BAKASSI: NIGERIA TO OPEN FRESH TALKS WITH CAMEROON

Hi Mr Mbeseha,
 
I agree with what you said below but will like to add that Nigeria is taking advantage of the situation. They have ignored the Tomlin judgment for circa 10 years not because they should but because they can. As it stands, they know they can ignore it and get away with it.
 
Even if we now try to force them to implement the judgment, they might bring various excuses including the fact that after the judgment in C266 and the ICJ Nigeria/Cameroun judgment, it is not reasonable to implement the agreed terms anymore. We are not sure if the court will agree or not.
 
I think before anything, we should try and get an order for specific performance from the Abuja Court so that Nigeria does not have the luxury of ignoring the judgment. The Attorney General and Minister of Justice must have his back side on fire for there to be action on this.
 
Nigeria is acting in bad faith but so far that is what is it, bad faith. I think we should up the game and there will be action. Blackmail in various fora that they are ignoring their own court judgment might help but it might not be sufficient.
 
Regards
 
Tumasang
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:03:44 -0700
From: mbeseha@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Fw: [cameroon_politics] Re: [SouthernCameroons] BAKASSI: NIGERIA TO OPEN FRESH TALKS WITH CAMEROON
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com


Mola, I think the issue is not that Nigeria, a party to a consent  court judgement can simply ignore the judgement as someone has tried to insinuate somewhere else. A consent judgement is binding and enforceable on the parties. It cannot be appealed against by either of the parties. It can be revisited by the court only in limited and very exceptional instances.
 The problem we have is getting Nigeria to respect its own agreement that was transformed into a legal court order as produced in your write up. It is generally very difficult to enforce a court decision against a state. Since the agreement (court's consent judgment) ordered Nigeria to do something as opposed to paying financial or material damages for example it becomes more complicated to force them to act especially where such action is likely to adversely affect them diplomatically. That is why they continue to drag their feet. I have not seen or read anywhere where Nigeria has tried to impugn that court order. The decision remains a very important document/milestone that can and should be used in future actions in any jurisdiction to liberate our territory. That notwithstanding, that consent remains in force against present and future Nigerian governments. 
Mbeseha

From: Njoh Litumbe <njohl42@gmail.com>
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com; southerncameroons@yahoogroups.com; nkwut@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [cameroon_politics] Re: [SouthernCameroons] BAKASSI: NIGERIA TO OPEN FRESH TALKS WITH CAMEROON

The LRC/Nigeria case at the ICJ was decided on 10 Oct 2002, and not on 10 Apr 2002 as inadvertently stated in my posting of this morning.  I sincerely apologize.
 
Mola

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Njoh Litumbe <njohlitumbe@ymail.com> wrote:

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Njoh Litumbe <njohlitumbe@ymail.com>
To: "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>; "SouthernCameroon@yahoogroups.com" <SouthernCameroon@yahoogroups.com>; ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Sen. Vincent Feko <nkwut@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: [cameroon_politics] Re: [SouthernCameroons] BAKASSI: NIGERIA TO OPEN FRESH TALKS WITH CAMEROON
Dear Comrade Feko
 
I am forwarding herewith a copy of  the Terms Agreed by the People of Southern Cameroons with the learned Attorney-General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in Suit FHC/ABJ/CS/30/2002, together with a copy of the resultant Enrolment of Order.  The learned Trial Judge had this to say in the Order, inter alia:
 
"AND the Plaintiffs and Defendant having agreed to the terms set forth in the schedule hereto, it is ordered that all further proceedings in this action are hereby stayed except for the purpose of carrying such terms into effect."   (The emphasis are mine)
 
Subject to being corrected technically, the Schedule forms part of the Order, as the matter, having been mutually agreed to by both parties, was stayed, and any further action could only be taken in carrying into effect the terms of the Order.
 
The Order of the Court, based on the consensus of the parties,  states inter alia:
 "The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall  institute a case before the International Court of Justice concerning..etc.."
 
The Judgment in this matter has not been disturbed by the Defendant Federal Govt of Nigeria in ten years, so it is still lying snugly in the Record of the Federal High Court in Abuja. With respect, I am inclined to the view that the People of Southern Cameroons are entitled to re-visit the Federal  High Court in Abuja, and move the Court for specific performance of the Order by the Federal Attorney-General who, on 5 Mch 2002 agreed to take the Southern Cameroons matter to the ICJ, and to ensure deligent prosecution to finality.  The Application should carry the additional ground that the ICJ Decision on the case instituted by La Republique du Cameroun against Nigeria in 1994 and decided on 10 Apr 2002, was secured by fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of Cameroun, in the absence of a  prior Treaty of Union with Southern Cameroons where the Bakassi Peninsula is located.
 
One can only refer to the erudite submission by Tayo Oyetibo, Esq., of counsel, at pp 8 - 10 of the Record of Proceedings, when he drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the African Charter of Human & Peoples' Rights has been incorporated in the Laws of Nigeria (Ratification and Enforcement Act) Cap 10, LFN 1990, and section 1 of the Act states that the African Charter shall have the force of Law in Nigeria, and shall be given full recognition and effect and applied by authorities and persons exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers in Nigeria.  That the claim in the instant case by Southern Cameroonians was based on the international obligations Nigeria had assumed pursuant to Art 20 of the African Charter.  The Court agreed with counsel, and dismissed the preliminary objections of the Attorney-General.  It was on that basis that the litigants went into negotiations and presented their mutual Agreement to the Court which then enrolled it as an enforceable Decision.
 
I trust the foregoing throws a little more light on the subject matter.
 
Respectfully
 
Mola
 
 

From: feko nkwutio <nkwut@yahoo.com>
To: "SouthernCameroon@yahoogroups.com" <SouthernCameroon@yahoogroups.com>; ambasbay <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>; "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: Litumbe Njoh <njohlitumbe@ymail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 6:09 PM
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
 
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.
__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cameroon_politics/
.
__,_._,___



Unknown ● Saturday, October 27, 2012

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
 
College & Education © 2012 | Designed by