Abuja, said Nigeria's fresh initiative was an afterthought. The
officials warned that the latest move by the Federal Government could
jeopardise cordial relations between Nigeria and its South-Eastern
neighbour.
The diplomats at the embassy who pleaded not to have their names
mentioned because of the sensitive nature of the case said, "We feel
sorry for Nigeria because it is chasing shadows; this matter is
capable of having a negative impact on the positive image it has
earned for itself in the eyes of the international community.
"Nigeria has earned for itself an image of a respecter of the rule of
law and promoter of peace on the continent and beyond; all of this
happened after the Green Tree Agreement was signed. "Why now? (the
u-turn) This is clearly an afterthought which will not favour your
country. I just think some smart lawyers and their friends in
government just want to make money out of the system."
The officials explained that Nigeria and Cameroon share an uncommon
bond that had served both nations well in "very trying times." They
added that it was because of this special bond that "Citizens of our
two countries do not require a visa to visit one another even though
Cameroon is not a member of Economic Community of West African
States."
The High Commissioner, Mr. Salaheddine Abbas-Ibrahima, was however,
reluctant to talk to our correspondent as he said he needed to get
clearance from his home government. He said, "I suggest you write down
your questions and bring them on Monday. I will send it to
headquarters for an appropriate response."
At the Nigerian Foreign Affairs Ministry, a highly-placed diplomat who
pleaded anonymity because he was not authorised to speak on the metter
said that the country's long wait before deciding to appeal was
unlikely to work in its favour. "You know, even the lawyers know what
an afterthought means. The mistake has been made and I am afraid
Nigeria may have to live with it.
"Nigeria's chances of winning this appeal are slim if they exist.
Worse still, win or lose, the relationship with Cameroon is not likely
to remain the same again. Nigeria started off on the wrong footing; it
ought not to have gone to court in the first place. "Britain and
Argentina are still feuding over the Falklands, China, Japan, the
Philippines and others still have issues over the South China Sea.
"Why were former leaders and our legal luminaries so much in a hurry
to give away Nigeria's patrimony? "What about the people who are
predominantly Nigerians? Why was a plebiscite or a referendum not held
for the people to choose where they wanted to be as was done for the
Southern Cameroons earlier?" Some Senior Advocates of Nigeria had
earlier said that Nigeria's chances of repossessing Bakassi was "very
narrow."
A professor of law, Itse Sagay, who faulted the court's judgment for
excluding the interests of the people in the community, however
described the review plan as a fallacy, saying the sponsors of the
plan did not understand the associated factors. He said, "The judgment
of the ICJ was a faulty one because most international laws respect
the self-government right of the people. By applying the international
law, the most superior factor is to allow the people to vote and
determine where (which country) they want to belong.
"As it is now, the case appears incurable. You cannot appeal the
judgment; you can only review it if there is a new fact that was not
known to the court at the time of the judgment. This can only be done
within six months and this is 10 years after. "The situation is
miserable and hopelessly difficult; it is technically impossible."
Similarly, Yusuf Ali, SAN, said only the presentation of new facts and
circumstances could enable the government make headway in the process.
He added that the duration of the review could not be determined, as
it was a judicial process. He said, "Under the convention that
established the ICJ, its judgments cannot be appealed but can only be
reviewed. However, new facts and circumstances that rose up during and
after the judgment was delivered, which are unknown to the court, may
be presented before it for a review.
"The case would not be treated from the beginning all-over again but
from the judgment level. However, it remains a judicial matter, its
duration in the court may not be determinable." Meanwhile, the Cross
River State Government said the FG's new stance was a welcome
development. The state's Commissioner for Information, Mr. Akin
Ricketts, said any move that could reverse the situation would be
encouraged by the state government.
"Any step taken, no matter how little, to address the ceding of
Bakassi is a welcome development. As it stands, the Federal Government
has decided to go on appeal, it is a good move and we will encourage
it. "Bakassi has always been part of us and their plight is ours. We
never voluntarily ceded a part of us to Cameroon. I do not want to
believe that President Goodluck Jonathan would be part of any kind of
deceit on this matter. I believe he meant what he said."
A former Special Adviser to President Olusegun Obasanjo on National
Assembly Matters, Senator Florence Ita-Giwa, also stated that although
the idea of an appeal was a good one, the decision of the FG might be
coming rather late. Ita-Giwa said, "I do not know how this latest
position of government will work because of our way of doing things at
the last minute. It is rather too late in the day but if it will work,
it will be good. I have not moved away from my position which is
proper resettlement of my people in Dayspring. My people will be happy
if the Federal Government looks into their needs.
"An earlier plebiscite would have solved these problems. My people
would have been asked where they wanted to belong to 11 years ago. I
am appealing that the position of my people should not be
politicised." A former chairman of Bakassi Local Government Area, Mr.
Bassey Edet, however, said the new posture on the matter was just to
appease stakeholders and members of the National Assembly that had
passed a resolution on the issue.
He said, "I do not want to discuss the issue of appeal because I am
convinced that the Federal Government will not appeal, but if they do,
it is a welcome development. We believe if they wanted to appeal, they
would have done that long ago. "If that was their position, President
Goodluck Jonathan would not have gone to the United Nations General
Assembly to say something to the contrary. We do not really believe
the Federal Government. They are trying to be diplomatic over the
National Assembly resolution."
The Federal Government had in 2006 signed an international treaty,
known as the Green Tree Agreement, with Cameroon to formally cede the
territory to the latter in compliance with the ICJ judgment without
the approval of the National Assembly. Lawmakers however, argued that
the decision of the government was in breach of Section 12 of the 1999
Constitution, which required that such treaties must be ratified by
the legislature to have the force of law in Nigeria.
The Senate had last week resolved that Nigeria should appeal the ICJ
judgment. Based on this resolution, President Goodluck Jonathan last
Thursday set up a panel to consider the possibility of an appeal. The
Senate Leader, Victor Ndoma-Egba, explained that every agreement
entered into by Nigeria must be ratified by the Senate for it to take
effect. This, he said, was not done in the case of the ICJ judgment.
He said, "What was forwarded to the 6th Senate was the Green Tree
Agreement for ratification. To the best of my knowledge, that
agreement has not been ratified till date. "As far as the Constitution
is concerned, the treaty is an incomplete Act."
No comments:
Post a Comment