Continues from yesterday

The International Court of Justice’s judgment of October 2002, may have been given, and the Green Tree Agreement arising from this judgment, may have been made with the best of intention; but then some of the greatest atrocities or mistakes in the world were committed, some in honest error, with the best of intentions.

Ten years after the ICJ judgment and several years after the Green Tree Agreement, the reality between the best of intentions and the actual outcome of the judgment and the agreement have become obvious.  However well intended the ICJ judgment and Green the Tree Agreement may have been, they have produced untold hardship and difficult and unintended outcomes.

IN the ICJ judgment, for the first time, an organ of the United Nations set up the foundation for people to be uprooted from their ancestral lands and to become refugees in their ountry of birth forever.  The Green Tree Agreement, while recognizing the need for amicable settlement of the dispute and the promotion of peaceful co-existence between Nigerian and Cameroun after the judgment, set out terms that completely violated the Bakassi society.

The Green Tree Agreement recognized that the people of Bakassi are indigenous to the Peninsula and are Nigerian citizens. Faced with the problem of how to give the land to Cameroun and give the people to Nigeria in accordance with the ICJ judgment, the Green Tree Agreement gave the Bakassi people three options which are like the devil’s alternatives:

(a) Remain in Bakassi and become Cameroun citizens. This has the effect of forcing the people to change their citizenship from that of the country of birth;

(b) Remain in Bakassi, retain their Nigerian citizenship, but live like immigrants; this has the effect of turning the people into strangers in the land of birth and subject to deportation;

(c) Retain their Nigerian citizenship and relocate to Nigeria; this has the effect of transforming the people into eternal refugees in Nigeria.

These are hard options on the surface but very horrible prescriptions in reality. The assumption of the Green Tree Agreement is that the entire family will choose one of the options in unison. The reality is that for the African society of which Bakassi is part, the extended family ties are strong and very essential fabric in the maintenance of social cohesion.

Finding unanimity of choice amongst members of the nuclear family is difficult and absolutely impossible among extended family members. So as different members of the family contemplate different options, the family is separated; husband from wife, brother from sister, uncle from niece.

The complete violation of the Bakassi society cannot have been the intended consequence of the Green Tree Agreement, but that is the reality.  Unable to withstand the inhumanity of the situation, the Bakassi people have chosen to declare their independence from Nigeria and Cameroun – again an unintended consequence of the ICJ judgment and Green Tree Agreement.

The truth is that the ICJ, a fundamental organ of the United Nation, treated Bakassi like vacant land; giving little regard to the wishes of the people, and completely disregarding the right of the people to self determination – a right generously granted all the peoples of the world and jealously protected by the United Nation. To the ICJ, giving effect to the Anglo-German Treaty of 1913 to which the Bakassi people were not parties, was more important than protecting rights and humanity of the Bakassi people in the 21st century.

Exercising sovereignty
The attempt by Cameroun to assert authority over the people in the Peninsula and to exercise sovereignty over the area has produced violent clashes and sadly several fatalities amongst the people. The recent declaration of independence by militant groups among the Bakassi people, as regrettable as it is, is a clear signal that, however, well intentioned the ICJ judgment and Green Tree Agreement were, the people of Bakassi were accorded little premium.

Whatever the legal basis of the judgment, a subject I would rather leave to you the experts, the recognition and enforcement of a colonial agreement, to which the Bakassi people were not parties, should not take precedence over the human rights of the indigenes of the territory; especially when none of the parties to Anglo-German Treaty has any sustained interest in that treaty today.

The people of Bakassi are Nigerians and look up to Nigeria as a prominent member of the United Nation to project and protect their rights and basic freedoms, and their lives. Surprisingly little has been done to mitigate the suffering of the people. Presently with their resettlement disputed and inconclusive, the Bakassi people have been disenfranchised by the Independent National Electoral Commission. Federal elections are not conducted in this region.

Estuarine territory
Recently the Nigerian Supreme Court awarded the estuarine territory of Cross River State which survive the Bakasi handover to Akwa Ibom State; the reason for this decision being the handover of Bakassi to Cameroun. So while the ICJ has handed over their ancestral homes to Cameroun, the Nigerian Supreme Court has handed over their fishing grounds still in Nigeria to Akwa Ibom State.

Governor Imoke

While the loss of Bakassi may be a cold historical reference in some quarters, to the Bakassi people and Cross River State, it is a living trauma; and as the Supreme Court judgment has shown, the consequences have not even played out. We have to face the reality: the ICJ and Green Tree Agreement have not worked. We either review these documents by engaging all the parties through stipulated processes, or we wait and allow the situation to play out with unintended consequences.

An uncontrolled explosion of the Bakassi situation may lead to violent conflict or indeed bring the two countries into violent disagreement. It will be irresponsible for Nigeria or indeed the UN to abdicate responsibility for a peaceful solution and allow a degeneration of the already volatile situation. Certainly the option of standing by is not open to the United Nations and must be avoided by the leadership of both countries.

It is against this background that I want to appreciate this initiative of the Institute of International Affairs in bringing this issue to the fore. I have the privilege of full knowledge of the faculty and participants at this session and I am comforted that the prominence of the participants and the distinguished audience here, means that this issue is being given the serious attention it deserves.

It is important for the people of Bakassi to know that something is being done so that they are not frustrated into doing something by themselves. Fortunately the ICJ statute provide for application for review of judgments. I understand the 10 year window for this would close on October 10.

The urgency of our actions here is thus understated. Several countries have in the past applied for a review of the judgments of the ICJ; Elsavador and Honduras (2002) applied for the revision of a 1992 judgment; Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (2001) applied for the revision of the judgment of 1996. Tunisia and Libya adopted this option in 1982. If a situation calls for review, the Bakassi situation is classic.

The Green Tree Agreement is a negotiated document between two countries looking for peace under the auspices of the UN. If the Green Tree Agreement has not produced the intended outcome, then both countries and the UN should be open to a review of the judgment and the document as a commitment to the spirit of peaceful co-existence. Whatever the ICJ judgment say, the two countries can by agreement resolve the matter. A mutual agreement over this territory between Nigeria and Cameroun which gives effect to the wishes of the Bakassi people can supersede the ICJ judgment.

Negotiated settlement
Terms of this agreement can be negotiated in the same spirit with which the Green Tree Agreement was negotiated. In these negotiations all options should be on the table without regard to the ICJ judgment. The United Nations can, in recognition of its responsibility to the two member States, encourage such negotiated settlement by bringing both parties to the table. I also believe that the African Union can play some role to achieve a settlement that craves a win-win situation for the people of Bakassi and the nations of Nigeria and Cameroun.

This brainstorming session has brought together the best brains in international affairs in this country. The solution can be found in this room. In the hours ahead I urge you to storm your brains and bring out the solutions. Considering the surprising paucity of discuss of this issue among the Nigerian intelligentsia, this forum has a responsibility even higher than the conveners contemplated. The people of Bakassi look up to you and the outcome of your deliberations in the hope that the Nigerian Government will give full and urgent effect to your recommendations.

I urge the Bakassi people to be patient especially as all hands are on deck to find a solution to the problem. The emergence of militant groups as is now the trend in the region is counter-productive and may divert attention.

Agitations can effectively be undertaken in ways that avoid violence and conflict. These agitations must remain a reflection of the commitment of the people of Bakassi to the Nigerian federation and the strength of their determination to retain their Nigerian citizenship.

Once again I thank the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs for lending a powerful voice to the voiceless on this occasion and may the Almighty God, knowing the noble nature of your enterprise, grant you wisdom in your deliberations, and fruitful outcomes.