Re: [cameroon_politics] Re: WHAT IS THE STATUS OF FORMER TRUST TERRITORIES BEFORE THE ICJ?

"We will not be heard until we change the "dynamics on the ground"",
Martin Tumasang

I think that this should be the credo for any SCIAN henceforth

Thank you Martin

Aaron



On 2/4/13, carlany2001@yahoo.com <carlany2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We keep on bemoaning Nigeria's inaction. We can keep on moaning till the
> cows come home. That will avail us nothing. We must bear our own cross and
> take necessary measures to secure our liberation from colonial captivity.
> Prof
> Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Chief Charles A.Taku" <charto_us@yahoo.com>
> Sender: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 01:29:48
> To: <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
> Reply-To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
> Cc: cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com<cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>;
> camnetwork@yahoogroups.com<camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: WHAT IS THE STATUS OF FORMER TRUST TERRITORIES BEFORE THE ICJ?
>
> Dr Tumasang,
> Thanks for referring to this Judgment. I also read the arbitration decision
> concerning the same matter. I wish to refer to the opinion of Judge Oda
> hereunder and to state that by not challenging the lgal status of La
> Republique du Cameroun over the Southern Cameroons, not only did us a great
> disservice but acted in bad faith and in violation of its own High Court
> order to defend our interest in the Land and Maritime Case, Cameroun Vs
> Nigeria.
> This case in perspective was one of the greatest diplomatic and legal
> strategies to challenge the force occupation of East Timor by Indonesia in
> order to attain the decision aptaly stated by Judge Oda. To so, Australia
> dared Indonesia by laying claims to and occupying part of the East Timor
> Continental Shelf , ofcourse in full agreement of the East Timorese
> Liberation Front that wwas involved in armed conflict to expel Indonesia
> from their territory. Australia than through diplomatic channels invited
> Portugal to file an action against Australian occupation and claim over that
> part of the territory. The decision that followed clearly defined the
> status of the Portugal's colonial possession of East Timor in
> law. reaffirmed her right to self deterimination and as well as confirmed
> the UN obligations towards the ensuring that those inalienable rights were
> respected. Indonesia's came out the loser and the occupied territory ofEast
> Timor the winner.
> From then Australia moved to the next stage of supporting the struggle of
> East Timor for freedom and independence. It finally made substantial
> contributions of its armed forces to the International forces that were
> deployed to the territory.
> Had Nigeria challenged the pleadings in the case filed by La Republique as
> we have argued, the ICJ might have taken the occasion to clearly define our
> status in international. From a posting by Dr Mbua concerning the procedure
> and jurisdiction in bringing all actions concerning the execution of the
> trusteeship agreement, Nigeria as an interested party had locus standi to
> raise tha matter before the ICJ. Failing to do so makes Nigeria as culpable
> and even complicit in our occupation and colonial status just La Republique
> du Cameroun, the principal perpetrator. The lack of locus of Portugal was
> due to the fact that rather than grant independence to East Timor, it merely
> packed out and left the territory to be forcefully occupied by Ndonesis.
> Thanks again for bringing this jurisprudence to our attention.
> [p. 118 S.O. Oda] 19. Irrespective of the status of East Timor - which is
> still in abeyance according to the United Nations - and irrespective of the
> rights of the people of East Timor to self-determination guaranteed by the
> United Nations Charter, it is clear that Portugal has not been considered -
> at least since the early l980s - to be a coastal State lying opposite to
> Australia and that in 1991, when Portugal's Application was filed in the
> Registry of the Court, it did not have any authority over the region of East
> Timor, from the coast of which the continental shelf extends south-wards in
> the Timor Sea.
>
>
> --- On Sun, 2/3/13, Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: WHAT IS THE STATUS OF FORMER TRUST TERRITORIES BEFORE THE ICJ?
> To: "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
> Cc: "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>,
> "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sunday, February 3, 2013, 6:09 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Brother Atemkeng,
>
> I know you asked the question to Chief Taku and he will surely reply. Please
> can I beg your over indulgence to post here an example of East Timor where
> an occupying power tries to claim locus standi in the ICJ on behalf of the
> occupied. The arguments show how difficult it might be to state the correct
> position clearly. In hindsight, the Chief was wise to advise that we leave
> the issue because it cannot easily be decided one way or another.
>
> In order to entertain the Application against Australia with respect to the
> continental shelf in the "Timor Gap" or, more specifically, the area called
> the "Zone of Cooperation" which Australia claims in part, the Court needs to
> be convinced, as a preliminary issue, of the standing of Portugal in this
> case as being a coastal State with a claim to the continental shelf in the
> Timor Sea as of 1991, the year of the Application.
> [p. 118 S.O. Oda] 19. Irrespective of the status of East Timor - which is
> still in abeyance according to the United Nations - and irrespective of the
> rights of the people of East Timor to self-determination guaranteed by the
> United Nations Charter, it is clear that Portugal has not been considered -
> at least since the early l980s - to be a coastal State lying opposite to
> Australia and that in 1991, when Portugal's Application was filed in the
> Registry of the Court, it did not have any authority over the region of East
> Timor, from the coast of which the continental shelf extends south-wards in
> the Timor Sea.
> 20.
> It follows that Portugal lacks standing as an Applicant State in this
> proceeding which relates to the continental shelf extending southward into
> the Timor Sea from the coast of East Timor in the "Timor Gap". For this
> reason alone, the Court does not, in my view, have jurisdiction to entertain
> the Application of Portugal and the Application must be dismissed.
>
> [p. 182 D.O. Weeramantry] While recognizing that Portugal has not in this
> case sought to base its locus standi on any footing other than that of an
> administering Power, this anomaly can also be illustrated in another way. In
> South West Africa, Second Phase (I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 6), two States
> which had no direct connection with the territory in question sought to
> bring before the Court various allegations of contraventions by South Africa
> of the League of Nations Mandate. There was no direct nexus between these
> States and South West Africa. Their locus standi was based solely on their
> membership of the community of nations and their right as such to take legal
> action in vindication of a public interest.
>
> The present case is one where the Applicant State has a direct nexus with
> the Territory and has in fact been recognized by both the General Assembly
> and the Security Council as the administering Power.
> This case has similarities with South West Africa in that there is here, as
> there, a territory not in a position to speak for itself. There is here, as
> there, a Power which is in occupation by a process other than one that is
> legally recognized. There is here, as there, another State which is seeking
> to make representations on the territory's behalf to the Court. There is
> here, as there, an objection taken to the locus standi of the Applicant.
>
> A vital difference is that here, unlike there, the Applicant State has a
> direct nexus with the Territory and enjoys direct recognition by the United
> Nations of its particular status vis-à-vis the Territory. The position of
> the Applicant State is thus stronger in the present case than the position
> of the States whose locus standi was accepted by half the judges of the
> Court in the South West Africa Judgment (ibid.), and, indeed, by the
> majority of the judges in the earlier phase of that case (South West Africa,
> Preliminary Objections, Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 319).
>
> [pp. 255-256 D.O. Skubiszewski] 101. In this case there is a conflict of
> legal interests between Portugal and Australia. Several times during the
> proceedings Australia admitted that Portugal was one of the States
> concerned. That admission was made in order to contrast it with the capacity
> to appear before the Court in this case, which Australia denied. However, to
> havejus standi before the Court it is enough to show direct concern in the
> outcome of the case. Portugal has amply shown that it has a claim for the
> protection of its powers which serve the interests of the people of East
> Timor.
>
> 102. It was said by a Co-Agent and counsel of Australia that "to have
> standing, Portugal must point to rights which it possesses" (CR 95/8, p. 80,
> Mr. Burmester). Portugal has standing because, in spite of all the factual
> changes in the area, it still remains the State which has responsibility for
> East Timor. This standing follows from the competence Portugal has in its
> capacity as administering Power. One of the basic elements of that
> competence is the maintenance and defence of the status of East Timor as a
> non-self-governing territory; this is the administering Power's duty.
> Portugal has the capacity to sue in defence of the right of the East
> Timorese people to self-determination. Portugal could also rely generally on
> the remaining attributes of its sovereignty over East Timor, such attributes
> being conducive to the fulfilment of the task under Chapter XI of the
> Charter. On the one hand, Portugal says that it does not raise any claim
> based on its own
> sovereign rights; in some contexts it even denies their existence
> (Memorial, paras. 3.08 and 5.41, and Reply, para. 4.57). On the other hand,
> Portugal invokes its "prerogatives in regard to sovereignty" (Reply, para.
> 4.54). At any rate, it is erroneous to argue that the departure from East
> Timor in 1975 of the Portuguese authorities resulted in bringing "to an end
> any capacity [Portugal] had to act as a coastal State in relation to the
> territory" (Counter-Memorial, para. 237). Such an opinion is contrary to
> both the law of belligerent or military occupation and the United Nations
> law on the position of the administering Power.
>
> 103. Portugal may be said not to have any interest of its own in the narrow
> sense of the term, i.e., a national interest, one of a myriad of interests
> which States have as individual members of the international community.
> However, Portugal received a "sacred trust" under Chapter XI of the Charter.
> It is taking care of interests which, it is true, are also its own, but
> primarily they are shared by all United Nations Members: the Members wish
> the tasks set down in Chapter XI to be accomplished. Australia also adopts
> the stance of favouring the implementation of Chapter XI. Yet there is a
> sharp difference between the two States on how to proceed in the complex
> question of East Timor and what is lawful in the circumstances. That is a
> matter which should have been decided by the Court. However, through its
> decision on jurisdiction, this distinguished Court barred itself from that
> possibility. Had this not been the case, the Judgment would have eliminated
> a
> number of uncertainties from the legal relations between the Parties and,
> more generally, some uncertainties regarding a non-self-governing territory
> which has been incorporated into a State without the consent of the United
> Nations. At any rate, it is clear that an actual controversy exists. What
> doubt could there be regarding the locus standi?
>
>
>
> (NB: Above article not written by Dr Tumasang)
>
> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 02:20:44 -0800
> From: denatem@yahoo.com
> Subject: WHAT IS THE STATUS OF FORMER TRUST TERRITORIES BEFORE THE ICJ?
> To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
> CC: cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com; camnetwork@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Dear Chief A. Taku,
>
>
> Leaving all of these issues about Bakassi aside, something of interest keeps
> coming to my mind. It is this question: what is the status of former trust
> territories before the ICJ? Is there any way a former trust territory can
> acquire a locus before the ICJ?
> I have done no research on this issue and do not know whether the
> international community was so self-conscious of its evil schemes that it
> simply decided to prevent former trust territories from having any locus
> before the ICJ. One would think that common sense would have dictated that
> these territories be given a status before the ICJ to raise issues
> concerning how the trust territories were managed by their various
> Administering Authorities and other false claims, like that of Republique du
> Cameroun.
> Please I would like anyone who has done any research on this matter to
> enlighten us, and me in particular.
>
>
> Atemnkeng.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Chief Charles A.Taku <charto_us@yahoo.com>
> To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
> Cc: "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>;
> "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 1:57 AM
> Subject: RE: La Republique du Cameroun as trespasser in possession of
> Southern Cameroon's right to sue Nigeria (addition)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr,
> Permit me to respectfully suggest that we suspend any further argument on
> this matter. I have reviewed past and pending ICJ cases and have not found
> one that fits squarely the legal arguments you are forcefully making. Lest
> you forget, with regard to the Bakassi occupation which the arguments relate
> Nigeria was also an occupying power like La Republique du Cameroun with the
> same legal obligations towards the population of the Southern Cameroons.
> Even with the judgment of the ICJ as it stands, La Republique du Cameroon
> still negotiated and signed the Greentree Agreement. It has gone further to
> sign another agreement, on the sharing of the resources of Bakassi with
> Nigeria. That is the reality on the ground.
> Government Achu rightly pointed out that the so-called land deal with
> Harackles or so it is called is not a treaty in international law. By
> selling of the land, La Republique is not protecting the interests of
> Southern Cameroonians. It is violating; just as signing off the oil reserves
> of Bakassi with Nigeria a co-occupation power.
> You have raised a number of arguments which may apply in international human
> rights law where even without a showing of interest a third state under
> certain circumstances may bring action against another for gross human
> rights violations on its territory.
> Lest we forget, action at the ICJ and most other International courts is
> predicated on consent and in some cases on the doctrine of forum
> prorogatum.
> A reading of the Statute of the ICJ and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence
> make strict provision on the standards of pleadings accepted to the Court.
> Interest is no doubt one of the factors that may confer jurisdiction but
> where there is an expressed provision of the UN Chartered baring
> jurisdiction on a particular cause of action, there is no way the ICJ can
> entertain the action. In both La Republique and Nigeria during the
> dictatorships of Babangida and Abacha they had what they called ouster
> clauses. No court in La Republique and Nigeria then will entertain action on
> a matter where jurisdiction is expressly ousted by an ouster decree. No
> court in La Republique will grant access or confer jurisdiction on any
> matter no matter the sufficiency of interest where an express provision of
> the Law has ousted Jurisdiction.
> With every one holding to their position on this matter, let us leave it
> where we are.
> Before I sign off, let me state that the gravamen here is about suing to
> protect the interest of Southern Cameroons. That is to say, the Hague
> Regulations and the 4th Geneva Conventions on which you based your argument
> do not extend to the new factors you have cited to establish a purported
> proof of sufficient interest for a grant of access. These factors concern
> territorial claim and no longer the protection of the rights of Southern
> Cameroons as an occupied territory.
> . In other words, you may be construed to mean that La Republique may go
> round the express provsions of the UN Charter to lay territorial claims to
> the territory of SouthernCameroons as an occaption power.
> Chief C.Taku
>
>
>
>
> From: Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: La Republique du Cameroun as trespasser in possession of
> Southern Cameroon's right to sue Nigeria (addition)
> To: "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
> Cc: "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>,
> "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, February 2, 2013, 1:52 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mola,
>
> the issues involved although legal in nature are not recondite and fairly
> simple. To have a locus standi to sue Nigeria, La republique du Cameroun has
> to show a nexus, connection, interest in Bakassi that gives it the locus
> standi.
>
> "Joining" with a union treaty and satisfaction of UN Articles 101, 102, 103
> is one in many ways that it can show its interest in Bakassi and get a locus
> standi to sue.
>
> Failure of the above, it can show its interest for example as an
> occupying power satisfying its obligations in international occupation law
> to govern and protect the property of the occupied territory hence it would
> have a locus standi to sue on behalf of the occupied people of Southern
> Cameroons. It does not matter if the occupation is legal or not. It is a de
> facto situation of whether its troops are in the territory and if it has
> control of the territory. International occupation law can give it the locus
> standi to enter international agreements on behalf of Southern Cameroons,
> sign treaties in some limited situations on behalf of Southern Cameroons,
> and sue a third party trespasser on behalf of Southern Cameroons.
>
> It can have a locus standi using all the other methods I listed in my other
> mail.
>
> It is like Obama. To be President, he needs 270 delegates. He might get them
> by winning Ohio. If he fails to win Ohio, he might get them by winning
> Florida or other combinations. Any combination that takes him to 270 is
> enough. No need concentrating on the winning of Ohio (i.e. joining as per UN
> resolutions and union treaty). Other avenues can lead him to same results.
> Locus standi can be gotten using different means even without union treaty
> and without satisfying UN Resolutions 101, 102, and 103.
>
> Regards
>
> Tumasang
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 19:15:05 +0100
> Subject: Re: La Republique du Cameroun as trespasser in possession of
> Southern Cameroon's right to sue Nigeria (addition)
> From: njohl42@gmail.com
> To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
> CC: cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com; camnetwork@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> Dear Dr Tumasang
>
> I fear that I am not the wiser in these legal exchanges.
>
> The UN Charter which has established the ICJ bars any consideration by the
> ICJ concerning territory which any member state of the UN claims it has
> subsequently acquired without complying with the statutory modalities for
> joining. The reason for this is simply that any sovereign state is admitted
> a member of the UN with its territorial boundaries clearly defined at its
> independence, and any alteration of those boundaries is a matter for the UN
> to know and protect in case of dispute.
>
> Of course, any member state of the UN has locus to cite any other member
> state at the ICJ which is specially created to settle inter-state disputes.
> During the hearing, Nigeria which was in occupation in Bakassi was asked by
> the Court if Bakassi was part of the entity called Nigeria when Britain
> granted it independence on 1 Oct 1960. Nigeria replied in the Negative.
> Had the Court exercised the same degree of due deligence, and posed the same
> question to plaintiff Cameroun, it would have received the same reply, for
> Bakassi was not part of the Cameroun that was before the Court, when that
> country attained independence on 1 Jan 1960, even before Nigeria did.
>
> It would then have become obvious that Bakassi did not belong either
> to Nigeria or to the Cameroun that had sued, and the Court would have
> refused to entertain the matter because in the absence of a Union Treaty
> with Southern Cameroons where Bakassi is located, hearing the matter was in
> violation of the UN Charter Art. 102. The Judgment was that Bakassi is
> "Cameroonian," when in fact the Cameroun that sued Nigeria had never had
> Bakassi as part of its territory at independence and there has been no
> subsequent Treaty of Union between Republic of Cameroun with Southern
> Cameroons.
>
> Happily for Southern Cameroonians, Dr Kevin Ngwang Gumne and eleven other
> gallant Southern Cameroonians, for themselves and for the People of Southern
> Cameroons, sued Nigeria at its Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking a Court
> Order compelling Nigeria, by virtue of obligations assumed under the
> African Charter Art 20(3), to lend support to the People of Southern
> Cameroons who had not yet attained independence, and to take the question of
> their (SC) independence before the ICJ and or the UN, and indeed to any
> other international body, and to ensure deligent prosecution to finality.
> The end result of the litigation was that the learned Chief Judge of the
> Federal High Court in Abuja issued Orders that:
>
> "1. The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall institute a case before the
> International Court of Justice concerning the following, etc. etc. ....
>
> "2. The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall take any other measures as may be
> necessary to place the case of the Peoples of the geographical territory
> known as at 1st October 1960 as Southern Cameroons for self-determination,
> before the United Nations General Assembly and any other relevant
> International organizations."
>
> We are currently in the process of instructing eminent lawyers to enforce
> the judgment that was clearly in our favour, but we are handicapped by lack
> of resources to meet their professional fees and disbursements,
> currently estimated at circa 100 million f/cfa - a small prize to pay for
> independence. There must be at least 100 Southern Cameroonians both within
> and without the territory who could donate 1 million frs each to save our
> fatherland.
>
> There may be other options, but the above seems to be practical and doable
> in 2013.
>
> Best regards
> Mola.
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Chief,
>
> I have had the opportunity to read your contribution twice and though most
> of what you say is correct, it goes too much on the merits of the case. We
> are merely talking here about the right to sue under one pretext or
> another.
>
> For example, you said the legality of the occupation will be called in
> question. In international occupation law, the definition of occupation and
> the rights and obligation that come with it is not anchored on legality. An
> army forcefully taking control of a foreign territory cannot be claiming
> legality in most cases except perhaps in the few cases where there is a UN
> Resolution to invade. Occupation is an issue of de facto situation on the
> ground and not peripheral niceties of legality.
>
> If a neighbouring country decides to forcefully take over parts of West Bank
> or Gaza and Israel as the occupying power decided to bring a case in the ICJ
> on behalf of the Palestinian people, I would be surprised if the case is
> simply thrown out for lack of locus standi particularly considering Israel's
> historical connections or nexus and interest in the occupied territories,
> and also if it claims it is suing on behalf of the Palestinians who are not
> members of the UN at the moment.
>
> I sincerely think the issue of La Republique du Cameroun lacking locus
> standi to sue Nigeria in Bakassi is wishful thinking and we should forget
> about it. So many facts point to the existence of such locus standi. This
> should not be CONFUSED WITH THE MERIT OF THEIR CASE FOR OCCUPYING SOUTHERN
> CAMEROONS.
>
> Regards
>
> Tumasang
>
>
>
>
>
> From: tumasangm@hotmail.com
> To: cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com; ambasbay@googlegroups.com
> CC: camnetwork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: La Republique du Cameroun as trespasser in possession of
> Southern Cameroon's right to sue Nigeria
> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 23:55:34 +0000
>
>
> Dear Chief,
>
> greetings of the season. You are correct that the pleadings must state the
> basis on which the occupying power is suing. We were not talking of what La
> Republique did but what is theoretically possible. Despite fitting the
> description of an occupying power, La Republique du Cameroun will not like
> to plead in that manner hence will look for alternative approach but because
> the former is impossible, but because it is ambarassing to admit.
>
> It is an obligation of an occupying power to protect the property of the
> occupied territory. I think it would be ironical if one has the obligation
> to protect property then at the same time cannot sue a third party
> trespasser on the same property. What kind of protection would that be. Does
> it mean this particular obligation in International Occupation Law sanctions
> the use of force only as a means of protection without giving the occupying
> power the right to sue a third party trespasser on behalf of the occupied
> territory?.
>
> Chief, I think that if an occupying power sues on behalf of the occupied in
> the ICJ it would be accepted. In fact Southern Cameroon has been looking for
> a member state to take its case to the ICJ. If a member state without any
> serious nexus can take such a case, how more of an occupying power that is
> in possession and control?
>
> Chief, anyhow you look at it, La Republique can still find ways to have a
> locus standi to sue Nigeria on Bakassi. The case that it has no locus standi
> has never been convincingly made. It has obligations under international
> occupation law to fulfil, it has historical nexus and interest, it has UN
> resolutions talking about joining, it has a de facto joining on the ground,
> it has Southern Cameroonians in its parliament etc etc. Anyway I look at it,
> La Republique du Cameroun has a locus standi to sue Nigeria in Bakassi.
>
> Regards
>
> Tumasang
>
>
> The main point I wanted to make was that as occupying power or as
> trespasser, you have certain obligations and rights that the law
> recognises.
>
>
>
>
>
> To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
> CC: cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com; camnetwork@yahoogroups.com
> From: Charto_us@yahoo.com
> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:28:03 -0800
> Subject: [cameroon_politics] RE: La Republique du Cameroun as trespasser in
> possession of Southern Cameroon's right to sue Nigeria
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The pleadings must disclose that the action is brought to protect the
> interest of the occupied territory and not to foster the objectives of the
> occupation.
> Furthermore, the occupation status of the occupation power must be pleaded.
> In order words it must plead that the matter was brought under the
> provisions of the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention. And
> that is where the real battle begins. The rationale for the occupation
> becomes an issue in the case. If the case is intended to foster a manifestly
> illegal objective like perpetuate the occupation, it will simply not stand.
> In the case at bar the colonial power violated the UN Charter ,
> preremptory norms of general international law and other rules of jus
> cogens and has since maintained and sustained its colonial rule by the use
> of force,and plundering the resources of the colonial territory. A case
> like this will not succeed. Crawford, Creation of States in International
> Law Second Edition P134. The argument of La Republique du Cameroun
> having the locus standi as an occupying power to sue exists purely for the
> limited purpose of determining jurisdiction and not neccessarily for
> determining state responsibility See article 2 of the UN charter, Can it in
> such circumstances purport to sue to protect the interest of the colonial,
> call it occupied territory? The answer, I suggest, is in the negative
> The matter in issue is predicated on what in international law is called
> state responsibility. State responsibility first and foremost imposes
> certain obligations on the occupying power to comply with certain
> international norms,and this includes its UN charter obligations. In other
> words, if the occupying power claims that the occupied territory has become
> part of its territory as a result of a treaty, it must in filing its action
> plead and prove that treaty. It is conceded that " the jurisdiction of a
> state may extend beyond its national territory, like the case at bar. It may
> not matter if the occupation is legal in international law or illegal. The
> European Court on Human Rights citing the ICJ has recognized that
> international law recognizes certain legal arrangements in such situations,
> the effects which can only be detrimental to the inhabitants of the
> territory . See Loizidou Vs Turkey, See also Advisory Opinion on the legal
> consequences for
> states of the continued presence of South West Africa in Namibia ( S.W
> Africa) notwithstanding security council resolution 276 (1970) ICJ Reports
> 1970 16 at 56 para.125. For similar reasons, the human rights obligations of
> the state illegally occupying foreign territories should extend to such
> territories under occupation; Any other solution would deprive the
> population under occupation from the protection of human rights
> instruments,for the sole reason of that being that the occupation is
> illegal under international law,which would be highly paradoxical. See
> International Human Rights Law Clivier De Schutter Cambridge 2010. What
> would be determinative for the existence of jurisdiction is effective
> control rather than formal existence of soveriegnty. See ICJ, Legal
> consequences of the construction of wall in the ocupied Palestine Territory,
> Advisory Opinion ( 9 July 2004 ICJ Reports 2004,136 Paras. 107-13. This
> position at law clearly is to
> protect the rights of the people of the occupied teritory under occupation
> from the occupying occupying power and other forces within the occupied
> territory.
> . Whether they afford a right to the occupying territory to perpetuate the
> occupation through legal action at the ICJ against third party occupying
> states or seeking to occupy is seriously in doubt. Indeed, it has first to
> put the legality of its occupation in issue. The cases of the former
> Yugoslavia at ICTY and at the ICJ have proved the difficulty in occupying
> territories using the mechanism of international courts to perpetuate their
> illegal occupation on the occupied territory.
> I think that in the conduct of the case Nigeria can validly plead and
> challenge the terms of the occupation. In this regard, Nigeria may plead
> and prove that rather than being an occupation power simpliciter, La
> Republique du Cameroun is laying claims to the territory
> arguing that Southern Cameroons became part of her territory because of a
> purported union which she can not prove to exist. For this reason, the two
> positions are not neccesarily inconsistent to the extent that an action no
> matter how framed will bring both arguments to the table. In each case, La
> Republique will have a significant legal hurdle o surmount.
> --- On Fri, 2/1/13, Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: La Republique du Cameroun as trespasser in possession of
> Southern Cameroon's right to sue Nigeria
> To: "ambasbay@googlegroups.com" <ambasbay@googlegroups.com>
> Cc: "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>,
> "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Friday, February 1, 2013, 4:06 PM
>
>
>
>
> Hi Mola,
>
> greetings of the season. You have been missing in action for sometime. In
> the conclusion of my write with above heading, I said "theoretically", La
> Republique can sue. On the Bakassi issue, it would not be mere common law
> that operates but international law and various other considerations come in
> place.
>
> I refer you to the below article I wrote sometime ago. It is a bit long but
> it gives you La Republique du Cameroun's status in Southern Cameroons i.e.
> an occupying power and the obligations of an occupying power to enter
> international agreements or sign treaties on behalf of the occupied.
>
> Of note is that Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) gave the
> occupying power a very broad grant of authority over an occupied territory.
> An interventionist approach to the affairs of the occupied territory is now
> generally considered. Article 43 of The Hague Regulations (THR) is now
> generally interpreted broadly to allow the occupying power to fulfil its
> duties under occupation law, such as the administration of the occupied
> territory for the benefit of the local population, security etc.
>
> It is my opinion that following International Occupation law, and mindful of
> the obligations placed on the occupying power by Article 64 of the fourth
> Geneva Convention and Article 43 of the Hague Regulation, to administer an
> occupied territory, the occupying power has the locus standing to sue on
> behalf of the occupied a trespasser on the territory it is administering.
>
> La Republique du Cameroun as a member of the United Nation and as occupying
> power in Southern Cameroon, can sue Nigeria in the ICJ notwithstanding the
> lack of a union treaty. Locus standi is a matter of interest and not a
> matter of the merits of one's case. La Republique du Cameroun has enough
> interest in Bakassi either as a purported part of its territory (weak case
> without union treaty deposited in the UN) or as an occupying power in
> possession in Southern Cameroons. The weakness of its case not withstanding,
> the interest is enough to allow it to sue at the ICJ.
>
> Regards
>
> Tumasang.
>
> (Below is the article referred to)
>
>
> INTRODUCTION
>
> Southern Cameroons is a former UN trust territory that was supposed to be
> independent but today there is no modicum of self-government in the
> territory. The contiguous state of La Republique to Cameroon is in absolute
> control of the territory and entering into international agreements with
> third parties such as Herakle Farms and the Roundtree Agreement with
> Nigeria.
>
> It is germane to look at the status of Southern Cameroons in International
> Law and the legality of various actions of La Republique du Cameroun in the
> territory. This has been addressed by formulating various issues and trying
> to find an answer to them.
>
> 1) CAN LA REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN CLAIM TITLE TO ANY LAND IN SOUTHERN
> CAMEROONS WITHOUT THE ISSUE OF SOVEREIGNTY OVER SOUTHERN CAMEROON BEING
> RESOLVED?
>
> The land law operating in Southern Cameroons and Nigeria is generally
> derived from Common law, Statute and customary law. As per the Municipal
> law, there are generally five ways in which ownership/title to land may be
> proved. They are:
>
>
> 1. Proof of traditional evidence;
> 2. Proof of acts of ownership, acts by persons claiming the land such as
> selling, leasing, renting out all or part of the land, or farming on it or
> otherwise utilizing the land beneficially, such acts of ownership extending
> over a sufficient length of time and numerous and positive enough to warrant
> the inference that he is the true owner;
> 3. Proof by production of document of title which must be authenticated;
> 4. Proof of ownership by acts of long possession and enjoyment in respect of
> the land to which
> the acts are done;
> 5. Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land, circumstances
> rendering it probable that
> the owner of such connected or adjacent land would in addition be the owner
> of the land in dispute, may rank also as means of proving ownership of the
> land in dispute.
>
> (i) Amajideogu v. Ononaku (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.78) p.616;
> (ii) Piazo v. Tenalo (1976) 12 SC p. 31;
> (iii) Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) 9 - 10 SC p.224;
> (iv) Omoregie v. Idugiemwanye (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.5) p.41.
>
> Summary
> It therefore follows that La Republique du Cameroun as a legal entity,
> whether a foreign or domestic entity, whether in armed occupation or not of
> Southern Cameroon, if they can use one of the above methods to proof title
> to any land in Southern Cameroon such as the Herakle Farm lands, then their
> title is valid and hence La Republique du Cameroun can assign, convey or
> deal with the titled land as they deem fit. If La Republique du Cameroun can
> show that they have acquired title to the Herakle farm lands under municipal
> laws, they can validly give a lease to Herakle farms for 60 years or other
> term of years even if the sovereignty issue of Southern Cameroons has not
> been settled.
>
> In terms of Municipal law, the question should not be whether La Republique
> du Cameroun can validly acquire the Herakle farm land which empowers them to
> assign it to Herakle farms. The question should be whether La Republique du
> Cameroun has acquired the title to the lands before giving a lease of 60
> years to Herakle farms. This question is a factual issue and only the facts
> on the ground can tell the actual story.
>
> CAN HERAKLE FARMS TAKE ACTION ON THE HERAKLE FARM LANDS WITHOUT CONSIDERING
> THE INTEREST OF NDIAN PEOPLE?.
>
> Even if La Republique du Cameroun has acquired tile on the Herakle farm
> lands, it does not mean that this title is "absolute" or totally unfettered.
> The indigenous people might still have various interests and rights on the
> land that has to be protected. In International law as concerns indigenous
> peoples, their rights are protected in the "United Nations Declaration on
> the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I draw attention to the following Articles
> of the above Declaration that deal with Indigenous Peoples such as the Ndian
> people and their rights:
>
> Article 8 (1): Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be
> subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
>
> Article 10: Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their
> lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior
> and informed consent of the indigenous people concerned and after agreement
> on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option to
> return.
>
> Article 17 (1): Indigenous individuals and peoples have the right to enjoy
> fully all rights established under applicable international and domestic
> labour laws.
>
> Article 17 (2): States shall in consultation and cooperation with indigenous
> peoples take specific measures to protect indigenous children from economic
> exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or
> to interfere with the child's education.........
>
> Article 26(1): Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories
> and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise
> used or acquired.
>
> Article 26 (2): Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and
> control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of
> traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as
> those which they have otherwise acquired.
>
> Article 26 (3): States shall give legal recognition and protection to these
> lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with
> due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the
> indigenous peoples concerned.
>
> Article 29 (1): Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and
> protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or
> territories and resources. States shall establish and implement assistance
> programs for indigenous peoples for such conservation and protection,
> without discrimination.
>
> Article 32: Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop
> priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or
> territories and other resources.
>
> Summary
> It therefore follows that Herakle farms cannot take any actions on the lands
> without consulting or taking the interest of the indigenous people of Ndian
> into consideration. Any such action might be a breach of International law.
>
> AS PER INTERNATIONAL LAW IS SOUTHERN CAMEROON OCCUPIED BY LA REPUBLIQUE DU
> CAMEROUN?
>
> It is germane to first consider if Southern Cameroon is occupied by the
> Contiguous state of La Republique du Cameroun. Is it concubinage or
> occupation?. Can concubinage be occupation at the same time?. How does
> International Law define Occupation and does it apply in the case of
> Southern Cameroon?. Is it correct to label La Republique du Cameroun as an
> "occupier of Southern Cameroon" or is it a matter of just tarnishing its
> image?.
>
> The only treaty definition of occupation is that of Articles 42 and 43 of
> the Hague Regulations. The Fourth Geneva Convention does not contain a
> definition of its own.
>
> In accordance with Article 42 of the Hague Convention, a territory is
> considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the
> hostile army. The BIRs and Gendarmes in Southern Cameroons who are mainly
> made up of citizens of La Republique du Cameroun appears to perfectly fit
> the description of a "hostile army" despite the fact that one or two
> Southern Cameroonians are dotted sparsely within its ranks.
>
> The French version of Articles 42 and 43 clearly captures the essence of
> occupation.
>
> Article 42.
> Un territoire est considéré comme occupé lorsqu'il se trouve placé de fait
> sous l'autorité de l'armée ennemie. (…)
>
> Article 43.
> L'autorité de pouvoir légal ayant passé de fait entre les mains de
> l'occupant …
>
> The above clearly shows that occupation is not about legal niceties of
> "joining or non joining" as per UN Resolution 1601. The power of the
> occupying power or state is a matter of de facto capability, not a legal
> authority. The reality on the ground is more important and the legal
> paperwork to decide if a state is under occupation or not.
>
> For there to be occupation, two criteria must be satisfied:
>
>
> The former government has been rendered incapable of publicly exercising its
> authority in that area;
> The occupying power is in a position to substitute its own authority for
> that of the former government."[1]
>
> In terms of Southern Cameroons, the former government was dissolved by
> Ahidjo hence rendering it incapable of publicly exercising its authority in
> the territory by virtue of dissolution. Secondly, La Republique du Cameroun
> has substituted its own authority for that of the former government of
> Southern Cameroons by appointing, Governors, District Officers, Government
> Delegates etc. who are mostly citizens of La Republic du Cameroon to
> exercise authority over the territory of Southern Cameroons.
>
> Does lack of force stop classification as occupied territory?
>
> There have been many occupations in history. Some by force and others
> peacefully either due to consent or due to fear of overwhelming force.
> Czechoslovakia was invaded and occupied without military resistance and
> before the outbreak of war, not as a consequence of war. On the other hand,
> Denmark, was invaded and occupied in a war period but did put up only de
> minimis military resistance to the invasion.
>
> The above shows that Southern Cameroons can still be classified as an
> occupied territory even if there was no military resistance at the onset of
> occupation by La Republique du Cameroon.
>
> Summary
> Based on the above, the legal position is that Southern Cameroon is under
> occupation by La Republique du Cameroon despite the fact that there was no
> military resistance at the onset of the occupation.
>
> IF LA REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN IS THE OCCUPYING POWER IN SOUTHERN CAMEROON,
> DOES IT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO ENTER INTERNATIONAL TREATIES OR
> INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS SUCH AS THE HERAKLE FARM AGREEMENT OR THE GREENTREE
> AGREEMENT?
>
> Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) gave the occupying power a
> very broad grant of authority over an occupied territory. An interventionist
> approach to the affairs of the occupied territory is now generally
> considered. Article 43 of The Hague Regulations (THR) is now generally
> interpreted broadly to allow the occupying power to fulfill its duties under
> occupation law, such as the administration of the occupied territory for the
> benefit of the local population, security etc.
>
> Also, an interventionist approach might be allowed in international law due
> to the doctrine of necessity, including military, legal and material
> necessity. Despite the interventionist approach being allowed, the occupying
> power has limited ability to enter in treaties on behalf of the occupied
> territory. In theWimbledon case[2]at the Permanent Court of International
> Justice, it was held that "the conclusion of treaties was precisely one of
> the attributes of sovereignty". By virtue of the fact that the occupying
> power had no sovereign title over the occupied territory, it follows from
> this jurisprudence that the occupying power cannot enter into treaty
> relationships on behalf of the occupied territory.
>
> As per international law, whilst sovereign States can conclude treaties, the
> occupying power would need a norme habilitatrice (enabling rule) to do so on
> behalf of the Occupied State but international occupation law does not
> provide for such an enabling rule.
>
> Situations where an occupying power entered into a treaty on behalf of the
> occupied territory is far and few between but the situation of Switzerland
> appears to be a case in point. A document from its Foreign Affairs states:
>
> "L'Accord entre la Suisse et l'Irak sur la garantie des risques a
> l'exportation a été
> approuvé par le Conseil fédéral. Dans ce contexte, la question se pose de
> savoir si l'Autorité provisoire de la coalition est bien compétente pour
> conclure, au nom
> de l'Irak, des accords internationaux. En droit international, le principe
> est qu'un État occupantdispose du pouvoir légal dans le pays qu'il occupe
> (article 43 de la Convention de La Haye de 1907). Cela signifie en
> particulier que la puissance occupante peut promulguer des lois ou conclure
> des accords internationaux au nom de l'État occupé".
>
> It is submitted that this cannot be used as a justification for the occupier
> entering into treaties on behalf of the occupied. However, if the treaty is
> necessary for the administration of the occupied territory, the occupier
> might be justified in signing the treaty. The occupied territory could not
> be administered in a vacuum and without any international connections and in
> cases of long occupation, the need for the occupier to sign treaties might
> be justified in International Occupation Law.
>
> In the case of Southern Cameroons, taking cognizance of the Roundtree
> agreement, mindful of the border demarcation between Southern Cameroons and
> Nigeria, at the end of it, would it be legal for La Republique to enter into
> a treaty with Nigeria in relation to the Southern Cameroons border?. My
> opinion is that considering the prolonged nature of the occupation so far
> and the need to administer Bakassi and other coastal area with a knowledge
> of the extend of the territorial and land boundaries involved, La Republique
> du Cameroun might be justified in International law in entering into a
> treaty with Nigeria on behalf of Southern Cameroons. The reason for entering
> the treaty is very important in order to determine its legality.
>
> International Agreements such as that with Herakle Farms for a 60 years
> lease of 70,000 hectares of highly sensitive land.
>
> Article 43 of the Hague regulations puts an obligation on the occupying
> power to maintain order and civil life. The key issue is meeting the
> obligations and not the procedure to meet them. In order to maintain civil
> life in an area, the occupying power might be obliged to enter into
> international agreements with third parties such as Herakle farms.
>
> The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
> during occupation recognizes the right to work, for instance, and this might
> require the occupying power to draw up and implement development strategies
> that would bind the occupied territory's economy for a long time although
> prima facie this might appear to be contrary to International Occupation Law
> which is inherently conservative and short term focused.
>
> According to the terms of the ICESCR, this essential minimum standard must
> include, in particular, adequate food, clothing and housing, as well as the
> continuous improvement of living conditions in the occupied territories. The
> ICESCR also recognized "the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the
> highest attainable standard of physical and mental health". These
> obligations on the occupying power might force an occupier like La
> Republique du Cameroun to enter into international agreements with a third
> party such as Herakle farms.
>
> Transformative occupation is an operation whose main objective is to
> overhaul the institutional and political structures of the occupied
> territory. There is no basis in International Occupation law for such
> occupation since the occupier has not acquired any sovereign rights over the
> occupied territory, hence it would not be entitled to bring about changes in
> the occupied territory or to undertake reforms that could not be reversed by
> the legitimate government once the occupation was over.
>
> If Herakle Farms are allowed to go ahead, and in the event that the
> occupation of Southern Cameroons ends, it would be impossible to replace the
> 70,000 hectares of cleared forest hence the transaction is part of
> Transformational Occupation which has no justification and illegal under
> International Occupation Law.
>
> Conclusion
>
> Even without the sovereignty issue of Southern Cameroon resolved, La
> Republique du Cameroon as any other legal entity that can sue and be sued
> can claim title to various lands in Sothern Cameroons provided they can use
> one of the five acceptable ways of proving title. If they prove title to any
> land such as the Herakle Farm land, they can assign, convey or dispose of it
> to whoever as they deem fit.
>
> As per International Occupation Law, Southern Cameroons qualifies to be
> classed as an "Occupied Territory".
>
> If Herakle Farms takes actions on Ndian lands without considering the
> interest of the indigenous people, then they are breaking international law
> as it concerns indigenous people.
>
> Even as an occupying power in Southern Cameroons, in fulfillment of their
> obligations under Article 43 of the Hague Regulations as occupying power, La
> Republique can sign International Agreements on behalf of Southern Cameroons
> with Herakle Farms and if necessary for the proper administration of
> Southern Cameroons and considering the long nature of the occupation, can in
> some rare situations sign International Treaties on behalf of Southern
> Cameroons.
>
> Considering the scale of the Herakle Farms project, and considering the
> irreversibility of the clearing of the forest, the transaction can be
> considered as part of "Transformative Occupation" which is not justified and
> illegal in International Occupation Law. Based on this consideration, the
> whole Herakle Farm project might be illegal in International Occupation
> law.
>
>
>
>
> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 20:41:51 +0100
> Subject: Re: La Republique du Cameroun as trespasser in possession of
> Southern Cameroon's right to sue Nigeria
> From: njohl42@gmail.com
> To: ambasbay@googlegroups.com
> CC: cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com; camnetwork@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> Dear Dr Tumasang
>
> I have read with great interest your opinion that La Republique du Cameroun,
> even as trespasser over Southern Cameroons territory, could validly sue
> Nigeria in court for intrusion into Bakassi which is located in Southern
> Cameroons which is currently under illegal occupation by La Republique du
> Cameroun.
>
> That may well be so if the two trespassers are located within the same
> jurisdiction, whereupon the Court will then have to determine which of the
> two trespassers has prior occupational rights.
>
> In the instant case however, the ICJ is a special international Court
> established under the UN Charter, specifically to try disputes between any
> two member states of the UN. The Charter provides in Art. 102 the joining
> procedure to be followed if any member state of the UN (as La Republique du
> Cameroun was when it commenced litigation against Nigeria), wishes to join
> another territory. The Article provides that the two parties contemplating
> a Union should execute a written and signed Agreement embodying the terms of
> the contemplated union, and file a copy of the Agreement at the UN
> Secretariat for publication concerning the new boundaries of the new state.
> Sub-section 2 of the same Article states that failure to comply with the
> statutory requirements of sub-section (1), renders the Agreement invalid,
> and such an Agreement cannot be cited before any of the six organs of the
> United Nations, one of such organs being the International Court of
> Justice.
>
> I am inclined to the view that as LRC which graduated to independence on 1
> Jan 1960 with clearly defined international boundaries, applied and was
> admitted a member of the UN on 20 September 1960, it became bound by the
> provisions of the Charter, particularly Art. 102. The exercise of sovereign
> authority over the territory of Southern Cameroons is a blatant act of
> imperial annexation of Southern Cameroons by LRC. The so-called "union"
> between LRC and Southern Cameroons, without a signed Treaty of Union, duly
> filed at the Secretariat of the UN so that it could be publicly verifiable,
> violates the UN Charter and is an unconstitutional act and so cannot be
> cited before the ICJ which is one of the six UN organs. My view therefore
> is that LRC lacked the capacity to take the Bakassi dispute to the ICJ by
> not disclosing the notorious fact that subsequent to its independence on 1
> Jan 1960 when its territorial boundaries became immutable, and it was
> admitted a member of the UN on 20 Sept 1960, there has been no Treaty of
> Union with Southern Cameroons to enable LRC to speak before the ICJ as if
> Southern Cameroons was an integral part of its territory. LRC therefore
> secured judgment under fraudulent misrepresentation by hiding from the Court
> the notorious truth that it came before the ICJ as the country which had
> attained independence on 1 Jan 1960 as La Republique du Cameroun which did
> not include Southern Cameroons as part of the state which was subsequnetly
> admitted into the UN on 20 Sept 1960.
>
> I would welcome your learned observation as to whether LRC was competent to
> sue Nigeria concerning the territory of Bakassi which is indisputably
> located in Southern Cameroons, in the absence of a signed Treaty of Union
> with Southern Cameroons, duly filed at the UN Secretariat. So to do would
> be using a subsidiary organ of the UN (i.e. the ICJ) to violate a provision
> of the governing UN Charter.
>
> Accept my most humble regards
>
> Mola
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Tumasang Martin <tumasangm@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Sometime ago, I tried to convince my brother Louis that theoretically, La
> Republique du Cameroun even as a Trespasser in Southern Cameroons, since
> they are in possession and full control of the territory, as trespasser in
> possession, they have the legal right to sue a third party like Nigeria
> against trespass on the land unless Nigeria can show they have better rights
> than La Republique du Cameroon or they can show evidence that they are a
> trespasser in possession and not La Republique du Cameroon.
>
> Both parties cannot sue Southern Cameroons for trespass since we are the
> bonafide title owners of the land. I could not convince Louis and said we
> should agree to disagree until when I can get a case that clearly states the
> issue. I tried to avoid British or American cases and looked for local
> Cameroonian or Nigeria cases since the local/customary/municipal laws are
> similar. I hope the below case/cases will put the outstanding issue between
> me and him to rest. i.e. that a trespasser to land who is in possession can
> sue another trespasser who comes to disturb his possession and enjoyment of
> the trespassed land. It is like a squatter or trespasser suing someone
> (subsequent potential squatter or trespasser not the owner) who comes to
> disturb him. As reprehensible as this might sound, it is the law.
>
> In Omotayo v. Co-operative Supply Association (2011) Vol. 202 LRCN , the
> judge said
>
> "Where a plaintiff has failed to prove title to land, it may be necessary to
> consider evidence of possession in order to ascertain whether he is in any
> event entitled to damages and injunction claimed for trespass, if it is
> shown that he was in possession which was disturbed. This is on the basis
> that trespass is essentially an issue of who is in possession. A person who
> is in possession of land even as a trespasser can sue another who thereafter
> comes upon the land unless that other is the owner or shows some title which
> gives him a better right to be on the land. There is cogent evidence that
> the respondent was in possession of the land in dispute and therefore can
> sue without asking for declaration".
>
> Other cases that support the above point are as follows:
>
> (i) Oluwi v. Eniola (1967) NMLR 339;
>
> (ii) Kareem v. Ogunde (1972) 1 ALL NLR (Pt.1) 73;
>
> (iii) Amakor v. Obiefuna (1974) 1 ALL NLR 119;
>
> (iv) Oduola v. Nabhan (1981) 5 SC 197;
>
> (v) Aromire v. Awoyemi (1972) 2 SC 57; (1972) 1
>
> All NLR (Pt.1) 101.
>
> (vi) Adesanya v. Otueh (1993) 1 SCNLR pg. 77;
>
> (vii) Jodi v. Salami (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt 458) 385;
>
> (viii) Ekpo v. Uyo (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.26) pg.63.
>
> Conclusion
>
> Theoretically, La Republique du Cameroun as trespasser in possession in
> Southern Cameroons can sue a third party trespasser like Nigeria who comes
> later and tries to disturb his quiet enjoyment of the trespassed land such
> as exploitation of its mineral and oil and gas resources. Its hands are tied
> only in relation to Southern Cameroons people and/or government.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Tumasang
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ambasbay" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>


--
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist-OutCome Mapper
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Telephone +237 73 42 71 27

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.