Prince Bola Ajibola (SAN), former
Nigerian Minister of Justice andAttorney-General of the Federation, was on the
Panel of Judges, at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which decided on
the issue of Bakassi between Nigeria and Cameroun.
The former Nigerian
High Commissioner to the United Kingdom took time off his busy schedule, even
at 78, to narrate to Saturday Vanguard at his Hilltop GRA home in
Abeokuta recently how the ceding of Bakassi to Cameroun actually
occurred. Excerpts:
You
were not only a serving judge at The Hague when the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) gave its verdict ceding Bakassi to Cameroun. What really happened
and what do you say about the clamour for appeal that is presently going on?
To start with, there is nothing like
appeal in our International Court of Justice (ICJ). There is nothing like
that.
You see what I mean? An
application can be made to review certain aspects of the judgment but not
strictly speaking an appeal. So, an appeal does not lie to our court
there.
they
are now doing is belated and overtaken by events. What they ought to have
done is to have put their house in order before even independence and
immediately after independence.
To be frank, when the situation became
virtually what it is today, the Ministry of Justice, in those years in early
60s, sought for legal opinion on this matter and because of what happened
in 1913 in the Anglo-German Agreement, it was since then that we have
this uphill task because it was Britain that ceded the whole of that Bakassi
area, well described in Article 21 and 22 of that agreement, specifically to
Germany.
Germany,
when it suffered defeat during the Second World War, was deprived of that area
and Bakassi went to France and it was France that gave independence to Cameroun
and that was how Cameroun got into it.
A lot of people have been saying a lot
of things that are not really correct. In most cases, we ourselves as
Nigerians bastardized our position because, as far back as 1961, we had written
a note to Cameroun telling Cameroun that we Nigerians are aware of the fact
that they own Bakassi!
Throughout
all these 1960s and 1970s, our map of Nigeria was always indicating the excise
of Bakassi out of our own land in Nigeria as part of what belongs to
Cameroon. In fact, it has further been stamped by the fact that we agreed
that our boundary is inAkwa
Yafe as opposed to Rio del
Rey. If we
own Bakassi, the boundary would have been in Rio del Rey and not Akwa
Yafe. We agreed to that! We Nigerians in Nigeria here.
And we even at a time asked Professor
Valad in Britain to advise us on the matter and that professor told us clearly
that we had an uphill task, that what we thought we owned had already been
transferred to Cameroun through that treaty. That is the situation.
But there are still questions to be
answered, which had already been ignored or decided against by the ICJ and you
can read a lot of that in my ‘dissenting opinion’. Your see, the
situation is far more than what a lot of people have been talking about.
It is what has happened beyond our
time, before our time. We are now raking the misfortune of yesteryears
and we are now the victims of the problems that arose before now. That
was at the time of our independence.
From
what you have said, where and how did General Gowon, General Obasanjo and you
came into this controversy because it has been said that Gowon started it,
Obasanjo gave it out and you sat on the panel that decided the case against
Nigeria?
No. It is wrong. They are
not mentioning the names that they ought to mention, which really prejudiced
our case before the ICJ. They ought to mention the name of our Minister
of Foreign Affairs just immediately after our independence in 1961 that really
in his note gave Bakassi to Cameroun. That should be mentioned.
We are just the unfortunate victims of
what had happened before our time in Nigeria. And a lot of things
happened advertently and inadvertently through our regular mistakes or
misfortunes.
Then,
how in the first instance, did the matter get to the ICJ?
Cameroun took us to ICJ. And let
me say this, that in fact it was during the time of this litigation at the ICJ
on the application by Cameroun that we started changing our map to include
Bakassi (laughs).
That
was the obvious and the judges are human beings. They are there equipped
with evidence put in by Cameroun. It’s a case of an admission that we
have taken on ourselves to cede all this area to Cameroun based even upon the
1913 Anglo-German Treaty and based on what we lawyers call pacta sunt savanda.
It is very, very unfortunate that a
kettle is now calling a pot black. It ought not to be at all because the
mistake or the problem started right from the beginning of our
independence. Those who are now shouting ought to have started shouting
at that time if they could get hold of all that we did.
But
why do you think the Nigerian side appeared to be complacent over the judgment
that they didn’t talk about it until now?
Let me say something here.
Bakassi is not the beginning and end of the whole issue. What Cameroun
took us to ICJ for was not only Bakassi. It had to do with the land in
Lake Chad; the land boundary between the two of us, the land boundary between
Nigeria and Cameroun from Lake Chad to the Sea as well as Bakassi and the
maritime boundary. The maritime limit that they asked for and that is
asking for virtually all the sea boundary of our present Nigeria.
Let me say that if they had succeeded
in that, we would have been in the misfortune of having no more oil, at least
the foreshore oil. We would not be so privileged any longer.
But that is not the most heinous part
of the action that was taken by Cameroun. Cameroun took Nigeria to court
on what we call ‘state responsibility’. It’s like a criminal charge
against Nigeria. If they had succeeded in that one alone, we would have
been thrown into endless debt that must be payable to Cameroun.
We never allowed that to happen
because we counterclaimed against them on it, which saved us the internal slavery
to Cameroun and being in perpetual penury in which we would have been till
today and henceforth. We did not allow that to happen to us. But
that wasn’t all.
Those who are criticizing should go
and look into the judgment again and they will find out that virtually we
gained generally rather than losing. Because the entire land that
Cameroun had occupied in Nigeria, and we were able to ascertain that belong to Nigeria
on the land boundary, far exceeded that which is now claimed in Bakassi.
And we were able to claim it back from them.
Could
you give a bit of the details of what we gained and what do you advise
the agitators for return of Bakassi to Nigeria to do?
In Chad area, we knew that it was the
ceding of the water that forced our people out of that place and since the
water kept drying up, we got into that situation.
We moved out of that but they also
moved out of the Southern part of that Chad which they occupied and which
belong to Nigeria. But I think before they start doing anything, I mean those
that are now talking, they should not look into Bakassi alone because, Bakassi
is not a be-all-and-earn-all of the whole things involved in this dispute.
It is the land and maritime
boundary. We gained extensively considering the claim of Cameroun against
us on the maritime boundary. We gained extensively in that.
They must not be myopic, they must be
objective and they must look into the whole judgment before passing any
judgment further on what they may likely go back to the court for.
Again, the whole dispute had three
phases, I have to say. It started with the preliminary objection on
admissibility and jurisdiction.
We first of all told the court that,
that action is misconceived and should not be entertained. We gave eight
reasons for this but the whole thing was turned down by the court and the court
rejected all those reasons .
Then the case on merit. Also, before
that, there was also an application on …..on certain aspects of the case.
These people should go into our
archives and be well informed and be well educated on this thing and in fact
the antecedents before litigations.
They should look into it. And
they should look again into the history of what is Southern Nigeria and
Northern Nigeria and all that moved. Because the Northern Nigeria moved
into Nigeria while part of Southern Nigeria went to Cameroun. So, we need
to look into all that. We need to check our facts before we start
talking.
Just
before stop this discussion, let me quickly ask: Why is it that our
Constitution still reflects Bakassi as one of the 774 Local Governments of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria and yet we believe, as a system that Bakassi has
been ceded?
Whatever may be the problem with
implementing a decision of the court is the internal problem of Nigeria and
that, in itself, is strictly domestic. All we need to do is to check the
Section 12 of our Constitution and put our house in order.
The international community is not
concerned about that. Internationally judgment has been given against us
with regard to Bakassi and that, they are aware of.
As a matter of fact there are so many
things that one needs not come out with in this matter that could have happened
disastrously to what is called Nigeria. And as a matter of fact, if we
had done something else, there would be no Nigeria by now and arms conflicts
would have taken over and there are so many countries in this world that are so
friendly with the position of Cameroun because they are of the view that
Cameroun has Bakassi.
Meaning
that even if the verdict hasn’t favoured Cameroun, it could have declared war
against Nigeria believing there are so many world powers that would come to its
aid?
They could because so many powerful
countries in the world are behind Cameroun on this matter. We have seen
that and we have been told about that. We are aware of that and actions
are already going on, on that. So, we must be very careful.
And I repeat that we must be very
careful. We must think again and we must look into the history.
Those who are talking now must first of all go into the history and look at all
that happened before independence and immediately after independence.
You see what I mean? And they
should look into all the powers exercised by the colonial masters and all the
international agreements and treaties. It is worth looking at and,
perhaps, they should read my Dissenting Opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment