Hi Prof Carlson,
thanks for the below comment. Unlike what you read from the purported new evidence from these Nigerian Professors, I do not think they are repeating their arguments in new clothing. I think their approach is different this time but whether they will succeed or not is another issue.
The Nigerians know that a treaty based title claim is superior to a title based on affectivities and historical consolidation. The ICJ stated clearly in its judgment that the concept of historical consolidation is not well established in international law and even if it did, some odd 50 years of cohabitation is too short to establish historical consolidation. Nigeria knows that and the Professors are not saying that.
The Professors also know that the argument of affectivities will not hold hence they are not talking of who built the post office in Bakassi, who carried out census there, who built the health centre, schools, clinics, who has administrative infrastructure there. They are not talking of these anymore. They know this argument will not hold either.
So what are the Professors desperately trying to say or do?. Based on my reading of their purported new evidence, their approach is a 2 prong approach;
1) Impugn the 1913 treaty and claim that it is based on mistakes and that based on these purported new revelations, the treaty is dead and not enforceable.
2) Impugn the interpretation of the 1913 treaty itself by claiming that there is some material misunderstanding of its provisions.
The Professors claim that mistakenly or by some intentional trick, the boundaries in the 1913 treaty are different from the boundaries accepted by the League of Nations and perhaps one party signed without realising the material change ( some form of "Non est factum" idea. Here, I am not going into the legal consequences of signing a document without realising a material mistake in them if there was any at all).
The Professors are claiming some distinction between what is meant by "opening into the sea", whether it means a river or the high seas and all those distinctions.
In summary, my point here is that the Nigerian vultures are circling but we MUST not underestimate them. They are not after historical consolidation since this legal concept has been rejected by the ICJ, they are not after affectivities since a treaty based title claim will easily be considered a superior claim. THEY ARE NOW AFTER THE 1913 TREATY ITSELF TO IMPUGN ITS VALIDITY OR ITS INTERPRETATION.
Nigeria tried impugning the 1913 treaty in the ICJ by saying that it was not ratified by the German Parliament but failed. They did not realise the importance of this treaty and that the Bakassi will stand or fall on this treaty hence did not concentrate their efforts on the treaty. Now they know better and are sharpening their legal and historical armada/arsenal against the treaty. Only time will tell how far they can go but we must check and re-check any purported new historical fact they bring that has or can have any bearing whatsover on the 1913 treaty.
Regards
Tumasang
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:46:24 -0700
From: carlany2001@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: More Historical Claims on Bakassi emerging
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
thanks for the below comment. Unlike what you read from the purported new evidence from these Nigerian Professors, I do not think they are repeating their arguments in new clothing. I think their approach is different this time but whether they will succeed or not is another issue.
The Nigerians know that a treaty based title claim is superior to a title based on affectivities and historical consolidation. The ICJ stated clearly in its judgment that the concept of historical consolidation is not well established in international law and even if it did, some odd 50 years of cohabitation is too short to establish historical consolidation. Nigeria knows that and the Professors are not saying that.
The Professors also know that the argument of affectivities will not hold hence they are not talking of who built the post office in Bakassi, who carried out census there, who built the health centre, schools, clinics, who has administrative infrastructure there. They are not talking of these anymore. They know this argument will not hold either.
So what are the Professors desperately trying to say or do?. Based on my reading of their purported new evidence, their approach is a 2 prong approach;
1) Impugn the 1913 treaty and claim that it is based on mistakes and that based on these purported new revelations, the treaty is dead and not enforceable.
2) Impugn the interpretation of the 1913 treaty itself by claiming that there is some material misunderstanding of its provisions.
The Professors claim that mistakenly or by some intentional trick, the boundaries in the 1913 treaty are different from the boundaries accepted by the League of Nations and perhaps one party signed without realising the material change ( some form of "Non est factum" idea. Here, I am not going into the legal consequences of signing a document without realising a material mistake in them if there was any at all).
The Professors are claiming some distinction between what is meant by "opening into the sea", whether it means a river or the high seas and all those distinctions.
In summary, my point here is that the Nigerian vultures are circling but we MUST not underestimate them. They are not after historical consolidation since this legal concept has been rejected by the ICJ, they are not after affectivities since a treaty based title claim will easily be considered a superior claim. THEY ARE NOW AFTER THE 1913 TREATY ITSELF TO IMPUGN ITS VALIDITY OR ITS INTERPRETATION.
Nigeria tried impugning the 1913 treaty in the ICJ by saying that it was not ratified by the German Parliament but failed. They did not realise the importance of this treaty and that the Bakassi will stand or fall on this treaty hence did not concentrate their efforts on the treaty. Now they know better and are sharpening their legal and historical armada/arsenal against the treaty. Only time will tell how far they can go but we must check and re-check any purported new historical fact they bring that has or can have any bearing whatsover on the 1913 treaty.
Regards
Tumasang
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:46:24 -0700
From: carlany2001@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: More Historical Claims on Bakassi emerging
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
The Professor says nothing new, except for his polemical claim that Bakassi had at all times been in Nigeria and his evidently self-interested interpretation of the documents he refers to. . If Bakassi was part of Nigeria which gained independence well before the plebiscite how come Bakassi even by UN accounts became part of the Southern Cameroons in 1961? And can the learned Professor produce the boundary treaties delimiting the boundaries of Nigeria at independence? By consistently using the term "cede" these Nigerians have at least been taken in by their own deception. The territorial boundary alignment between Nigeria and the Southern Cameroons has always located Bakassi within the Southern Cameroons. So at no time was Bakassi ceded by Nigeria. The truth is that Nigeria tried to wrestle Bakassi by force and failed. Now it is trying to rewrite a bit of history, trying to bend it in its favour. It will not work. Our professor should read and reread the Eastern Nigeria Boundaries (Definition) Order-in-Council, 1954. During the pleadings in the Bakassi Case counsel referred to this document and tendered it in evidence as proof of the fact that Bakassi is located within the Southern Cameroons. The Nigerian side was unable and could not assail it. Bakassi is firmly located with the Southern Cameroons. The tale about the Southern Cameroons economy being linked more to Germany than to Nigeria is a veritable myth. The complete rebuttal of that myth is Sir Phillipson's Report on the Economic Viability of the Southern Cameroons, a report written when the Southern Cameroons was still linked to Nigeria. The man says Bakassi is physically separated from the Southern Cameroons but he does not say what he understands by "physical separation". If one looks at Portugal and Spain, for example, onel sees that parts of their territory are located a distance from the mainland. Indonesia comprises hundreds of islands. In law the territory of a state need not be one continuous mass of terra firma. In any case if Bakassi is "physically separated" from the Southern Cameroons, then a fortiori from Nigeria. At the end of the day the Professor's exertions are an exercise in futility. CA --- On Wed, 10/3/12, Efasamoto@aol.com <Efasamoto@aol.com> wrote:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment