Revisiting Bakassi Peninsula: A Call For Justice Under Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda – Ndarani
Our Reporter
Renowned legal practitioner Mohammed Ndarani Mohammed, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, has said there is a need for Nigeria to revisit the judgement of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that ceded the Bakassi Peninsula to the Republic of Cameroon. As a renewed hope agenda, to remedy the injustice meted out on all former citizens of Nigeria and oil-rich landed properties, mineral resources ceded to Cameroon.
Ndarani, (SAN), in release under a special proceeding, said Nigeria can call for a review of the said judgement, saying Nigeria did not put the best of its case forward. Stressing further, the Abuja-based legal expert said Nigeria lost the case to Cameroon due to the issue of an unratified Anglo-German Agreement of 1913.
According to the Principal Partner of Ndarani (SAN) & Co, the agreement made the Rio del Rey River the boundary between the two countries and thus the Bakassi peninsula on the western side in Nigeria, and shifted the boundary from Rio del Rey Westward to Akpa yafe River, which is a tributary of the Cross River State, putting the disputed territories on the Cameroon side.
Ndarani, (SAN), noted that it was sad that Nigeria did not put a defence to this. Nigeria, during the trial, failed to understand the point of argument on the expression “Rio del Rey rather than “Rio-dos.” Nigeria failed to argue that Germany did not expressly demarcate the area of litigation (Bakassi peninsula) before ceding in the alleged treaty to the Anglophone (Britain). Nigeria failed to put forward such argument “that the Anglo-German treaty did not answer the question” of who were the first occupants of the Disputed Area (Bakassi peninsula). He said this question epitomises the whole philosophy with regard to land policy in Africa during the colonial era.
In his words, “Native jurisprudence draws a tangible distinction between the earth and soil. Land in legal philosophy does not include incorporeal benefit or usufructuary right. See Prof. T.O. Elias—The Nature of African Customary Law OP. Cit P. 166. Nigeria’s argument on the technical side was punctured by the blunders committed by the office of the Surveyor General of the Federation. The (Nigeria) Ministry of Justice then tied its objection into a rusty anchor, stating that the World Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the border dispute between the two countries.”
According to Ndarani, (SAN), this position was incorrect. Meanwhile, Article 36 (1) says, “The jurisdiction of the World Court comprises all cases that the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. It is common knowledge that state parties to the UN Charter, which includes statutes of the International Court of Justice under Article 36 (2), “may at any time declare that it recognises as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the court in all legal disputes.”
Prescribing the way forward, the learned silk stated that, “The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a court of first and last instance, where there is a restatement of the well-established principle of res judicata but also a mechanism set aside to review decisions of the ICJ.” He said, if the Court makes a judicial pronouncement without all the facts to hand, can one say that the decision is legitimate and authoritative? Pursuant to Article 61 of the ICJ’s statute, the Court has the power, upon the application of a party, to consider an otherwise final and binding decision”.
According to Ndarani, an application for revision is admissible when a new fact is discovered that was unknown to the parties and the court during the proceedings, which are complex with the effect of overturning or altering the court’s earlier judgement. He said the purport of Article 61 required that the application for revision be based upon the discovery of the same fact that was unknown when the judgment was delivered and the facts discovered subsequently.
On the procedural approach to the revision of judgements at the Hague, Ndarani (SAN) cited International Court of Justice Art 60, October 24, 1945, U.N.T.S 993 Statute of ICJ, Article 61, Rules 6 of the ICJ’s Act & Docs. 90, ART 99 of the then Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes: Article 55 of July 29, 1899, 1 Bevans 230.
On the relevant and applicable case laws, the renowned practitioner of accumulating years of experience cited ICJ Application for Revision and Interpretation of Judgment, Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Lybia), 1985 ICJ. Rep. 192 (July 27) and the Application for Revision and Interpretation of Judgment on Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Lybia) Judgment 1985 ICJ Rep 192,192 (Dec.10). He also cited Application for Revision of Judgment of Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz Vs. Yugoslavia), Judgment 2003 I.C.J. Rep 7 (Feb 3), Application for Revision of Judgment of Land, Island, and Maritime Frontier Dispute (EL Salvador/Hondaras), Judgment 2003 ICJ. Rep 392, 401-402 (Sept. 11).
In conclusion, giving a road map, Ndarani (SAN) advised that a team of seasoned and experienced legal luminaries be assembled as a matter of urgency and tasked with the mandate to critically understudy the Bakassi Peninsula Judgement is-à-visz untold facts and to also explore the possibility of an application to have the same revisited through a review. I am optimistic that having regards to the fact of President Tinubu’s renewed hope agenda and our erudite silk, AGF Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), it is achievable, as fantastically done in a recent supreme court best judgment on Local Government Autonomy in the history of Nigeria, which redeems long marginalised rights of citizens of Nigeria.
