Following the decision of the Federal Government not to appeal
the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the ceding of the
oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, Cross River legislators have marched
through Calabar streets protesting what they called the federal government’s
attitude to their loss of heritage.
It would be recalled that the Federal Government had last
night declared that it will not appeal the judgment of the International Court
of Justice (ICJ) on the ceding of the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.
The government had said the case will be diplomatically
damaging.
The decision not to appeal the case was communicated in a
statement by Attorney General of the Federation Mohammed Adoke.
The nation’s number one law officer said after consultations
locally and with an international firm, he decided not to explore the window of
appeal because “an application for a review is virtually bound to fail.”
Besides, a failed application for review by Nigeria “will be
diplomatically damaging to Nigeria”.
The government’s position reflects The Nation’s exclusive
story last Friday that the government had decided not to appeal the ruling. It
was a day that many newspapers reported that government had decided to appeal
the judgement.
Government said yesterday that it did not have any new
evidence to enable it successfully challenge the judgment.
The full text of the Attorney general’s statement is as
follows:
“It will be recalled that on 10th October 2002, the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered judgment in Land and Maritime
Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, which covers about 2000 kilometres
extending from Lake Chad to the Sea. It will also be recalled that before the
judgment was delivered, President Olusegun Obasanjo, GCFR of Nigeria and
President Paul Biya of the Republic of Cameroon gave their respective
undertaking to the international community to abide by the judgment of the
Court.
“The commitment and undertakings given by both Heads of
Government were confirmed by the establishment of the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed
Commission (CNMC) pursuant to the Joint Communiqué adopted at a Summit Meeting
on 15 November 2002 in Geneva. The CNMC is composed of the representatives of
Cameroon, Nigeria and the United Nations and is chaired by the Special
Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for West Africa.
“The CNMC has held 29 Sessions since its inception and has
peacefully, amicably and successfully:
(a) brought Cameroon and Nigeria back to negotiation table;
(b) supervised the handing over of 33 ceded villages to
Cameroon and 1 to Nigeria in December, 2003 and received 3 settlements and
territory in Adamawa and Borno States Sectors from Cameroon in 2004;
(c) initiated the Enugu-Abakiliki-Mamfe-Mutengene Road
project as part of the confidence building measures between the two countries;
(d) supervised peaceful withdrawal of Civil Administration,
Military and Police Forces and transfer of authority in the Bakassi Peninsula
by Nigeria to Cameroon in 2008 in line with the modalities contained in the
Greentree Agreement signed by Cameroon and Nigeria in 2006 which the United
Nations, Germany, USA, France, UK and Northern Ireland witnessed; and
(e) commenced the emplacement of boundary beacons/pillars
along the land boundary and initiated final mapping of the whole stretch of the
boundary. It is instructive to note that about 1800 kilometres of the boundary
have so far been assessed for Pillar Emplacement leaving only about 220 km to
complete the assessment of the entire boundary.
“The Greentree Agreement was also signed by H. E. Paul Biya,
and President President Olusegun Obasanjo GCFR, on 12 June, 2006, in Long
Island, Greentree, New York, USA; reaffirming their willingness to peacefully
implement the judgment of the ICJ. The Agreement contains the modalities for
withdrawal and transfer of authority in the Bakassi Peninsula by Nigeria to
Cameroon in pursuance of the ICJ Judgment.The Follow-Up Committee comprising
representatives of Nigeria and Cameroon wasestablished to monitor the
implementation of the Agreement and settle any dispute regarding the
interpretation and implementation of the Agreement. Nigeria handed over the
Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon in 2008.
“The Statute of the International Court of Justice provides
that the Judgment of the Court is final and without appeal. However, following
the resolutions of both Houses of the National Assembly calling on the
Executive to take steps to apply for a review of the judgment, President
Goodluck Ebele Jonathan called a Stakeholders meeting comprising the leadership
of the National Assembly, the Governors of Akwa Ibom and Cross River States,
the Members of the National Assembly from both States, the Secretary to the
Government of the Federation, the Attorney General of the Federation and
Minister of Justice, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Director General,
National Boundary Commission to review the situation.
“The Stakeholders Meeting after due deliberations
constituted a Committee comprising the Secretary to the Government of the
Federation, the Attorney General of the Federation, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Director General, National Boundary Commission and Members of the
National Assembly namely: Senator Victor Ndoma Egba, Dr. Ali Ahmed and Nnena
Ukaje to examine the issues in contention and available options for Nigeria
including, but not limited to the application for review of the ICJ Judgment,
appropriate political and diplomatic solutions.
“Although the judgment of the ICJ is final and not subject
to appeal, the ICJ Statute provides for circumstances under which its judgment
can be reviewed. The relevant provisions are:
(a) Article 61 (1) which provides that the Court can review
its judgment upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a
decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the
court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such
ignorance was due not to negligence;
(b) Article 61 (4) which stipulates that application for
revision must be made at least within six months of the discovery of the new
fact, and
(c) Article 61(5), which provide that no application for
revision may be made after the lapse of 10 years from the date of the judgment.
“The implication of the above provisions of the ICJ Statute
is that a case for revision of the judgment of the court can only be successful
if:
(a) the application for revision is based on the discovery
of a new fact;
(b) the fact must have existed prior to the delivery of the
judgment;
(c) the newly discovered fact must be of a decisive nature;
and
(d) the party seeking revision (Nigeria) and the Court, must
not have known of the fact at the time of the delivery of the judgment.
“The Committee proceeded to examine the case for revision
against the requirements of Article 61 of the ICJ Statute and was constrained
to observe from the oral presentations made to it by the proponents of the
revision that the strict requirements of Article 61 could not be satisfied.
This is because theirpresentation was unable to show that Nigeria has
discovereda decisive fact that was unknown to her before the ICJ judgment,
which is capable of swaying the Court to decide in its favour.This is more so as
most of the issues canvassed in support of the case for a revision of the ICJ
judgment had been canvassed and pronounced upon by the ICJ in its 2002
judgment.
“The Federal Government also retained a firm of
international legal practitioners to advise on the merits and demerits of the
case for revision. The firm after considering all the materials that were
placed at its disposal against the requirements of Article 61 of the ICJ
Statute came to the reasoned conclusion that “an application for a review is virtually
bound to fail” and that “a failed application will be diplomatically damaging
to Nigeria”.
11. In view of the foregoing, the Federal Government is of
the informed view that with less than two days to the period when the revision
will be statute barred (October 9, 2012), it would be impossible for Nigeria to
satisfy the requirements of Articles 61(1) -(5) of the ICJ Statute.Government
has therefore decided that it will not be in the national interest to apply for
revision of the 2002 ICJ Judgment in respect of the Land and Maritime Boundary
between Cameroon and Nigeria.
“Government is however concerned about the plight of
Nigerians living in the Bakassi Peninsula and the allegations of human rights
abuses being perpetrated against Nigerians in the Peninsula and is determined
to engage Cameroon within the framework of the existing implementation
mechanisms agreed to by Nigeria and Cameroon in order to protect the rights and
livelihoods of Nigerians living in the Peninsula. Nigeria will also not relent
in seeking appropriate remedies provided by international law such as the
invocation of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ; Petitioning the United
Nations Human Rights Council and good offices of the United Nations Secretary
General which has played pivotal role in ensuring the peaceful demarcation and
delimitation of the boundary between the two countries and other confidence
building measures and calls on the United Nations to continue to provide
assistance to the affected populations.
“Finally the Federal Government wishes to assure all
Nigerians especially the people living in the Bakassi Peninsula of its
determination to explore all avenues necessary to protect their interests
including but not limited to negotiations aimed at buying back the territory,
if feasible, the convening of bilateral meeting of the Heads of State and
Government to ensure protection and development of the affected population. In
the meantime, we call on all well meaning Nigerians in the Bakassi peninsula to
be law abiding and to allow the various initiatives being undertaken by the
Federal Government to bear fruitful results.”