Nigeria has agreed to cede 33 villages in the Lake Chad area to Cameroon as partial settlement of a long-standing border dispute. The villages were awarded to Cameroon last year in an International Court of Justice decision, along with certain other disputed areas.
The core of the disagreement, however, remains the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula, which almost led to war earlier this year. Bakassi was part of the kingdom of Old Calabar, which became a British protectorate in 1884. In 1913, Britain ceded the peninsula to Germany, and it was administered as part of Cameroon during the colonial period. At some point in the 1960s, however, it became a de facto part of Nigeria. The area, which was thinly populated and largely ignored by the Cameroon government, filled with refugees from the Biafran war, and Nigerian authorities provided education and health care. By the mid-1970s, the population consisted mostly of Nigerians who were accustomed to Nigerian administration and identified more with their coethnics in Nigeria than with Cameroon.
Border clashes erupted several times during the 1980s and 1990s, finally leading to the submission of the case to the ICJ in 1995. In its submission to the court, Nigeria argued that Britain had no right to adjust the borders of Old Calabar unilaterally, and that it had acquired sovereignty through effective occupancy since independence. At the time, I thought the Nigerians had a case, but I was one of the few who did; the court ruled 14-2 in favor of Cameroon. Boiled down to its essence, the court held that Old Calabar had no rights the international community was bound to respect, and that a colonial power could adjust the borders of a protectorate in the same manner as a colony. I suppose this was to be expected given the can of worms that would be opened if modern countries could claim territory as successors of precolonial states, but it was still a denial of both the continuing relevance of precolonial polities and the wishes of the local population.
In any event, the road map to ending the illegal Nigerian occupation is proceeding more smoothly than some others. After initially rejecting the ICJ's judgment outright, Nigeria agreed to mediation and will begin a series of phased withdrawals by the end of the year. The two sides are also "looking into ways and modalities of ensuring that the people in these areas are catered for after the transfer of government." A solution involving open borders and continuing Nigerian consular representation might work best.
I would have assumed that the OAU commitment to respecting the colonial borders would have laid a precendent for this?
I still tend to favour more representative solutions like perhaps a plebiscite (as these were after all used to settle some of the same problems in Europe in the interwar period) but on the other hand tthey haven't proved all that successful in the post-colonial world and Nigeria's record (well, West Africa's record really) in holding free and fair elections isn't particularly good. So this idea may not be so easy to implement in practise.
Posted by: Conrad Barwa at November 2, 2003 01:07 AMI would have assumed that the OAU commitment to respecting the colonial borders would have laid a precendent for this?
It did, but on the other hand, part of the dispute concerned exactly which colonial borders to use. One of Nigeria's contentions was that the 1913 British border adjustment was invalid and that the proper colonial boundary was the one from 1884. I believe the considerations underlying the Ethiopia-Eritrea and Sierra Leone-Guinea border disputes are similar.
I still tend to favour more representative solutions like perhaps a plebiscite (as these were after all used to settle some of the same problems in Europe in the interwar period) but on the other hand tthey haven't proved all that successful in the post-colonial world and Nigeria's record (well, West Africa's record really) in holding free and fair elections isn't particularly good.
That problem isn't necessarily insuperable; Nigeria would probably agree to a UN or AU-supervised plebiscite given its likelihood of winning a fair vote. The trouble would be getting the UN or AU to supervise it, given that they'd be sanctioning a derogation from uti possidetis. I also favor the plebiscite alternative - I don't think uti possidetis should stand in the way of the Bakassians' democratic rights - but I don't think the international community would be willing to open that can of worms.
I can't help noting with a snicker that Nigerians seem to love that word modalities.
Posted by: Anton Sherwood at November 20, 2003 01:59 AMdear sir,
my name is ROLAND OKON EKPENYONG am a native of bakkasi peninsula in cross river state of nigeria, but for now am not in town - away for some years, cos being a man i don’t have to stay input. am leaving in bonny island working with Delta Specialist Hospital Bonny Island as Administrator so reaching home now will be difficult for me.
please in the Name of God Help me send information to through my mail box.
please i want you to send me information about how many villages being affected by this problems?
please send me also information on when to hand over my community?
please get me connected to many people with their cell phone and land phone and people in my place too.
if possible my present Chairman name and address and cell phone number.
thank you for your an assistant and God will help you too.
am on net so forgive all my mistakes.
your faithfully,
ROLAND OKON EKPENYONG.