Bakassi:  The Senate is right



           The Chairman of the Nigeria Cameroon Mixed Commission, Prince Bola Ajibola condemned the Senate for invalidating Nigeria’s handover of the Bakassi peninsula to Cameroon lately.  With due respect to this legal luminary, I wish to argue that the Senate is right in its invalidation posture.

          When the Bakassi issue was raised initially and the ICJ gave Bakassi peninsula to Cameroon on October 10, 2002, our research concluded that Nigeria should reject the ICJ judgment because the facts of the entire geographical environment and all other relevant  factors considered germane to the pursuit of justice and all other secondary information and evidence available, are all in  Nigeria’s favor.  Therefore, the ICJ judgment should  be rejected absolutely because it was a political judgment.  Nations can reject ICJ judgment, if and when, their national interests and sovereign rights (sovereignty) are considered threatened or called to question by external interests. Many nations do so and have always done so. Any ICJ opinion or judgment cannot be enforced because this judicial branch of the United Nations Organization has no police power or any other authority to do so. Unfortunately, majority of those who lead and rule our country are ignorant, uninformed and unseasoned.  They are idle enough not to seek knowledge and facts despite their lack of experience in crucial areas of national development and interests. Our leaders are too personal and too pretentious in their approach to public issues and are more interested in show of power which could either be political or economic for social demagoguery. These are some of the major problems that always beset quality, dedicated and selfless leadership in our country Nigeria.

           The strong historical, cultural, political, social and legal aspects of the entire Bakassi peninsula favor Nigeria but our ex-president succumbed to the undue and negative influence of Mr. Kofi Annan and his other spinning agents at the World body; that is, the United Nations, who wanted to use Nigeria as their ‘guinea-pig of elementary diplomacy’ for peaceful settlement between two African neighbors to boost Annan’s ego, and prestige in Africa.  The probability of war between Nigeria and Cameroon, over the dispute, was heightened and used as blackmail to frighten us all, unless Nigeria unconditionally accepted the ICJ judgment which reflected the French political interests, opinion and psychological conjecture in favor of Cameroon; a former colony of France. The Franco-phone north dominates the Anglo-phone south.

           Our ex-president Mr. Olusegun Obasanjo, in his characteristic manner, monopolized the issue of Bakassi, kept the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs out of the decision making process and decided unilaterally to appoint the respectable but retired Justice Bola Ajibola to lead the Nigerian delegation to the series of the Mixed Commission’s deliberations, where Nigeria’s sovereignty was submitted without a flinch.  Our ex-president habitually did not care for order, process and procedure in the manner he ran his office as president.  He took many unconstitutional actions, personally and unilaterally, and they all back-fired on his unnecessarily dogged positions during his tenure as president. Most of them were court decisions and opinions he deliberately refused to comply with or comply with selectively.  He did not involve the National Assembly in all his Bakassi peninsula engagements and discussions.  When I sent my papers, as a patriot, to the Senate President Ken Nnamani and  Speaker Masari regarding why we should not release  Bakassi peninsula to Cameroon, an area as big or bigger than many local government areas  in  other parts of Nigeria, where an undetermined and huge petroleum resources exist in Cross River State, much care about our reaction to the ICJ verdict needed to be carefully considered, not by one individual but by many of those entrusted with political power.  A policy that will result in making all Bakassi Nigerians a displaced people should not be tolerated.  Secondly, giving Bakassi away to our immediate neighbor will create a security problem for Nigeria in our joint or overlapping continental shelf. This security problem will affect the regular operation of the Nigerian Navy in that part of the West African coast. The  two principal officers of the National Assembly, that is, the Senate President and the Speaker should have been involved in the discussion or adequate briefing should have been extended to them both from the beginning of such an important national issue.  The necessary public hearing which would have involved the people of Bakassi Local government, their Senators and other relevant legislators, the Nigerian navy personnel and other security people should have taken place in order to help the entire Nigerian government take a responsible decision on the thorny issue of Bakassi peninsula. Our president acted as the nation’s chief diplomat without a thorough understanding of what he was doing in terms of our constitution, which is superior to the ICJ judgment in this particular circumstance. It is important to always remember that in a constitutional democracy, young or old, civil consultations are imperative for responsible collective decisions to be made. It is unlike a military decision coming from a military General in a war zone. Mr Obasanjo never behaved as if he was aware of the role which the other two equal partners of our presidential system of government have to play in ruling Nigeria. I have no doubt in my mind that the retired secretary to his government Chief Eka-Ette was completely ignorant of the ‘Checks and Balances’ principle , which is essential to the constitutional and healthy relationship desired among the three arms of any presidential system of government. Some of his official correspondence betray this principle. Scientific observation gives one the impression that Mr. Obasanjo did not care to know the constitutional limitations of his office or rather he was so ignorantly blinded by lack of knowledge. Nigeria’s government would be incomplete functionally without the National Assembly and its Judiciary. The presidential system is structurally different from the parliamentary system of government.  The strong and practical notion of ‘Separation of Powers’ among the three branches, which is essential to curbing arbitrariness or dictatorial tendencies  among the three branches especially the Executive branch is highly emphasized. This was the peculiar problem with the Executive branch when Obasanjo was president, hence the consequent docility and inactivity of the Senate when Ken Nnamani was presiding. It is absolutely wrong for the Obasanjo executive branch to assume all constitutional responsibilities of government and expect the National Assembly (the Senate in this instance)which had been politically rendered a non-performing and non-obligatory participant in public decision-making process, to do much, except by virtue of PDP authoritarian control from within. One was amazed, at the height of Obasanjo/Atiku personal imbroglio, when a governor from the South-West described Obasanjo as next to God in terms of his constitutional obligations to our country. What a grotesque perversion of the Executive obligation in relation to its equal partners in a presidential system of government.? The present presidency of Yar’Adua has obviously recognized this major flaw in Obasanjo’s approach to governance and the ‘behavioral error of functional/consitutional obligation’ is now being avoided.

             Regarding retired Justice Bola Ajibola’s view that International law takes precedence over the Nigerian constitution is blasphemous. I am surprised and angry. I dare challenge him to give examples in history. It sounds like a desperate statement purposely made to mislead all of us as a people. I do not mean to say that Justice Bola Ajibola intends to mislead this nation but he  should realize that a good number of Nigerians are adequately knowledgeable in law, International relations, International law and in other relevant  social science studies, that his faulty view about the superiority of International law to national laws or constitutions cannot go  unchallenged. Often times, some comparison may not be necessary but it may be imperative that we seek to know the huge differences between International law and domestic law or the basic law (constitutions) of nations and draw our conclusions.

(a)   A constitution is written by a constituted assembly of men and women assembled for the particular purpose of putting together their ideas on how their country should be ruled or governed. The details required in performing this function are so varied that the constitution of a given nation is described as the basic law of that society. It contains multiple parts by prescriptions and definitions.

(b)   Any law or laws made by the established legislative body or bodies as prescribed by a nation’s constitution is bound to be obeyed by all the citizens of the concerned nation or state. It is obligatory and can be enforced by the state police; an agency lawfully created for that purpose and to maintain order in the larger national society.

(c)    At the international level, no such constitution drafting body exists. It cannot be done because nations have and enjoy sovereign rights  which guarantee their political independence to act and take decisions in their own national interests. The United Nations is the nearest body that can be regarded as such an assembly, but it is an assembly of nations and not a legislature of a particular nation or a constituent assembly. But to avoid nations claiming too much freedom by virtue of their sovereign rights which could always result in conflicts among themselves, hence the establishment of collective security bodies such as the United Nations itself, and other international organizations. Membership to these bodies are not coerced, it is voluntary, and nations are free to leave or withdraw their membership when and if they have reasons to do so, and return when they consider it appropriate. It is that loose in structure. When an agreement is reached at an international organization level, no nation is compelled to append its signature to such an agreement or treaty. Nations habitually sign trade or defence treaties because of the benefits and advantages that could be derived from them. One may never sign it if a nation does not appreciate any advantages implied. At worst, non-ratification of a treaty at the international organization level is not punitive but habitual and mutual. These kinds of treaties fall within the scope of international laws.

The International Court of Justice which we often refer to as the World Court has no authority to enforce its decision on any nation. It was so created to give the international community some composite sense that pursuit of justice is a principal goal for peace in the world among nations. The United Nations was deliberately structured after the three arms of government that supposedly exist in democracies. The Security Council bears the semblance of an Executive arm, The General Assembly is the superficial legislature of the world and the International Court of Justice, the Judicial branch. Only the Security Council is capable of using force sometime, when necessary and expedient, by passing a collective resolution to use force. The veto wielding power members need to agree, otherwise, any veto member can negate the decision at hand and killed.  n summary, legislation, adjudication and enforcement of International laws are much weaker and difficult to execute than domestic laws. The United Nations peace-keeping force is the closest demonstration or some semblance of force that the can be executed at the international level. The Security Council most all agree on it before execution. The reference made to the Vienna Convention by our retired Justice Bola Ajibola, whose ability, integrity and the totality of his mien deserve much respect, constitutes an inappropriate citation. In fact the flexible nature of the Vienna Convention articles weakens his position and argument.

The role of the ICJ in the Bakassi peninsula dispute is imperialistic in nature against the national interest of Nigeria. From our domestic stand-point, a long succession of Nigerian leaders’ performance in office cumulatively messed up our opportunities to retain our resourceful landed property which eventually became a disputed territory between us and our eastern neighbor, the Cameroon. From the Gowon era, Cameroon alleged that Gowon promised to give it away, if Cameroon would deny the Biafran soldiers the use of Cameroon as a sanctuary during the civil war, a request to which Cameroon allegedly complied.  Thereafter, all subsequent military occupations of Bakassi by Nigeria, did not resolve the dispute until Cameroon decided to go to the ICJ with the support of imperial France to challenge our ownership. Military occupations do not and cannot resolve such disputes as much as purposeful and effective diplomacy.

           The 1917 colonial document signed between Britain and Germany which became the ICJ major instrument for its pro-Cameroon decision is one of the greatest colonial boundary demarcation insults ever imposed in modern times on independent African States.  The best option for justice available to the ICJ judges, who are totally ignorant of the history of colonialism in Africa, was to call for a referendum at Bakassi, in order to allow the residents of Abana, Atabong and the other villages  of the peninsula to choose where they want to belong between Nigeria and Cameroon. This can still be done in view of the difficulties encountered by the residents of Bakassi since the beginning of their harrowing experience to execute the Mixed Commission decisions. Is it not absurd to move a huge number of people of a whole local government area from their natural habitat to a completely new location to resettle them? The only area in the world today where such mass movement of people is being contemplated and attempted is in the Middle-East where Israel tries to return some Arabs land it had occupied during the series of Arab/Israeli wars in the last few decades. Whenever Israel agrees to return the occupied lands, it moves its new settlers out. It will be wonderful if retired Justice Bola Ajibola can remind us where what he negotiated for Nigeria at the Mixed Commission is currently happening or has happened.

 If Nigeria had rejected the ICJ opinion initially and had doggedly held on to that decision, effective and meaningful diplomacy would have resolved much of the boundary dispute within the confines of African Union initiatives. The French imperial interest could have been treated as an external intrusion in African affairs.

           The Green Tree Agreement was a product of injustice, incompetence, absolute power dispensation to stage-manage some semblance of grand diplomacy of peace and international achievement between Kofi Annan, Olusegun Obasanjo and Paul Biya. The fact that the United States, Britain, Germany and France stood as witnesses when the Green Tree Agreement was signed does not make the Treaty another ‘Ten Commands’ of God.  The Bakassi peninsula Nigerians have been suffering and continue to suffer untold hardships because the Obasanjo government lacked the sophistication, understanding and capability to resolve the Bakassi question without making its residents scapegoats.  I hope the Senate will not stop at the technical breach that  involves  Section 12 (1) of the 1999 constitution.  It should re-open the entire issue on Bakassi from the beginning to where Obasanjo left it unresolved especially now that the new Secretary-General of the United Nations has expressed interest in the dispute. All ramifications of Green Tree Agreement should be reconsidered and comprehensively reviewed. Nothing is too late so long Nigeria and Cameroon can agree at the diplomatic level to ultimate  peaceful settlement. Let no one, no matter how highly placed, within the elite social, political and economic circle in Nigeria try to stampede our dear country into an agreement which makes us all look stupid and hopeless. It is the most unpatriotic role any Nigerian of repute and meaningful relevance could undertake.

           One of our earlier write-ups had predicted that some future government would reconsider the Bakassi peninsula problem because Obasanjo’s Green Tree Agreement was anomalous in international conflict resolution.  The ICJ does not have the legal status and value we seem to place on it in Nigeria.

Bankole A. Okuwa    Ph. D. 

Robot  # 1 | 03.12.2007 23:58

Bakassi: The Senate is right &nb...Read the full article.

OluGbo  # 2 | 04.12.2007 01:21

I am suprised how people choose to ignore inconvenient facts. Cameroon took the Bakasi case to the International Court of Justice at The Hague under a military regime. The regime accepted the jurisdiction, and sent lawyers to argue our case. We lost every single objection we raised in open court before the civilian administration came on to the scene in 1999. The case was really already lost by 1998. Also, how many people are remembering that in the 1959 plecibite for the British Mandate Cameroon, 73% of the people of Bakasi choose to rejoin Cameroon, while the Northern part of the mandate joined Nigeria and became the Sadauna Province? We should not have accepted to go to the world court, because our case, based on available records, was weak, to say the least. Possesion was 99% of the law and we had possession. If we had declined the involvement of the International Court of Justice, Bakasi will still be a part of Nigeria today. Honestly, the civilian administration that came in in 1999 had no choice than to continue with the acceptance of jurisdiction that preceeding administrations had accepted, and also accepting the inevitable judgement. What I blamed the civilian administration for, was our president then signing further agreements validating our acceptance. It was not also wise to repartrate the Bakasi people who considered themselves Nigerians. Who knows what opportunities may arise in the future and that part becomes part of Nigeria again? The fact that most of the residents are of Efik nationality does not mean that they are or were Nigerians unless there were recent migrations. I understand that the Cameroon Prime Minister, who considers himself Cameroonian, has Nigerian Efik parents who migrated to Bakasi. Nigeria is still a geographical expression, and that expression was drawn in the Berlin conference. I have met people from the Republic of Benin, Togo, and Ghana who are Yoruba. I have also met people from those countries who are Hausa. We do not call them Nigerians because they share ethnic nationality with some Nigerian groups! Anyway, most national borders in our continent are artificial without any consideration for ethnic nationality borders. I do believe that the Nigerian Senate was only indulging in the now popular sport of Obasanjo bashing.

felix  # 3 | 04.12.2007 02:38

Also, how many people are remembering that in the 1959 plecibite for the British Mandate Cameroon, 73% of the people of Bakasi choose to rejoin Cameroon, while the Northern part of the mandate joined Nigeria and became the Sadauna Province 73% of the people of Bakassi or 73% of the Southern Cameroun which later joined Cameroun as they wished??? Are you aware of this difference or are you being intentionally mischevious??? We should forever be thankfull to the likes of Bankole for this wonderfull analyses. I feel it is about time a criminal investigation should be unleashed on Obasanjo and all his cohorts who pushed for the wrechless handover of Bakassi to Cameroun irrespective of the wishes of the Bakassi people. There seem to be some ulterior motives that motivated these menancing act of executive terrorism. You become more suspicious when you notice the gloating in the faces of government officials imbeud with the constitutional rols of defending the teritorial intergrity of a country , sheepishly raising another countrys flag in their own territory. There exist an attempt to harass Nigerians with some frightening conjectures emanating from this quarters. Some have gone to the astonishing level of comparing Nigerias presence in Bakassi to that of Iraq in Kuwait....Yet Bakassi is not a sovereign state, not a member of the United Nations, was not invaded and boasts of a population that has increasinly voiced their Nigerian identity. How a rebuke of an international conspiracy couched in a senseless ICJ ruling will draw the wrath of the international community to the extent of Nigeria risking being "bombed back to stone ages" is what one cant see. If Nigeria was beaten hands down at the ICJ , the people of Bakassi were not beaten...Numbering almost half a million , it is their inalienable right as ENSHRINED in the same United Nations charter to go for self determination....This, they must get. It is obvious that some people who have projected a secured future of feeding fat on Niger Delta oil are too scared for any conflict that will rock the boat, even if it means orchestrating a clique agreement across the boarder just to maintain a fiefdom of corruption.

fuguez  # 4 | 04.12.2007 08:33

Are we forever cursed to be a laughing stock? It is true that no country has to abide by ICJ rulings. However, as soon as our genius President signed the forms and agreed to it the deal was sealed. President Obasanjo's actions are Nigeria's actions in international law. It is our fault that our past Chief Executive did not, and does not, do things 'correctly'. It is our fault that we have a futile legislature that are a bunch of sycophants and political jobbers. Is the international community to assume that any agreement signed by The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not worth the paper it is written on? It is a crying shame that we rolled over and handed over Bakassi. However it speaks volumes about the quality of our political system that this happened the way it did. In a fashion all to typical of present day Nigeria. Every country deserves the government it gets and we allow ourselves to be ruled by fools who operate a divide-and-conquer agenda. We have to grow up and move on, and stop electing megalomaniac school-leavers to rule over us.

overdryv  # 5 | 04.12.2007 09:24

=fuguez;4294969188>Are we forever cursed to be a laughing stock? It is true that no country has to abide by ICJ rulings. However, as soon as our genius President signed the forms and agreed to it the deal was sealed. President Obasanjo's actions are Nigeria's actions in international law. It is our fault that our past Chief Executive did not, and does not, do things 'correctly'. It is our fault that we have a futile legislature that are a bunch of sycophants and political jobbers. Is the international community to assume that any agreement signed by The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not worth the paper it is written on? It is a crying shame that we rolled over and handed over Bakassi. However it speaks volumes about the quality of our political system that this happened the way it did. In a fashion all to typical of present day Nigeria. Every country deserves the government it gets and we allow ourselves to be ruled by fools who operate a divide-and-conquer agenda. We have to grow up and move on, and stop electing megalomaniac school-leavers to rule over us. In which election in Nigeria's history did the people's vote count?

fuguez  # 6 | 04.12.2007 09:32

overdryv: You are absolutely correct. We have to grow up and move on, and stop ALLOWING megalomaniac school-leavers to rule over us. my bad!

OluGbo  # 7 | 04.12.2007 10:37

Hi Felix: " 73% of the people of Bakassi or 73% of the Southern Cameroun which later joined Cameroun as they wished??? Are you aware of this difference or are you being intentionally mischevious??? " You are correct, It was 73% of the mandate Southern Cameroon, which included the Bakasi, that voted to join Cameroun in the plecibite. Also, it took place in 1961 and not 1959 as I wrote. Thanks for the correction.

felix  # 8 | 04.12.2007 12:18

Ajibola Misled Obasanjo On Bakassi – Adebayo By Olusola Balogun, Senior Correspondent, Lagos Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:00 5 Stars - Excellent4 Stars - Good3 Stars - Average2 Stars - Fair1 Stars - Poor President, Yoruba Council of Elders (YCE), Major-General Adeyinka Adebayo (rtd), at the weekend hailed the decision of the Senate not to cede the oil rich Bakassi peninsula to Cameroon. He regretted that former President Olusegun Obasanjo allowed himself to be misled by former Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Bola Ajibola, to cede Bakassi. The former governor of the old Western Region added that the Senate was right to have stopped the ceding of the peninsula, saying Obasanjo was too hasty in giving Bakassi out. There has been a brickbat between Obasanjo and members of the last Senate over the matter. While Obasanjo insisted that he consulted with the National Assembly over the issue, the senators said they never got any letter on the matter. But Adebayo noted that the speed with which the peninsula was ceded was too excessive. "I think the decision to ask the Bakassi people to join their Cameroonian brothers was too quick. The issue should have been taken to the Senate. "Obasanjo fell to Ajibola who was a member of the World Court that took that decision (giving Bakassi to Cameroon) and I think the issue should have gone to our own Senate, first. Let them discuss it; let Obasanjo explain to them why such a decision was taken," he said. http://www.independentngonline.com/?c=117&a=6620

JAGA-JAGA  # 9 | 04.12.2007 22:14

It is really amusing that a country as sophiscated as Nigeria will be trounced and humiliated out of their own Land all in the spirit of obeying ICJ. Who is this ICJ? What has ICJ or the UN done about Guantanamo bay which is genuinely owned by Cuba and is still being occupied by the US in flagrant violations of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as claimed by Cuba? What about Tibet and China? Yet our 'know it all' international legal luminaries with the stamp and support of obj single handedly handed over an entity part of Nigeria to strangers. Well what I will advice the Bakasi people is never to vacate their ancestral land to any other location that the government plans to resettle them. This is a very dangerous move because tomorrow the owners of that territory will regard them as settlers and a new indegine versus settler squabble will arise. Bakasi people you must not move an inch. Let the people who signed away the territory go and provide their ancestral land to Cameroun. I repeat not an inch of territory of Bakasi must be given to Cameroun. Whether it was Gowon or the British or whoever that purportedly handed this teritory to Cameroun, that person must provide its own ancestral land to strangers to inhabit. Period

Son of the Delta  # 10 | 05.12.2007 08:43

OluGbo Re: Bakassi: The Senate is right -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am suprised how people choose to ignore inconvenient facts. Cameroon took the Bakasi case to the International Court of Justice at The Hague under a military regime. The regime accepted the jurisdiction, and sent lawyers to argue our case. We lost every single objection we raised in open court before the civilian administration came on to the scene in 1999. The case was really already lost by 1998. Also, how many people are remembering that in the 1959 plecibite for the British Mandate Cameroon, 73% of the people of Bakasi choose to rejoin Cameroon, while the Northern part of the mandate joined Nigeria and became the Sadauna Province? We should not have accepted to go to the world court, because our case, based on available records, was weak, to say the least. Possesion was 99% of the law and we had possession. If we had declined the involvement of the International Court of Justice, Bakasi will still be a part of Nigeria today. Honestly, the civilian administration that came in in 1999 had no choice than to continue with the acceptance of jurisdiction that preceeding administrations had accepted, and also accepting the inevitable judgement. What I blamed the civilian administration for, was our president then signing further agreements validating our acceptance. It was not also wise to repartrate the Bakasi people who considered themselves Nigerians. Who knows what opportunities may arise in the future and that part becomes part of Nigeria again? The fact that most of the residents are of Efik nationality does not mean that they are or were Nigerians unless there were recent migrations. I understand that the Cameroon Prime Minister, who considers himself Cameroonian, has Nigerian Efik parents who migrated to Bakasi. Nigeria is still a geographical expression, and that expression was drawn in the Berlin conference. I have met people from the Republic of Benin, Togo, and Ghana who are Yoruba. I have also met people from those countries who are Hausa. We do not call them Nigerians because they share ethnic nationality with some Nigerian groups! Anyway, most national borders in our continent are artificial without any consideration for ethnic nationality borders. I do believe that the Nigerian Senate was only indulging in the now popular sport of Obasanjo bashing. =OluGbo;4294969253>Hi Felix: " 73% of the people of Bakassi or 73% of the Southern Cameroun which later joined Cameroun as they wished??? Are you aware of this difference or are you being intentionally mischevious??? " You are correct, It was 73% of the mandate Southern Cameroon, which included the Bakasi, that voted to join Cameroun in the plecibite. Also, it took place in 1961 and not 1959 as I wrote. Thanks for the correction. Olu-Gbenga Obasanjo It was never the case. stop peddling senseless lies. When did Badagry vote to be part of Benin republic? If you do not know something it is not a must that you must comment on it. First Cameroon claimed that Gowon gave Bakassi to them during the Biafran war. The Nigerian government was able to prove there was no such transaction neither did Gowon have the power to do such. Southern Cameroon excluding Bakassi which have always remained a part of Nigeria have voted to leave Cameroon why have that not been honored. Contrary to your claim the arguement that made Bakassi to be dashed to Cameroon is the fact that the British government went to testify that Cameroon was a "German colony" and since German colonies were given to the French following Germany's military loss Bakassi should be handed over to Cameroon. The question is did the Bakassi people vote to be colonies of either the British, French, or Germans? What right do they have over the people of Bakassi and where did that right emanate from? How could the Island of Bakassi be a German colony when the larger Southern Cameroon was not? How could Bakassi be classified as the same with Southern Cameroon when their kith and kin are the Efik speaking people of Calabar and they share the same cultural and traditional links? Why would the votes of the Southern Cameroonians to join Cameroon be honoured but that of the Bakassi people to remain with Nigeria be ignored? Why does the ICJ want the people of Bakassi to evacuate the Island if they do not want their Island to be Cameroonian? Is this a repition of the Chagoian Island case? and why haven't the ICJ ruled on Spanish requests for the return of Gibraltar to Spain from Britain, or the return of Tyrol to Austria? Why wont the ICJ return Ceuta and the other lands to Morroco, but they want Bakassi people to be evacuated from their Island and the Island given to Cameroon? Assuming Cameroon was a German colony why didn't the French return Cameroon to Germany before independence? In the coloured parts you are contradicting yourself. The Efiks are indeginous to Cross River only. You cannot have an Efik Primeminister of Cameroon under the previling circumstances. At one end you are saying his parent migrated to Bakassi at the other end you are saying he is primeminister. Where did they migrate from? How did the man land in Cameroon as a Nigerian citizen when Bakassi all the while have always been under Nigerian jurisdiction. If you are the one that misled Obasanjo oya tell us.