By Daniel Arube

In Africa, territorial disputes have shaped political realities, security dynamics, and diplomatic relationships for more than half a century. From the Horn of Africa to West Africa, colonial-era boundary lines continue to influence interstate tensions and cross-border cooperation. Few Nigerian diplomats understand this terrain better than Anthony Nnamdi Alonwu, whose academic research and diplomatic career have intersected with one of the continent’s most defining legal battles: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgement on the Bakassi Peninsula between Cameroon and Nigeria.

In this conversation with Vanguard, Alonwu reflects on the legal architecture behind African borders, the lessons from Bakassi, and what the continent must do to prevent territorial disputes from escalating into prolonged conflicts.

Your thesis examined the ICJ judgement on the Bakassi Peninsula. Why is Bakassi still an important case study for African territorial disputes?

Bakassi remains one of the most instructive examples of how Africa confronts questions of sovereignty, historical treaties, and territorial identity. The judgement was not just about Nigeria and Cameroon; it was about how the continent interprets borders derived from colonial agreements. Many African boundaries were drawn without regard to ethnic, economic, or cultural realities, yet they carry binding legal weight today.

The Bakassi ruling highlighted the enduring power of colonial-era treaties. The ICJ relied heavily on the 1913 Anglo-German Agreement, which demonstrates how Africa’s past continues to define its present. For scholars, diplomats, and policymakers, Bakassi offers a blueprint for understanding the legal and political complexities surrounding territorial claims on the continent.

One of the enduring debates is whether Africa should continue to rely on colonial-era treaties. How does international law approach this?

International law operates on the principle of uti possidetis juris, meaning that new states inherit the administrative boundaries that existed at independence. This principle was adopted by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in 1964 to prevent widespread conflict. While these boundaries are imperfect, they offer legal stability.

The challenge is that many of these treaties were signed between colonial powers without African input. Yet, under international law, they remain binding. Changing a boundary today requires either mutual consent between states or adjudication by an international tribunal such as the ICJ.

Bakassi demonstrated that adhering to the rule of law—rather than force—strengthens a state’s credibility. Even though the judgement was painful for many Nigerians, compliance reinforced Nigeria’s image as a rule-abiding nation and prevented escalation into a long-term conflict.

You served in Geneva and worked extensively in multilateral diplomacy. How has that influenced your understanding of territorial disputes?

Geneva is a hub for legal and humanitarian institutions; the UN Office, the International Organization for Migration, the International Labour Organization, and other agencies that deal with conflict prevention and human rights. Serving there allowed me to see how territorial disputes are not only legal issues but also humanitarian ones.

People living in disputed territories often face insecurity, displacement, and limited access to services. The Bakassi case was not just about maps or treaties; it was about communities whose lives changed overnight. Multilateral engagement showed me that border disputes require coordinated approaches: legal, political, economic, and humanitarian. Diplomacy must balance the need for territorial clarity with the protection of affected populations.

Many African conflicts have roots in conflicting interpretations of colonial-era treaties. Why is this still happening in 2021?

It continues because the documents themselves were often ambiguous or incomplete, and in some cases the colonial powers produced conflicting records. Another factor is that natural resources: oil, gas, water bodies which now make borderlands economically strategic. In the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, and parts of Central and West Africa, territorial claims are often tied to access to land, minerals, or maritime zones. As populations grow and environmental pressures rise, competition for territory intensifies.

What the Bakassi process showed is that legal clarity reduces the likelihood of armed conflict, whereas ambiguity fuels tension. Clear boundaries, supported by legal instruments and diplomatic agreements, are essential for stability.

What lessons should ECOWAS and the African Union draw from the Bakassi experience?

There are three key lessons. First is prevention. Territorial disputes rarely emerge suddenly; they build over decades. Early mediation, joint boundary commissions, and historical documentation can prevent escalation.Second is institutional capacity. Many African regional bodies rely on political goodwill rather than legal mechanisms. Strengthening the AU Border Programme, improving mediation capacity, and investing in technical cartography are crucial.

Third is sustained implementation. A court judgement is only the beginning. The Greentree Agreement, for example, provided a framework for monitoring and implementation after the ICJ ruling. Without structured follow-through, even the best legal outcomes can unravel.

ECOWAS and the AU must develop longer-term monitoring structures to ensure that border agreements are respected and communities are supported during transitions.

You’ve written about the human dimensions of territorial disputes. How important is community engagement in cross-border settlements?

Community engagement is central. Borders drawn in Europe often cut across ethnic and cultural lines in Africa. When disputes arise, the people on the ground are the ones who feel the consequences. If local voices are excluded from negotiations, tensions will persist even after legal agreements are reached.
During the Bakassi handover, for instance, communities had concerns about citizenship, fishing rights, security, and cultural ties. These are issues that cannot be resolved solely through legal documents. Diplomatic strategies must include dialogue with traditional leaders, civil society actors, and cross-border communities. A border settlement is sustainable only when the people directly affected accept and understand it.

Looking ahead, what does Africa need to do to reduce the frequency of territorial disputes?

Firstly, African governments must prioritize boundary demarcation. Many borders remain partially undefined, which creates opportunities for misinterpretation. Secondly, states must invest in diplomatic capacity—lawyers, cartographers, historians, and negotiators who understand the continent’s complex border history. And thirdly, regional organizations must strengthen mediation architecture. A strong AU and stronger regional blocs reduce the likelihood of disputes escalating into violence.

Finally, African states must embrace the rule of law. Bakassi demonstrated that compliance with international adjudication builds long-term stability and international respect. Force rarely resolves territorial disputes; law often does.

Finally, what personal reflections do you hold from your research on Bakassi and your diplomatic career so far?

Working on the Bakassi case academically and later engaging in multilateral diplomacy taught me humility about the complexity of statehood and identity. Borders are more than lines, they shape people’s lives, opportunities, and sense of belonging. The experience reinforced the idea that diplomacy must combine legal expertise with human understanding. Every negotiation has both a factual and emotional dimension. Balancing both is what creates durable peace.

Africa’s future depends on how we manage our borders: legally, peacefully, and with respect for the communities that live along them. Bakassi taught us that peaceful resolution is possible, and that the continent can chart its path through law rather than conflict.