THE IMPARTIAL OBSERVER
Bakassi: Time to Seize the Moment
Hank Eso
Sunday 10 August 2008
We have set a lesson for Africa and the world.
We have shown that it is possible to resolve a difficult border problem without war
and unnecessary loss of lives and property….
History we remember us all for opting for peace rather than war..
~ President Obasanjo, On Bakassi
Bakassi
is an emotive word fraught with controversy. It may be so for a long time, but
this coming week, - Thursday 14 August 2008 to be exact - Nigeria will have the
unique opportunity to seize the moment and end the Bakassi controversy by taking
the moral highroad and upholding the primacy of the rule of law. By handing
over the territory of Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, in keeping the 2002 ruling
of the International Court of Justice and the 12 June, 2006 Greentree Agreement,
Nigeria would have opted to walk a different path; the peace path, which is not
frequently chosen by even civilized nations when issues of territorial integrity
crops up.
Like many, I have observed the controversy and partisan politics that surrounds the Bakassi question. I know that many Nigerians oppose the transfer and that there is a muddle of motives not to implement the transfer. Also, in these days of febrile partisan politics and bogus nationalistic fervor, the clamor not to cede the territory perceptibly rings loud and proper. Nevertheless, there are equally enormous compelling reasons to implement the transfer and to do so schedule. Whatever be the case, for and against the handover, I feel personally assured that the time is right for us, as a nation to cut our losses and move on.
On 21 August 2006 during ceremonies marking the formal withdrawal of Nigerian troops from Bakassi, President Obasanjo eloquently articulated why we should not trod the path of conflict akin to what transpired between Argentina and Britain over the Falklands; and why we must opt for peace. His words: “History we remember us all for opting for peace rather than war, embracing harmony rather than discord; celebrating unity and love rather than destruction and chaos, appreciating peace and dialogue rather than promoting uncertainty and insecurity.” Our keeping our end of the bargain would guarantee that Bakassi would henceforth, be a critical benchmark and gauge in international peace and security considerations and resolution of boundary disputes. As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, noted recently, Bakassi will also “serve as a model for the negotiated settlement of border disputes elsewhere”. Still, there are more dividends to be gained.
First, as a nation, our claim to nationhood has not cracked up to be what we have always hoped. Neither have we been great exemplars in the realm of compliance with the rule of law. Hence, this is a unique opportunity we need not scupper and one, which we can effectively exploit its dividends for long.
Second, for what it may be worth, when the obituary of the Obasanjo Administration is written in its totality, the Greentree Agreement that led to the transfer of Bakassi will be on the positive column of his accomplishments, notwithstanding the emotional drag the matter elicits now.
Third, as Nigerians must honestly contemplate the context, in which Cameroon came to lay claim to Bakassi. Granted that the handling of the matter has been bedeviled by a comedy of errors, what Gen. Babangida said to the Electoral Reform Committee on July 22, 2008 about the awkward nature of military regimes and how they arrive at decisions is noteworthy, and I believe we can also place Bakassi in that context. As Babangida noted: “(I)t must be emphasized that the regime, which it was our privilege to lead, was one of dictatorship... that regime was driven by vision of history of our people and of political challenges … the regime had a mission to create the necessary institutions, structures, processes and environment for a much better system of government to exist. The regime had a “controlled environment” by the fact of military dictatorship”. This reality, unsavory as it may seem, also applies mutatis muntandis, to Bakassi.
As the great French philosopher, Voltaire, once averred with great foresight, “Success is the child of audacity”. As a nation, we should succeed in Bakassi, even if only we see it as the price to pay, in keeping Nigeria as one nation. Nevertheless, we should not stop there. We must contemplate the alternatives – conflict, war, international peacekeeping and even the unthinkable, the disintegration of Nigeria due to a conflict arising from Bakassi. There are many other consequential outcomes.
The historical, legal and cartographic claims aside, we must accept that Bakassi is not about casual or premeditated irredentism on the part of Nigeria or Cameroon. The genesis of the dispute is itself indisputable. Essentially, the dispute is a resultant fait accompli of improper delineation of boundaries by colonial powers following the Berlin Conference of 1884/1885. Also not in contention, is the fact that the setting down of such artificial boundaries were done without due consideration of ethnic and demographic realities on the ground. The reality is that contentions and claims over Bakassi dates back to 1884 and that successive Anglo-German treaties of 1885, 1886, 1913 and the Nigeria-Cameroon Agreements of 1971 and 1975 did not solve the problem.
Hence, Bakassi is a colonial accident, unaddressed by the granting of independence to Nigeria and Cameroon and further compounded by expediency during Nigeria’s civil war, when General Yakubu Gowon, as the head of States and Supreme Commander in a “military dictatorship” signed treaty formally ceding Bakassi to Cameroon. Consequently, since 1981, Nigeria and Cameroon have lost hosts of civilians and soldiers in the spate of intermittent violent encounters arising from claims of ownership of the now oil-rich peninsular.
Whether right or
wrong, the fact remains that Gen. Gowon did formally cede Bakassi.
Paradoxically, since 1970, all our endeavors seem geared at repudiating and
reneging on that singular act, which was legitimate, considering that absolute
powers – both executive and legislative – rested with the Supreme Military
Council. In fact, our fervor to turn the tables was so conveniently entrenched
and blinkered, that when in 1972, Nigeria’s Attorney General and Minister of
Justice Dr. Taslim Elias affirmed that in law, reality and according to official
government documents within his purview, that Bakassi was not ours, some
Nigerians left the core
issue and sought to discredit him.
Two notable things have happened since that should spare us any further anguish on this matter. In October 2002, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the Bakassi Peninsula belonged to Cameroon. In June 2006, President Olusegun Obasanjo and President Paul Biya signed the Greentree (New York) Agreement. After two years, the full implementation of that Agreement will happen with the final transfer of authority in the Bakassi Peninsula from Nigeria to Cameroon, on 14 August.
As we move closer to the full implementation of the Greentree Agreement on 14 August, a cacophony of voices has emerged within Nigeria for and against the transfer of Bakassi. Indeed, an added controversy - a monkey wrench of sorts- emerged with the recent injunction by Justice Mohammed Umar, the presiding judge of an Abuja Federal High Court, directing the Federal Government to suspend forthwith, implementation plans for the handover and to “maintain the status quo …pending the hearing of all applications." It is noteworthy, that this domestic court order, seeks to address unresolved implementation plans and related concerns of some Bakassi indigenes, but does not seek to challenge or repudiate the 2002 International Court of Justice decision on the substantive matter, which is ownership of Bakassi. Clearly, Justice Mohammed Umar knows he has no jurisdiction to entertain the latter.
Vexing as the groundswell of the opposition to the handover may be, we must accept that such is normal in a vibrant democracy. However, there is more at play on how we got to this unenviable juncture. The dilemma we now face was in the first instance created by the erstwhile military regimes’ ask-no-questions mindset – be the Gowon, Obasanjo or Abacha regimes. The same mindset guided President Obasanjo in 2006 to sign the Greentree Agreement without fulfilling the due diligence required by the Constitution.
Several observable fumbles are noteworthy. First, Gen. Gowon’s regime did not gazette the formal ceding of Bakassi to Cameroon; even though Nigeria’s cadastral and cartographic representations including the surveyor-general’s maps had ceased to present Bakassi as being within Nigeria. Second, whereas the ICJ did not bother to direct the conduct of a plebiscite in Bakassi, President Obasanjo did not also include a plebiscite for the Bakassi people in the Greentree Agreement, which would have offered the denizens of the peninsula the choice of belonging to Nigeria or to Cameroon, without prejudice to Cameroon getting the peninsula. Third, although President Obasanjo ex-post facto advised the National Assembly of the Greentree Agreement, he did not press or push for its formal ratification as an international treaty as required by the Constitution. Fourth, the National Assembly, for its part, has not deemed it a priority to ratify the Greentree Agreement or pass a motion signaling its intention to withhold its consent. Finally, President Yar’Adua is yet to make a broadcast to Nigerians lining out his position on the matter and underlining why Nigeria must uphold the ICJ ruling and the Greentree Agreement.
Cumulatively, these governance and administrative lapses give merit to the arguments advanced by those who oppose the transfer of Bakassi. They are not necessarily against a negotiated settlement or amity, but seek due diligence and due process, as well as the respect of their rights as the Nigerian government seeks to exercise its right of eminent domain in the national interests. Furthermore, these claims underpin the fact that a procedural and substantive lacuna exists in the full and formal implementation of the Greentree Agreement, since as required by law it has not been ratified. After all, as John Newton observed, “an act against the Constitution is void; and act against natural equity is void”. What is utterly inexplicable is why we have fumbled so badly on Bakassi, despite our so-called knowledgeable technocrats and pseudo-intellectuals?
Nonetheless, apropos Bakassi, the absence of due diligence just as ignorance in law cannot be an excuse. Practical considerations in the national interests, which are quite distinct from expediency and precepts, dictate that we honor our obligations. We must not fail to seize the moment. As a nation, we do not routinely enjoy the highest international respect; and we will not enhance the international standing we seek by being a scofflaw nation. President Obasanjo was right in noting, that “This peaceful preemption is imperative and is less expensive, at least when compared with outright war, in assuring the lives and property of our citizenry and allowing our society to continue to move on the path of sustainable development.”
As a nation, we have spent many years and countless human, material and financial resources, in attempts to repudiate what seems to be the reality in Bakassi. In the process we have disagreed with our erstwhile colonial master, the United Kingdom; we have repudiated the statutory decision of a Head of States vested with sovereign powers, and now we are being pushed to disown a ruling by the International Court of Justice. That will not do. We may not like it; and our leaders may have bungled the entire process, but we must respect the ICJ ruling and the Greentree Agreement we entered into. Our national honor demands that we do no less at this point.
Moreover, we cannot afford to give our detractors the armor with which to destabilize our country. Hence, we must ignore the groundswell of reactionary forces, mindful that heeding their calls might lead to our playing into the hands of Western and even African interests that would love to see Nigeria humiliated and cut to size. If we are required to stoop to conquer, we must do so in Nigeria’s long-tern national interest.
As a nation in good standing, we must seek the path of peace if we indeed seek to lead and have others trust our judgment and mediation in global matters. As far as international law codification goes, Nigeria must see the ceding of Bakassi as a gift to the world and our posterity. It is not a matter of who won and who lost, as it is a matter of affirming our bona fides. In future conflict resolution considerations, the Bakassi Syndrome, will eternally be to Nigeria’s credit, but only so, if we do the right thing now.
Alexander Pope was right when he observed, “For forms of government, let fools contest. Whatever is best administered is best.” Bakassi will be best served and administered under the present arrangement that offers sustainable peace and development to Nigeria and Cameroon. Notwithstanding the attending traditional emotionalism that surrounds the subject, we must find the political will to bring closure to Bakassi. Now is the time for Nigeria to get out for good. We must seize the moment by making the handover of Bakassi a reality.
With neither anger nor partiality, until next time, keep the law, stay impartial, and observe closely.
-------
Hank Eso is a columnist for Kwenu.com. His commentaries on Nigerian politics and global issues have appeared in The New Times (Lagos), African Profile International (New York), The Nigerian And Africa Abroad, (New York), African Market News (New Jersey) and in Gamji.com and Nigeriavillagesquare.com
© Hank Eso, Sunday 10 August 2008.
Email: hankeso@aol.com