(b), 17(1), (2)(b), (c )
and (d), sections 19(a) and 9d0, 21(a) of the constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).”
The applicants, argued that the ICJ gave its judgment on the
protracted dispute over ownership of the oil rich Bakassi Peninsula,
based “on archaic and anachronistic colonial declarations, and
communications between colonial officers.”
Meanwhile, presiding Justice Gabriel Kolawole adjourned ruling on
the application till October 9, saying he needed time to carefully
peruse the court processes in view of “weighty national issues raised
therein.”
Specifically, it is the contention of the Bakassi indigenes that the
ICJ, “in reaching its decision, relied on: (a) Henderson-Flerichau
Exchange of Notes of 1931, (b) The Anglo-German Agreement of 11th March
and 12th April, 1913 and (c) The British Order-in-Council of 2 August,
1946.
“The ICJ gave the decision as though the territory is occupied by
wild animals without any rights under municipal or international law,
and treated the colonial declaration and communication as conferring
absolute proprietary rights and obligations to the territory to persons
or entities outside the people who for centuries lived and existed
therein and of which the territory is their homeland.
“The treaty, signed years before Nigeria came into existence as a
sovereign entity was a “Treaty of protection” conferring limited
“protectionist” rights on Britain and cannot by any shade of imagination
translate to sovereignty or absolute power of transfer of title,
sufficient to extinguish the rights of the kings and chiefs to the
traditional over lordship of the territory and/or give Britain an
absolute right to alienate their rights and interests unilaterally
without the free prior consent and authority of the chiefs and kings.
“The respondents are hereby given notice to produce the said treaty
of 10th September 1884 which the applicants put in their possession upon
the proceedings in the ICJ.”
More so, the applicants said they were neither consulted nor was
their consent sought before former President Olusegun Obasanjo endorsed
the Green Tree Agreement, saying they were totally kept out of the
picture of things prior, during and even after the execution of the
Agreement.
“The applicants only got notice of the Agreement via media reports
and grapevine, and upon contact with their representatives in the state
and National Assemblies, were told that nobody was either consulted nor
was aware of such agreement.
“ Before the applicants could realize what is happening, they were
told that for them to remain as Nigerians, they are required to vacate
their ancestral home and move into settlements to be built, constructed
and maintained by the respondents, or else, if they opt to remain in
their fatherland, they should be prepared to remain as Cameroonians.
“The applicants are scattered in different parts of the country, as
in Delta State, Bayelsa, Rivers State, Akwa Ibom, etc, living under the
basest form of human degradation embodying all the pains and sufferings
that could be experienced by man, existing in makeshift pre-civilization
abodes having only trees as cover against rain and shine, and other
vagaries of the weather, which are most times inclement.
“The members of the applicant community are dying in their numbers
everyday from afflictions of disease, poverty, malnutrition, squalor,
etc, and there is no end to their suffering, humiliation, degradation of
their human essence and homelessness.
“The Cameroonians changed the names of their communities and altered
every existing tradition structure or monument which they could not
destroy to suit their whims and purposes and destroyed and obliterated
the very essence of their origins.
“The applicants do not have direct access to the ICJ , as by virtue
of the statute of the ICJ, only states are recognizable parties before
it, and have employed all existing measures to prevail upon the
respondents to go back to the ICJ and undo the havoc they have caused in
their lives, all to no avail.
“The applicants’ dehumanization is worse than animals, more
humiliating than slavery, and degrading to the basest form of
inhumanity, and is unpalatable and unacceptable in a 21st century world.
“The applicants are under the direct traditional authority and
suzerainty of the Obong of Calabar and are forever subjects to the Royal
Office and paraphernalia of the Obong’s stool, which is also their
cultural and spiritual guardian and guidance; the applicants cannot in
any way be extricated from their historical cultural roots which are
tied inextricably to their kiths and kin in Cross Rivers State, Nigeria.
“Furthermore, the applicants cannot have their land in one country
and be citizens of another country, and the respondents cannot impose
their nationality on them as their right to a nationality is guaranteed
under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“By the failure of the ICJ judgment to conform to this basic
principle of justice, renders it null and void, and thus, the ceding of
the applicants homeland to Cameroon is anchored on nothing and is bound
for the ground.
“Under international law, the 1st -3rd respondents do not have any
obligation to obey the ICJ judgment, and is not bound by the Green Tree
Agreement to take the territory belonging to the applicants to the
Republic of Cameroon without their free, prior and informed consent,
hence the need for the 1st -3rd applicants to quickly return to the
Hague to untie what they have intricably and unlawfully knotted,” they
added.
Vanguard
