SOUTHERN CAMEROONS VS LA REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN AT THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ)

 

SOUTHERN CAMEROONS VS LA REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN AT THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ)

Martin Tumasang

Barrister at law, Advocate/Notary Public/Solicitor, International Arbitrator, Chartered Valuation Surveyor, Principal Quantity Surveyor, Claims Quantum Consultant.

Barrister [Supreme Court of England and Wales, Inner Temple London], Solicitor/Advocate/Notary Public [Supreme Court (Cameroon], MRICS [Chartered Surveyor, Member of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, London], MCIArb [Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators,London], RRVal (Registered Valuer, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, London], ABIFM [Associate of the British Institution of Facilities Management, UK], [Registered Arbitrator of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre, DIAC, Dubai], Master class trained: Delay and Disruption Claims, [Abu Dhabi UAE], Planning/Scheduling trained, [Chicago Training and Consultancy, Abu Dhabi, UAE], FIDIC Silver book trained [FIDIC Qatar], Doctor of Philosophy [PhD Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield], Master of Laws (Distinction) [LLM (Distinction) Professional Legal Practice, BPP Law School, BPP University College London], Master of Laws [LLM with merit Oil and Gas Law, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen], Master of Science [MSc Construction Law and Dispute Resolution, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds], Master of Science [MSc Property Valuation & Management, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield], Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) [BPP Law School, BPP University College London], Post Graduate Diploma [PGDip Property Valuation & Management, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield], Graduate Diploma Legal Studies (GDL/CPE) [University of Hertfordshire, London], Bachelor of Science [BSc (Hons), 2nd Upper, Quantity Surveying, OAU (University of Ife), Osun State] 

Dear All,

for over 25 years we have been struggling to get an international forum to sue La Republique du Cameroun. Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) submitted an interpleader in the Bakassi case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) between Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria but it was thrown out because Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) has no standing to be heard (not being a member of the UNO). Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) via SCAPO (Ngumne et al) has sued La Republique du Cameroun at the African Commission for Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR) but its judgments appear not to be binding and La Republique du Cameroun has refused to even carry out the Dialogue recommended. Others have tried the UNHCR to sue La Republique du Cameroun there but again the decisions of the UNHCR has little teeth.

I have always maintained that legally there must be a way that Southern Cameroons can take La Republique du Cameroun to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This can be done by Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) suing La Republique du Cameroun directly (if possible) or getting a friendly country to crystallize a dispute with L a Republique du Cameroun on the Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) issue and sue on Southern Cameroons behalf. I have always preferred the direct suing option but the lack of standing at the ICJ appeared for over 25 years as an insurmountable stumbling block.

To solve the lack of standing issue, I decided to study past judgments of the ICJ to see if I could find a precedent where a country like Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) that is not a member of the UN was granted access to the court. I could not find a proper precedent. I then decided to change the methodology of solving the problem. instead of going after cases to look for a precedent, I opined that it might be more viable to study all UN resolutions since the 1945 war to see if I can find something that Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) can use to get access to the ICJ. After much research stating from the most recent resolutions and working backwards, I finally found UN Resolution 9 (1946) adopted on 15 October 1946 that I thought can be our golden loophole to get in front of the ICJ against La Republique du Cameroun. I "christianed" this UN Resolution 9 (1946) loophole the Tumasang Worm Hole (TWH). 

Many people did not believe me when I kept talking of this UN Resolution 9 (1946) and that it can give Southern Cameroons the access we need to get to the ICJ. For 25 years we have been looking for such a loop hole and I was lucky to discover it during my research. I have decided to reproduce below the whole of UN Resolution 9 (1946) for all to see and appreciate its importance to Southern Cameroons.

It is now left for SCACUF to deposit a Declaration (general or specific declaration) at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) registry stating that Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) accepts the jurisdiction of the court, and that we solemnly declare that we will in good faith implement the decisions of the court, and perhaps a summary statement explaining why Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) is a STATE in international law albeit not a member of the UNO yet (treaty based boundaries, former trust territory, independence granted (UN resolution 1608), member of UNPO, existence of Executive Council (SCACUF), previous applications to join the UNO, previous application to joint Telecommunication Union, etc.). After that, Southern Cameroons can now sue La Republique du Cameroon at the ICJ by getting access as a non state party (not member of the UN) that has become a party to the statute of the ICJ in accordance with Article 93, paragraph 2, Article 35, paragraph 2 of the Statute of the Court, and as provided for by UN Resolution 9 (1946) of 15 October 1946.

Below is UN Resolution 9 (1946) in full.

RESOLUTION 9 (1946) 
OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL 
OF THE UNITED NATIONS, 
15 OCTOBER 1946

ADMISSION OF STATES NOT PARTIES 
TO THE STATUTE OF THE COURT

The Security Council,

In virtue of the powers conferred upon it by Article 35, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and subject to the provisions of that Article,

Resolves that :

1. The International Court of Justice shall be open to a State which is not a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, upon the following condition, namely, that such State shall previously have deposited with the Registrar of the Court a declaration by which it accepts the jurisdiction of the Court, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and with the terms and subject to the conditions of the Statute and Rules of the Court, and undertakes to comply in good faith with the decision or decisions of the Court and to accept all the obligations of a Member of the United Nations under Article 94 of the Charter;

2. Such declaration may be either particular or general. A particular declaration is one accepting the jurisdiction of the Court in respect only of a particular dispute or disputes which have already arisen. A general declaration is one accepting the jurisdiction generally in respect of all disputes or of a particular class or classes of disputes which have already arisen or which may arise in the future. A State, in making such a general declaration, may, in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, recognize as compulsory, ipso facto and without special agreement the jurisdiction of the Court, provided, however, that such acceptance may not, without explicit agreement, be relied upon vis-à-vis States parties to the Statute which have made the declaration in conformity with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice;

3. The original declarations made under the terms of this resolution shall be kept in the custody of the Registrar of the Court, in accordance with the practice of the Court. Certified true copies thereof shall be transmitted, in accordance with the practice of the Court, to all States parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and to such other States as shall have deposited a declaration under the terms of this resolution, and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations;

4. The Security Council reserves the right to rescind or amend this resolution by a resolution which shall be communicated to the Court, and on the receipt of such communication and to the extent determined by the new resolution, existing declarations shall cease to be effective except in regard to disputes which are already before the Court;

5. All questions as to the validity or the effect of a declaration made under the terms of this resolution shall be decided by the Court.