Dear ALL,
Further to my submission on the above that NIgeria (and its Professors) has changed its approach and is gunning for the 1913 treaty, Nigeria now has a claim that might floor us. They claim there is new evidence that the 1913 treaty WAS NEVER SIGNED as per the German Ambassador at the time. I saw where Nigeria and its Professors were going and every indication now is that I was right.
"Also, he said Nigeria would be putting before the ICJ a book authored by the German ambassador at the time who confirmed that the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty was never signed, thus lacking the force of a legal document.
Besides"
Any historian in the house with an opinion as to whether the 1913 treaty was signed? This is a rather big and potentially devastating claim. They will do everything to rubbish the treaty.
FG Moves to Appeal Bakassi Judgment
President Goodluck Jonathan
By Muhammad Bello and Tobi Soniyi
President Goodluck Jonathan has finally bowed to the preponderance of opinion to challenge the October 2002 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that made Nigeria cede the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun.
The president's rethink of Nigeria's position on the issue, THISDAY checks revealed Thursday, stemmed from the discovery of new evidence that was not made available to the ICJ during the litigation between the two countries on the ownership of the peninsula.
The president, after a five-hour meeting that began on Wednesday night with major stakeholders in the Bakassi saga, announced Thursday the setting up of a committee to review the judgment.
The setting up of the committee signalled the preparedness of Nigeria to challenge the ICJ judgment. Nigeria has till October 10 to appeal the ICJ judgment, failing which the case cannot be revisited.
Jonathan's decision came about a week after the National Assembly called on him to appeal the ruling that Bakassi belonged to Cameroun.
Although members of the committee were not named, THISDAY learnt that the membership comprises four members each from the executive and legislative arms of government.
Members of the committee, who have till the end of today to submit their report, are expected to look at the new evidence on Bakassi and make recommendations on how Nigeria could go about recovering the oil-rich peninsula.
THISDAY learnt that at the Wednesday night's meeting, attended by the leaderships of the two chambers of the National Assembly, Cross River State Governor, Senator Liyel Imoke, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed Adoke (SAN), the participants were briefed on the new evidence which could assist Nigeria pursue its appeal in line with Article 61 of the ICJ Statute.
Others at the crucial meeting were the Director General of the National Boundary Commission, Dr. Muhammad Ahmad; Chairman of Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), Mr. Elias Mbam; all members of the National Assembly from Cross River State; some leaders and representatives of selected groups from the disputed area; and presidential aides.
Article 61, sub-sections 1, 4 and 5, which stipulate the conditions under which a review could be sought, reads: "An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some facts of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.
"The application for revision must be made at latest within six months of the discovery of the new fact.
"No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment."
Presidency sources told THISDAY that the government was mindful of the short time it has to lodge the appeal at the ICJ and that was why the committee was given a short time to submit its report.
On whether the president was now more amenable to appealing the judgment, a presidency official close to the meeting said he was, adding "Given the preponderance of opinion on Bakassi, the president is disposed to making a case for a review of the judgment."
Also acknowledging the decision to appeal the ICJ 2002 ruling, a member of the National Assembly, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the move by the government to review the judgment.
The legislator said that as a responsive and responsible parliament, the National Assembly had taken a decisive action in respect of the Bakassi Peninsula.
"The president has directed the Attorney General of the Federation to file an application for a review of the ICJ judgment on Bakassi Peninsula.
"Even with the ICJ judgment, we have refused to ratify the Green Tree Agreement in line with Section 12 of the constitution because we are not convinced that Bakassi should go," he said.
Also, a presidency official said the first priority was for the Federal Government to submit a review before the five-day deadline and explore diplomatic channels on the issue.
"Let us put in the review first and then use diplomatic channels to pursue the recovery of Bakassi," he said.
He added that there were concerns nonetheless: "Our concern, however, are the citizens, that is, Nigerians in the peninsula who have been badly treated by Cameroonian gendarmes. Of course, there are security implications also.
"Under Section 61 of the ICJ Statute, it allows for a request for review or interpretation if new facts are discovered on the case."
Providing some insight into the fresh evidence on which Nigeria will be hinging its case as she seeks for a review of the ICJ judgment, the presidency source said these included the information provided by Justice Benjamin Njemanze on the maps and documents during the colonial era, which might have not been presented during the original case.
He added that the fact that the Anglo-German Treaty of 1913, a crucial document that helped swing the ICJ verdict in Cameroon's favour, was never signed because of the deterioration in diplomatic ties between Britain and Germany. This arose from the First World War, which was looming then.
Pre-independence Nigeria was ruled by the British colonial administration, while most of Southern Cameroun was ruled by Germany.
However, the presidency source explained that because of the growing tensions between the countries in 1913, in the run up to World War I, the treaty ceding the peninsula to Cameroon was never signed.
Also, he said Nigeria would be putting before the ICJ a book authored by the German ambassador at the time who confirmed that the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty was never signed, thus lacking the force of a legal document.
Besides, Nigeria will also advance the argument of Cameroun's non-compliance with the Green Tree Agreement (GTA), the official disclosed.
For instance, while the GTA provided for joint administration of the peninsula by Nigeria and Cameroon, after the transfer, Cameroon has single-handedly run the peninsula after it was ceded to it in 2008.
One of those who attended the Wednesday meeting, former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Bola Ajibola (SAN), who was on the ICJ panel of judges that decided on the Bakassi case, told State House reporters that the Federal Government had shown a genuine concern for the Bakassi people.
He also commended the moves to follow the rule of law, dialogue and diplomacy in ensuring that the people are not wrongly deprived of their homeland.
Imoke also said the president has shown great leadership qualities by convening the meeting and standing firm on some of the decisions taken.
The governor, who did not disclose the composition of the committee, said it would work within a specified time.
Also speaking, Senate President David Mark said the executive arm of government and the lawmakers were now on the same page on the Bakassi issue and would work together to achieve results.
However, THISDAY gathered that there are officials in the executive who do not believe that the Federal Government has a good case to make the court return Bakassi to Nigeria.
Sources said it was better for Nigeria to continue to abide by the judgment of the ICJ rather than bow to pressure to seek a review that might not succeed.
A source said that the Federal Government had sought and obtained legal opinions from experts and that the consensus was that an application for a review would not succeed.
"Nigeria is a respected member of the comity of nations and as such should abide by the judgment of ICJ," the source added.
He also stated that there was no new evidence upon which an application for a review of the judgment could be based.
"Except people want government to seek a review just for review sake, there is no fresh facts to go with," he added.
When contacted on how serious the government was about revisiting the Bakassi issue, Adoke declined to comment.
Meanwhile, the Lagos League of Political Parties (LLPP) has described as a positive development the government's decision to revisit the Bakassi issue.
The group in a statement urged the committee to expeditiously complete its assignment to enable Nigeria to meet the deadline for the submission of a review of the judgment.
From: tumasangm@hotmail.com
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com; camnetwork@yahoogroups.com; cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com
Subject: More Historical Claims on Bakassi emerging (UPDATE)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 09:21:48 +0000
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:
|
No comments:
Post a Comment