 |
| Mohammed Bello Adoke |
It will be recalled that on 10th
October 2002, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered judgment in
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, which covers about
2000 kilometres extending from Lake Chad to the Sea. It will also be recalled
that before the judgment was delivered, President Olusegun Obasanjo, GCFR of
Nigeria and President Paul Biya of the Republic of Cameroon gave their respective undertaking to the
international community to abide by the judgment of the Court.
The commitment and undertakings
given by both Heads of Government were confirmed by the establishment of the
Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission (CNMC) pursuant to the Joint Communiqué
adopted at a Summit Meeting on 15 November 2002 in Geneva. The CNMC is composed of the representatives of Cameroon, Nigeria and the United Nations and is chaired by the Special Representative of
the United Nations Secretary General for West Africa.
The CNMC has held 29 Sessions since
its inception and has peacefully, amicably and successfully: (a)brought Cameroon and Nigeria back to negotiation table; (b) supervised the handing over of 33 ceded villages to Cameroon and 1 to
Nigeria in December, 2003 and received 3 settlements and territory in Adamawa
and Borno States Sectors from Cameroon in 2004; (c)initiated the Enugu-Abakiliki-Mamfe-Mutengene Road project as part of the
confidence building measures between the two countries; (d)supervised peaceful withdrawal of Civil Administration, Military and Police
Forces and transfer of authority in the Bakassi Peninsula by Nigeria to
Cameroon in 2008 in line with the modalities contained in the Greentree
Agreement signed by Cameroon and Nigeria in 2006 which the United Nations, Germany,
USA, France, UK and Northern Ireland witnessed; and (e)commenced the emplacement of boundary beacons/pillars along the land
boundary and initiated final mapping of the whole stretch of the boundary. It
is instructive to note that about 1800 kilometres of the boundary have so far
been assessed for Pillar Emplacement leaving only about 220 km to complete the
assessment of the entire boundary.
The Green tree Agreement was also
signed by H. E. Paul Biya, and President President Olusegun Obasanjo GCFR, on
12 June, 2006, in Long Island, Greentree, New York, USA; reaffirming their
willingness to peacefully implement the judgment of the ICJ. The Agreement
contains the modalities for withdrawal and transfer of authority in the Bakassi
Peninsula by Nigeria to Cameroon in pursuance of the ICJ Judgment. The Follow-Up
Committee comprising representatives of Nigeria and Cameroon was established to
monitor the implementation of the Agreement and settle any dispute regarding
the interpretation and implementation of the Agreement. Nigeria handed over the
Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon in 2008.
The Statute of the International
Court of Justice provides that the Judgment of the Court is final and without
appeal. However, following the Resolutions of both Houses of the National
Assembly calling on the Executive to take steps to apply for a review of the
judgment, His Excellency, President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, GCFR called a
Stakeholders meeting comprising the leadership of the National Assembly, the
Governors of Akwa Ibom and Cross River States, the Members of the National
Assembly from both States, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation,
the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, the
Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs and Director General, National Boundary
Commission to review the situation.
The Stakeholders Meeting after due
deliberations constituted a Committee comprising of the Secretary to the
Government of the Federation, the Attorney General of the Federation, the
Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs, Director General, National Boundary
Commission and Members of the National Assembly namely: Senator Victor Ndoma
Egba, SAN, CON, Hon. Dr. Ali Ahmed and Hon Nnena Ukaje to examine all the
issues in contention and available options for Nigeria including, but not limited to the application for review of the ICJ Judgment, appropriate political and diplomatic solutions.
issues in contention and available options for Nigeria including, but not limited to the application for review of the ICJ Judgment, appropriate political and diplomatic solutions.
Although the judgment of the ICJ is
final and not subject to appeal, the ICJ Statute provides for circumstances
under which its judgment can be reviewed. The relevant provisions are: (a)Article 61 (1) which provides that the Court can review its judgment upon
the discovery of some fact 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 due not to
negligence; (b)Article 61 (4) which stipulates that application for revision must be made
at least within six months of the discovery of the new fact, and (c)Article 61(5), which provide that no application for revision may be made
after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment.
The implication of the above
provisions of the ICJ Statute is that a case for revision of the judgment of
the court can only be successful if: (a)the application for revision is based on the discovery of a new fact;
(b)the fact must have existed prior to the delivery of the judgment; (c)the newly discovered fact must be of a decisive nature; and (d)the party seeking revision (Nigeria) and the Court, must not have known of the
fact at the time of the delivery of the judgment.
(b)the fact must have existed prior to the delivery of the judgment; (c)the newly discovered fact must be of a decisive nature; and (d)the party seeking revision (Nigeria) and the Court, must not have known of the
fact at the time of the delivery of the judgment.
The Committee proceeded to examine
the case for revision against the requirements of Article 61 of the ICJ Statute
and was constrained to observe from the oral presentations made to it by the
proponents of the revision that the strict requirements of Article 61 could not
be satisfied. This is because their presentation was unable to show that Nigeria has discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to her before the
ICJ judgment, which is capable of swaying the Court to decide in its
favour.This is more so as most of the issues canvassed in support of the case
for a revision of the ICJ judgment had been canvassed and pronounced upon by
the ICJ in its 2002 judgment.
The Federal Government also retained
a firm of international Legal Practitioners to advise on the merits and
demerits of the case for revision. The firm after considering all the materials that were placed at its disposal against the requirements of
Article 61 of the ICJ Statute came to the reasoned conclusion that “an
application for a review is virtually bound to fail“ and that “a failed
application will be diplomatically damaging to Nigeria”.
In view of the foregoing, the
Federal Government is of the informed view that with less than two days to the
period when the revision will be statute barred (9th October, 2012), it would
be impossible for Nigeria to satisfy the requirements of Articles 61(1) -(5) of
the ICJ Statute. Government has therefore decided that it will not be in the
national interest to apply for revision of the 2002 ICJ Judgment in respect of
the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria.
Government is however concerned
about the plight of Nigerians living in the Bakassi Peninsula and the
allegations of human rights abuses being perpetrated against Nigerians in the
Peninsula and is determined to engage Cameroon within the framework of the
existing implementation mechanisms agreed to by Nigeria and Cameroon in order
to protect the rights and livelihoods of Nigerians living in the Peninsula.
Nigeria will also not relent in seeking appropriate remedies provided by
international law such as the invocation of the compulsory jurisdiction of the
ICJ; Petitioning the United Nations Human Rights Council and good offices of
the United Nations Secretary General which has played pivotal role in ensuring
the peaceful demarcation and delimitation of the boundary between the two
countries and other confidence building measures and calls on the United
Nations to continue to provide assistance to the affected populations.
Finally the Federal Government
wishes to assure all Nigerians especially the people living in the Bakassi
Peninsula of its determination to explore all avenues necessary to protect their interests including but not limited to negotiations aimed at
buying back the territory, if feasible, the convening of bilateral meeting of the
Heads of State and Government to ensure protection and development of the
affected population. In the meantime, we call on all well meaning Nigerians in
the Bakassi peninsula to be law abiding and to allow the various initiatives
being undertaken by the Federal Government to bear fruitful results.
Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, CFR
Honourable Attorney-General Of The Federation
And Minister Of Justice
Honourable Attorney-General Of The Federation
And Minister Of Justice
