Mr Feko,
greetings from this end.
You appear to be blaming the liberation leaders and perhaps Southern Cameroons legal luminaries for not bringing up the issue of the Abuja government and also you are blaming Nigeria as a giant of Africa for not following the judgment of its own courts. In connection with the above, it might be pertinent to remember the following;
a) Nigeria is within its rights not to follow the judgment.
b) even if a domestic judgment was brought in front of the ICJ, it has to be looked at in the context of existing treaties and not in isolation.
The judgment was only a Tomlin judgment and the agreed terms are in the schedule and not in the judgment itself. In the schedule, parties can even include things that a court cannot ordinarily award.
A party is within his rights to refuse to obey the terms of agreement in a schedule of a Tomlin judgment and there is nothing the other party can do directly. Nigeria is within its rights to ignore the judgment.
It is NOT contempt of court not to implement an agreement in a Schedule of a Tomlin Order. Nigeria so far has not committed any wrong. It might be argued that they have not acted in good faith but that's as far as it goes. It is worth noting that the concept of good faith is not well developed in common law jurisdictions as in civil law jurisdictions like the Middle East and North Africa. Good Faith requirement is actually embedded in the civil code of these countries. When I prepare a claim in countries like Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya etc where I have held briefs to prepare claims in construction and the Oil and Gas industries, if I am struggling to get support for a particular issue from the Conditions of Contract (Usually FIDIC based contracts or bespoke tailor made contracts), I at times resort to the Civil code and claim the other party did not or is not operating in good faith but in common law jurisdictions, who cares that much about good faith?.
If a party does not implement the terms embodied in the Schedule to a Tomlin judgment, the other party has to go to court and institute fresh proceedings for SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE of the terms as stated in the schedule. This might define the time frame for implementation.
If the other party still does not implement the terms, then the other party has to go again to court and institute proceedings for contempt of court. At this stage SCAPO or Southern Cameroons can threaten to imprison the Attorney General of Nigeria for Contempt of Court if there is no specific performance of the agreed terms.
So far, none of the above has been done and Nigeria has no far broken no laws nor has it been contemptuous of its own courts.
On a general note, most people have the misconception that to ignore or act in a manner inconsistent with a court judgment is necessarily contempt of court but that is NOT the law.
There are two types of judgments i.e. Executory and Declaratory judgments. Ignoring an executory judgment is contempt of court but ignoring a declaratory judgment or acting at variance with it is NOT contempt of court. If you are in dispute with someone on land for example and you go to court for the court for a Declaration of Title and succeed and the other party simply ignores the judgment and continues what they were doing, you cannot bring proceedings for contempt of court since they are not in contempt of any court. You have to seek another remedy.
In summary, the stage where the Abuja judgment is, we cannot push it too much for now. We need to go back to court. I hope this explains Nigeria's attitude where they are operating within their rights and why Southern Cameroonians have not pushed the issue as much as you might want.
Regards
Tumasang
To: SouthernCameroon@yahoogroups.com; ambasbay@googlegroups.com; cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com
CC: njohlitumbe@ymail.com
From: nkwut@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:09:51 -0700
Subject: [cameroon_politics] Re: [SouthernCameroons] BAKASSI: NIGERIA TO OPEN FRESH TALKS WITH CAMEROON
As usual, Mola, one sees you at your best both when you are functioning verbally and in writing! When you say, for example, that, "...the ICJ was correct in establishing that Bakassi is "Cameroonian," and on this there is hardly any ground for Nigeria to seek a Review, for Bakassi was not within the territory it inherited from Britain at independence on 1 Oct. 1960," would this not be one of the valid reasons, in fact, the crucial one for Justice Rosaline Ukeji in the ABUJA High Court Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/30/2002, to order in the Tomlin Judgment or Consent Judgment that " The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall institute a case before the International Court of Justice" on the Southern Cameroons problem?
That consent-order was given on the 5th. of March, 2002 and the ICJ judgment ceding Bakassi, which is indisputably in Southern Cameroons, to La Republique du Cameroun was given on the 10th. of October, 2002, seven long months after Justice Ukeji's order. The ceding of Bakassi to LRC was by extension, the ceding of Southern Cameroons to La Republique du Cameroun(LRC).
How can one be convinced that armed with a High Court Tomlin Order to "institute a case before the International Court of Justice on the Southern Cameroons problem," by putting that order on hold for seven months(and ad infinitum) and pursuing a cause completely at variance with the order, the Federal Government of Nigeria acted in good faith with Southern Cameroons? In fact, in the clamour in Nigeria for a revisit of the ICJ over the case, no clamouring group or individual mentioned the Abuja High Court Tomlin Ruling as one of the reasons for that review. It could not even be invoked as a reason because Nigeria will be unable to explain why they shelved it for seven months were the ICJ to probe. With the possible exception of Dr Gumne who questioned this strange pattern of behaviour by Nigeria, no other leader in the struggle has done so. They tell you that as the giant of Africa Nigeria, on whose support you will depend for your independence, will crush you if you dared. Nigeria had a golden opportunity to crush LRC at the ICJ with the Abuja High Court Order and flush La Republique out of Bakassi and Southern Cameroons but they turned around, used the Tomlin Order as a bargaining chip, and like vultures fighting over a chunk of booty, the two are now illegally sharing, goodness knows what ratio, the God-given wealth of Southern Cameroons.
Nigeria's good faith in the Tomlin Judgment is still to be seen and for those of us who feel that we can not get our independence without Nigeria's support, I am afraid that their dreams can only be likened to waiting "for a pie from the sky."
Feko
From: scncusasouth <scncusasouth@yahoo.com>
To: SouthernCameroon@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:17 PM
Subject: [SouthernCameroons] BAKASSI: NIGERIA TO OPEN FRESH TALKS WITH CAMEROON
That consent-order was given on the 5th. of March, 2002 and the ICJ judgment ceding Bakassi, which is indisputably in Southern Cameroons, to La Republique du Cameroun was given on the 10th. of October, 2002, seven long months after Justice Ukeji's order. The ceding of Bakassi to LRC was by extension, the ceding of Southern Cameroons to La Republique du Cameroun(LRC).
How can one be convinced that armed with a High Court Tomlin Order to "institute a case before the International Court of Justice on the Southern Cameroons problem," by putting that order on hold for seven months(and ad infinitum) and pursuing a cause completely at variance with the order, the Federal Government of Nigeria acted in good faith with Southern Cameroons? In fact, in the clamour in Nigeria for a revisit of the ICJ over the case, no clamouring group or individual mentioned the Abuja High Court Tomlin Ruling as one of the reasons for that review. It could not even be invoked as a reason because Nigeria will be unable to explain why they shelved it for seven months were the ICJ to probe. With the possible exception of Dr Gumne who questioned this strange pattern of behaviour by Nigeria, no other leader in the struggle has done so. They tell you that as the giant of Africa Nigeria, on whose support you will depend for your independence, will crush you if you dared. Nigeria had a golden opportunity to crush LRC at the ICJ with the Abuja High Court Order and flush La Republique out of Bakassi and Southern Cameroons but they turned around, used the Tomlin Order as a bargaining chip, and like vultures fighting over a chunk of booty, the two are now illegally sharing, goodness knows what ratio, the God-given wealth of Southern Cameroons.
Nigeria's good faith in the Tomlin Judgment is still to be seen and for those of us who feel that we can not get our independence without Nigeria's support, I am afraid that their dreams can only be likened to waiting "for a pie from the sky."
Feko
From: scncusasouth <scncusasouth@yahoo.com>
To: SouthernCameroon@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:17 PM
Subject: [SouthernCameroons] BAKASSI: NIGERIA TO OPEN FRESH TALKS WITH CAMEROON
From: Njoh Litumbe <njohl42@gmail.com>
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: [NIgerianWorldForum] BAKASSI: NIGERIA TO OPEN FRESH TALKS WITH CAMEROON
The Bakassi issue is not likely to be solved by further negotiations
by Nigeria with La Republique du Cameroun (LRC) that cited Nigeria
before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1994. It is
noteworthy that under the ICJ Statute, only sovereign states that are
members of the United Nations have locus at that Court. Both LRC and
Nigeria were admitted members of the UN on 20 Sept 1960 and 7 Oct 1960
respectively.
On attaining independence, a country inherits the boundaries of the
territory surrendered to it by its Colonial master. For LRC, this was
over the territory of French Cameroun on 1 Jan 1960, and for Nigeria 1
Oct 1960. It was not luntil 11 Feb 1961 that the UN conducted a
Plebiscite in Southern Cameroons to ask Southern Cameroonians if they
wished to attain independence by joining either Nigeria or LRC.
It is thus clear that in Feb 1961, the UN trust territory of Southern
Cameroons could not have formed any part of the independent states of
Nigeria or LRC. The UN Charter, Art 102, stipulates the modalities to
be followed should any member state desire to join another territory.
That Article ordains that the two parties must reduce the terms of
joining into a written signed Agreement, and forward a copy thereof to
the UN Secretariat for publication to the whole world stating, as it
did for Senegal and The Gambia, when those two states united to form
Senegambia.
It was established by the ICJ that the Bakassi Peninsula is located in
the former UN trust territory of Southern Cameroons. On that basis
the Court declared Bakassi as being "Cameroonian." Because it was LRC
that sued Nigeria, all parties, including Nigeria, were misled into
assuming that title over Bakassi was vested to LRC. This is a
monumental fallacy.
For LRC to have succeeded in this action, it had to first tender proof
that the territory of Southern Cameroons had, subsequent to 11 Feb
1961, united with LRC in accordance with Art. 102 of the UN Charter
which would have necessiated the signing of a Treaty of Union between
the two parties, and a copy of the Treaty filed at the UN Secretariat.
The penalty for failing to comply with this procedure is contained in
the UN Charter Art. 102(2) which declares that failing compliance,
such a joining arrangement is invalid and cannot be cited before any
of the six Organs of the UN, one of which is the ICJ.
The truth of the matter is that the tripartite meeting which the UN
General Assembly prescribed in Res. 1608(XV) of 21 Apr 1961 that the
Administering Authority, the Government of Southern Cameroons, and the
Government of LRC should meet to finalize the undertakings and
understandings of the parties to the proposed Union, before 1 Oct
1961, did not hold, so there is no Treaty of Union between LRC and
Southern Cameroons filed at the Secretariat of the UN. What appears
at the UN record is merely that French Cameroun which became
independent on 1 Jan 1960 as La Republique du Cameroun, was the
sovereign state admitted as a member of the UN on 20 Sept 1960.
Thus, with no legal title over Southern Cameroons in which Bakassi is
located, LRC cited Nigeria for invading "its" territory of Bakassi, in
the full knowledge that Bakassi was not part of its territory at
independence, and there has been no subsequent Treaty of Union with
Southern Cameroons where Bakassi is located..
With respect, the ICJ was correct in establishing that Bakassi is
"Cameroonian," and on this there is hardly any valid ground for
Nigeria to seek a Review, for Bakassi was not within the territory it
inherited from Britain at independence on 1 Oct 1960. The problem is
that Bakassi was mistakenly "awarded" to LRC which has no legal title
either over Southern Cameroons, and it has now come to light that LRC
obtained judgment by fraudulent misrepresentation.
On this point, The Federal Republic of Nigeria, by virtue of a Consent
Judgment between the People of Southern Cameroons and the
Attorney-General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, at the Federal
High Court in Abuja presided over by the Hon Mrs Justice Rosaline
Ukeje in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/30/2002, gave an Order that "The Federal
Republic of Nigeria shall institute a case before the International
Court of Justice" on the Southern Cameroons Problem.
To enforce the Judgment of the ICJ in favour of LRC would mean that an
Organ of the UN (the ICJ) was being manipulated or raped to consider a
matter that openly violates Arts. 102/103 of the United Nations
Charter. This is patently inadmissible and will not generate the
Peace that the world body was created to foster for its members to
adhere to the Rule of Law and endeavour to settle their disputes by
peaceful means.
Mola NJOH LITUMBE
Senior Citizen, Politician & Opinion Leader
Southern Cameroons.
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: [NIgerianWorldForum] BAKASSI: NIGERIA TO OPEN FRESH TALKS WITH CAMEROON
The Bakassi issue is not likely to be solved by further negotiations
by Nigeria with La Republique du Cameroun (LRC) that cited Nigeria
before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1994. It is
noteworthy that under the ICJ Statute, only sovereign states that are
members of the United Nations have locus at that Court. Both LRC and
Nigeria were admitted members of the UN on 20 Sept 1960 and 7 Oct 1960
respectively.
On attaining independence, a country inherits the boundaries of the
territory surrendered to it by its Colonial master. For LRC, this was
over the territory of French Cameroun on 1 Jan 1960, and for Nigeria 1
Oct 1960. It was not luntil 11 Feb 1961 that the UN conducted a
Plebiscite in Southern Cameroons to ask Southern Cameroonians if they
wished to attain independence by joining either Nigeria or LRC.
It is thus clear that in Feb 1961, the UN trust territory of Southern
Cameroons could not have formed any part of the independent states of
Nigeria or LRC. The UN Charter, Art 102, stipulates the modalities to
be followed should any member state desire to join another territory.
That Article ordains that the two parties must reduce the terms of
joining into a written signed Agreement, and forward a copy thereof to
the UN Secretariat for publication to the whole world stating, as it
did for Senegal and The Gambia, when those two states united to form
Senegambia.
It was established by the ICJ that the Bakassi Peninsula is located in
the former UN trust territory of Southern Cameroons. On that basis
the Court declared Bakassi as being "Cameroonian." Because it was LRC
that sued Nigeria, all parties, including Nigeria, were misled into
assuming that title over Bakassi was vested to LRC. This is a
monumental fallacy.
For LRC to have succeeded in this action, it had to first tender proof
that the territory of Southern Cameroons had, subsequent to 11 Feb
1961, united with LRC in accordance with Art. 102 of the UN Charter
which would have necessiated the signing of a Treaty of Union between
the two parties, and a copy of the Treaty filed at the UN Secretariat.
The penalty for failing to comply with this procedure is contained in
the UN Charter Art. 102(2) which declares that failing compliance,
such a joining arrangement is invalid and cannot be cited before any
of the six Organs of the UN, one of which is the ICJ.
The truth of the matter is that the tripartite meeting which the UN
General Assembly prescribed in Res. 1608(XV) of 21 Apr 1961 that the
Administering Authority, the Government of Southern Cameroons, and the
Government of LRC should meet to finalize the undertakings and
understandings of the parties to the proposed Union, before 1 Oct
1961, did not hold, so there is no Treaty of Union between LRC and
Southern Cameroons filed at the Secretariat of the UN. What appears
at the UN record is merely that French Cameroun which became
independent on 1 Jan 1960 as La Republique du Cameroun, was the
sovereign state admitted as a member of the UN on 20 Sept 1960.
Thus, with no legal title over Southern Cameroons in which Bakassi is
located, LRC cited Nigeria for invading "its" territory of Bakassi, in
the full knowledge that Bakassi was not part of its territory at
independence, and there has been no subsequent Treaty of Union with
Southern Cameroons where Bakassi is located..
With respect, the ICJ was correct in establishing that Bakassi is
"Cameroonian," and on this there is hardly any valid ground for
Nigeria to seek a Review, for Bakassi was not within the territory it
inherited from Britain at independence on 1 Oct 1960. The problem is
that Bakassi was mistakenly "awarded" to LRC which has no legal title
either over Southern Cameroons, and it has now come to light that LRC
obtained judgment by fraudulent misrepresentation.
On this point, The Federal Republic of Nigeria, by virtue of a Consent
Judgment between the People of Southern Cameroons and the
Attorney-General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, at the Federal
High Court in Abuja presided over by the Hon Mrs Justice Rosaline
Ukeje in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/30/2002, gave an Order that "The Federal
Republic of Nigeria shall institute a case before the International
Court of Justice" on the Southern Cameroons Problem.
To enforce the Judgment of the ICJ in favour of LRC would mean that an
Organ of the UN (the ICJ) was being manipulated or raped to consider a
matter that openly violates Arts. 102/103 of the United Nations
Charter. This is patently inadmissible and will not generate the
Peace that the world body was created to foster for its members to
adhere to the Rule of Law and endeavour to settle their disputes by
peaceful means.
Mola NJOH LITUMBE
Senior Citizen, Politician & Opinion Leader
Southern Cameroons.
__._,_.___
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cameroon_politics/
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
0 comments:
Post a Comment