Re: [Manyunet] More Historical Claims on Bakassi emerging (FURTHER UPDATE)

How the International Court of Justice works

http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6

The Court may entertain two types of cases: legal disputes between States submitted to it by them (contentious cases) and requests for advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by United Nations organs and specialized agencies (advisory proceedings).

Contentious cases

Only States (States Members of the United Nations and other States which have become parties to the Statute of the Court or which have accepted its jurisdiction under certain conditions) may be parties to contentious cases.

The Court is competent to entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have accepted its jurisdiction in one or more of the following ways:

by entering into a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court;
by virtue of a jurisdictional clause, i.e., typically, when they are parties to a treaty containing a provision whereby, in the event of a dispute of a given type or disagreement over the interpretation or application of the treaty, one of them may refer the dispute to the Court;
through the reciprocal effect of declarations made by them under the Statute whereby each has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory in the event of a dispute with another State having made a similar declaration. A number of these declarations, which must be deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General, contain reservations excluding certain categories of dispute.

States have no permanent representatives accredited to the Court. They normally communicate with the Registrar through the medium of their Minister for Foreign Affairs or their ambassador accredited to the Netherlands. Where they are parties to a case before the Court they are represented by an agent. An agent plays the same role, and has the same rights and obligations, as a solicitor or avoué with respect to a national court. But we are dealing here with international relations, and the agent is also as it were the head of a special diplomatic mission with powers to commit a sovereign State. He/she receives communications from the Registrar concerning the case and forwards to the Registrar all correspondence and pleadings duly signed or certified. In public hearings the agent opens the argument on behalf of the government he/she represents and lodges the submissions. In general, whenever a formal act is to be done by the government represented, it is done by the agent. Agents are sometimes assisted by co-agents, deputy agents or assistant agents and always have counsel or advocates, whose work they co-ordinate, to assist them in the preparation of the pleadings and the delivery of oral argument. Since there is no special International Court of Justice Bar, there are no conditions that have to be fulfilled for counsel or advocates to enjoy the right of arguing before it except only that they must have been appointed by a government to do so.

Proceedings may be instituted in one of two ways:

through the notification of a special agreement: this document, which is of a bilateral nature, can be lodged with the Court by either of the States parties to the proceedings or by both of them. A special agreement must indicate the subject of the dispute and the parties thereto. Since there is neither an "applicant" State nor a "respondent" State, in the Court's publications their names are separated by an oblique stroke at the end of the official title of the case, e.g., Benin/Niger;
by means of an application: the application, which is of a unilateral nature, is submitted by an applicant State against a respondent State. It is intended for communication to the latter State and the Rules of Court contain stricter requirements with respect to its content. In addition to the name of the party against which the claim is brought and the subject of the dispute, the applicant State must, as far as possible, indicate briefly on what basis - a treaty or a declaration of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction - it claims the Court has jurisdiction, and must succinctly state the facts and grounds on which it bases its claim. At the end of the official title of the case the names of the two parties are separated by the abbreviation "v." (for the Latin versus), e.g., Nicaragua v. Colombia.

The date of the institution of proceedings, which is that of the receipt by the Registrar of the special agreement or application, marks the opening of proceedings before the Court. C ontentious proceedings include a written phase, in which the parties file and exchange pleadings containing a detailed statement of the points of fact and of law on which each party relies, and an oral phase consisting of public hearings at which agents and counsel address the Court. As the Court has two official languages (English and French), everything written or said in one language is translated into the other. The written pleadings are not made available to the press and public until the opening of the oral proceedings, and then only if the parties have no objection.

After the oral proceedings the Court deliberates in camera and then delivers its judgment at a public sitting. The judgment is final, binding on the parties to a case and without appeal (at most it may be subject to interpretation or revision). Any judge wishing to do so may append an opinion to the judgment.

By signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the Court in a case to which it is a party. Since, furthermore, a case can only be submitted to the Court and decided by it if the parties have in one way or another consented to its jurisdiction over the case, it is rare for a decision not to be implemented. A State which contends that the other side has failed to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court may lay the matter before the Security Council, which is empowered to recommend or decide upon the measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

The procedure described above is the normal procedure. Certain matters can however affect the proceedings. The most common case is that of preliminary objections raised in order to prevent the Court from delivering judgment on the merits of the case (the respondent State may contend, for example, that the Court lacks jurisdiction or that the application is inadmissible). The matter is one for the Court itself to decide. Then, there are provisional measures, which can be requested as interim measures by the applicant State if the latter considers that the rights which form the subject of its application are in immediate danger. It may further occur that a State seeks to intervene in a dispute involving other States because it considers that it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision to be taken in the dispute between those States. The Statute also makes provision for cases where the respondent State does not appear before the Court, either because it totally rejects the Court's jurisdiction or for any other reason. Hence failure by one party to appear does not prevent proceedings in a case from taking their course. But in such a case the Court must first satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction. Finally, should the Court find that parties to separate proceedings are submitting the same arguments and submissions against a common opponent in relation to the same issue, it may order joinder of the proceedings.

The Court discharges its duties as a full court but, at the request of the parties, it may also establish ad hoc chambers to examine specific cases. A Chamber of Summary Procedure is elected every year by the Court in accordance with its Statute.

The sources of law that the Court must apply are: international treaties and conventions in force; international custom; the general principles of law; and judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists. Moreover, if the parties agree, the Court can decide a case ex aequo et bono, i.e., without limiting itself to existing rules of international law.

A case may be brought to a conclusion at any stage of the proceedings by a settlement between the parties or by discontinuance. In the latter case, an applicant State may at any time inform the Court that it is not going on with the proceedings, or the two parties may declare that they have agreed to withdraw the case. The Court then removes the case from its List.

Advisory proceedings

Advisory proceedings before the Court are open solely to five organs of the United Nations and to 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations family.

The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council may request advisory opinions on "any legal question". Other United Nations organs and specialized agencies which have been authorized to seek advisory opinions can only do so with respect to "legal questions arising within the scope of their activities".

When it receives a request for an advisory opinion, the Court, in order that it may give its opinion with full knowledge of the facts, is empowered to hold written and oral proceedings, certain aspects of which recall the proceedings in contentious cases. In theory, the Court may do without such proceedings, but it has never dispensed with them entirely.

A few days after the request is filed, the Court draws up a list of those States and international organizations that will be able to furnish information on the question before the Court. Those States are not in the same position as parties to contentious proceedings: their representatives before the Court are not known as agents and their participation, if any, in the advisory proceedings does not render the Court's opinion binding upon them. In general, the States listed are the Member States of the organization requesting the opinion. Any State not consulted by the Court may ask to be.

It is rare, however, for the ICJ to allow international organizations other than the one having requested the opinion to participate in advisory proceedings. With respect to non-governmental international organizations, the only one ever authorized by the ICJ to furnish information did not in the end do so (International Status of South West Africa). The Court has rejected all such requests by private parties.

The written proceedings are shorter but as flexible as in contentious proceedings between States. Participants may file written statements, which sometimes form the object of written comments by other participants. The written statements and comments are regarded as confidential, but are generally made available to the public at the beginning of the oral proceedings. States are then usually invited to present oral statements at public sittings.

Advisory proceedings are concluded by the delivery of the advisory opinion at a public sitting.

It is of the essence of such opinions that they are advisory, i.e., that, unlike the Court's judgments, they have no binding effect. The requesting organ, agency or organization remains free to give effect to the opinion by any means open to it, or not to do so. Certain instruments or regulations can, however, provide beforehand that an advisory opinion by the Court shall have binding force (e.g., conventions on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations).

It remains nevertheless that the authority and prestige of the Court attach to its advisory opinions and that where the organ or agency concerned endorses that opinion, that decision is as it were sanctioned by international law.

That should close the discussion on the Bakassi Dispute.

Stephen Agbor

From: Chief Charles A.Taku <charto_us@yahoo.com>
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com; camnetwork@yahoogroups.com; cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 5, 2012 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Manyunet] More Historical Claims on Bakassi emerging (FURTHER UPDATE)

Dr Tumasang,

Indeed this treaty was never signed due to the outbreak of the First World War.

Chief C.Taku--- On Fri, 10/5/12, Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com>
Subject: More Historical Claims on Bakassi emerging (FURTHER UPDATE)
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com, camnetwork@yahoogroups.com, cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, October 5, 2012, 4:10 AM

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

05 Oct 2012

Views: 23

Font Size: a / A

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.comTo: ambasbay@googlegroups.com; camnetwork@yahoogroups.com; cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.comSubject: More Historical Claims on Bakassi emerging (UPDATE)Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 09:21:48 +0000
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 -0700From: carlany2001@yahoo.comSubject: Re: More Historical Claims on Bakassi emergingTo: 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:

From: Efasamoto@aol.com <Efasamoto@aol.com>
Subject: Re: More Historical Claims on Bakassi emerging
To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com, camnetwork@yahoogroups.com, cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 7:17 AM

In my opinion these are issues that our black leg historians, such as Konde and the Southern Cameroons liberation expert turn CPDM presidential aspirant Dr. Suzungi might excel in. Lets give them a chance to take a crack at this Bakassi issue. Here is where we need them, not fighting with our people who are hungry for some direction to free themselves from a catastrophic regime holding them in pure colonial terms.

In a message dated 10/3/2012 12:32:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tumasangm@hotmail.com writes:

Dear All,

any historian in the house to check below new claims?

BAKASSI: Peninsula not in 26 districts plebiscite of southern Cameroun

On October 3, 2012 · In Special Report

1:41 am

Continues from yesterdayTHE Milner/Simone Declaration which showed the partition of Cameroon between Britain and France was not the work of the League. The British and French powers partitioned Cameroons to their satisfaction before they presented it to the League for the Mandate Signature.

Prof. Walter Ofonagoro…Bakassi is in Nigeria
That Partition Boundary became the boundary between British and French Cameroons, as contained in the Declaration of July 10, 1919, which Milner and Simone signed. It had nothing to do with the old Anglo-German line of 1914.
American insistence on studying the terms of the Mandate Treaties delayed the signing of the Cameroons Mandates until July 20, 1922. The Americans had hoped that they could persuade their European Allies to abandon the quest for colonies, or for making secret deals among themselves against their enemies. They were wrong. The United States left the League in 1920, disappointed, and by 1922, refused to sign either the League Treaty, or the Treaty of Versailles. Russia, had made her own separate peace with Germany at Brest-Litovsk in 1918, and withdrew from European affairs, to face the challenges of the Bolshevik Revolution at home. So the Great powers left at the League were mainly Britain and France, from 1922. In 1923, a British Order-in-Council made permanent arrangements through which the various parts of the Mandate Territory, under her, were run. In Nigeria, Bakassi continued to remain under British rule.
Professor Gardinier of Yale University, further stated at the Yale University Conference, that Britain pursued different policies in different parts of her Cameroon Mandates.
(1) She never set up any administrative link between Northern Cameroons and Southern Cameroons.
(2) Northern Cameroons was fully integrated into Northern Nigeria, economically, administratively and in every other respect making it impossible to separate Northern Cameroon mandated territory from Northern Nigeria.
(3) With Southern Cameroon, it was different. Southern Cameroon was never integrated with Nigeria. It had its own separate Province, the "Cameroons Province" of Southern Nigeria, which eventually became the Southern Cameroons" Mandated Region in the Nigerian Federation from 1954, with its own legislature, parliament, and constitution by 1960.
(4) "The economy of Southern Cameroon was never integrated with Nigeria's, but was linked directly with that of overseas nations, above all Germany's."
Significantly, Great Britain never integrated Bakassi either administratively or economically with Southern Cameroon, throughout the period, 1922-1960, and never included her in the 26 plebiscite districts of Southern Cameroon. In fact Bakassi was part of Nigeria at independence, her border on the Rio del Rey defining Nigeria's Eastern border since April 14, 1893. This history of German Cameroon between 1914 and 1939 is completely omitted from the Cameroon Memorandum of Facts. Certainly, the League of Nations accepted the borders of Southern Cameroon, and Northern Cameroon as they were presented by Britain at the time of signing the League Mandate in 1922, and they were not the same as the Borders of German-Cameroon in 1914.
The Cameroon Memorandum of Facts also quoted the Nigerian law No. 126 of 1954, as evidence that Bakassi had been ceded to her. That is false. The law in question is the "Northern Region, Western Region, Eastern Region Boundaries (Definition) Order-in-Council, No. 126 of 1954". It defines the boundary between Cameroon and the Eastern Region of Nigeria. In Schedule III, Part I and II, both territories have "the Sea" as their southern border. Some have ignorantly thought that "Sea" meant the point at which the boundary entered the Akwa Yafe River! But Akwa Yafe River was never the Sea boundary of Southern Nigeria. That issue had long been settled in the Anglo-German Agreement of April 14, 1893. It was, in fact, the first Boundary of Nigeria to be settled. The sea in this law, refers to that body of water on the shores of the Bakassi Peninsula, where the sea to land boundary of Nigeria and Cameroons goes ashore through the Rio del Rey eventually making its way to the Akwa Yafe River.
Creation of Southern
Cameroon Region, 1954
In 1953, the 13 members of the Eastern House of Assembly, representing Southern Cameroon, had requested Britain to give them their own Region. That was done in the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954, which saw Southern Cameroon excised from Eastern Region of Nigeria with a new 26 member legislature and new capital in Buea. Bakassi is separated physically from Southern Cameroon, by the Rio del Rey Creek, which has remained Nigeria's border with Southern Cameroons till date.
The Rio Del Rey Port: As a last act to confirm that the Treaty of August 11, 1913, was a dead Treaty, the British Colonial Government of Nigeria passed a law "The Rio Del Rey Port Declaration Order, 1960, L.N. 154 under Article 6 of the Ports Ordinance, 1954". This port was established on September 29, 1960. The Port limits as established in that law are a reassertion that the Rio del Rey border was still the Eastern border of Nigeria, at its point of entry into the sea. In other words, "the Sea", as the Southern border of Nigeria is the sea at Rio Del Rey. There is no sea at Akwa Yafe River where it flows into the Archibong Creek, which in turn flows into the Rio Del Rey to the East. Akwa Yafe is north of Bakassi Peninsula. The Sea is South of Bakassi Peninsula. The Akwa Yafe River reaches the sea through the Rio del Rey Creek.
In 1956, four years before Nigerian independence in 1960, oil was discovered at Oloibiri, in the Niger Delta. With known reserves in the Cross River/Bakassi Basin, there was no way the Colonial Government would establish a port there, two days before independence, and assign it a huge port limit of over 36 miles of Rio Del Rey Creek Bakassi Frontage, only to pass it on to French Cameroons. The Port was built on the exact coordinates of the Rio Del Rey Creek, to remind everyone that here was the international border. The Nigerian lawyers at the ICJ mentioned it at Paragraphs 10.107- 10.109 in their counter memorial, as evidence of "effective occupation", and filed a text of the order at Annex NC.M 194, and Atlas Map 37; and were amazed that its limits occupied the entire length of the Nigerian side of the Rio Del Rey, from Cape Bakassi to the head waters of the Rio Del Rey. They were, however, unable to appreciate its evidential value! Please consider its evidential value!
The schedule to the Rio Del Rey Port Declaration Order read as follows:"that part of the mainstream of the Rio Del Rey otherwise known as Fiari River bounded in the North by a line drawn in an 0900-2700 direction in latitude 40 45' North and in the South by a line drawn from Erong Point Beacon latitude 40 31' 40" North 80 45' 48"East in a 1800 direction for 16.8 miles thence in an 0900direction for 3.9miles thence in a 0040 direction for 15.7 miles to Cape Bakassi Beacon latitude 4030'30" North 8043'6" East." (Reference: Nigerian Marine Charts: No: 33/10 and 84/10). Now, compare these coordinates with Rio Del Rey Boundary Beacons as established in legal instrument No 260 Agreement of 29 April- 16 June, 1885, confirmed in No 263 of 1886, No 270 of July 1, 1890, and No. 273 of April 14, 1893:
With the Boundary, "entering the Sea between longitude 8042' East and 80 46' East", the Rio Del Rey Port limits are a coded message. A rival power with whom Great Britain had fought two World Wars since 1913, could not expect to inherit from the British Crown, a Peninsula that unquestionably belonged to her loyal and faithful subjects who had been with her, throughout the colonial period. Calabar was one of the oldest British Protectorates and had had a resident British Consul since 1870. In fact in 1904, Calabar was declared a Port of Registry for British ships, a status which was upgraded by an Order-in-Council in 1913. The Old Consulate Building in Calabar is still a tourist attraction, and should qualify as a world heritage building, because it was from here that Britain conquered and colonized Southern Nigeria from 1884 to 1918. The Calabar Sea Roads could not be allowed to be turned into an international border, which is what neither the Germans nor the British wanted to do in 1913. In fact, the British Colonial Secretary, Sir Louis Harcourt, stated in Parliament on July 11, 1913, that the British Government would not cede any territory to Germany under the Treaties of 1913

.

__,_._,___

=