BNW

The ruling of the International Court of Justice in The Hague on Thursday, October 10, 2002 concerning the boundary dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon has been receiving attention at various levels. Reactions to the judgment have dangled between outrage and disappointment. Some write-ups have castigated the International Court of Justice and interpreted the ruling to signify Western sabotage against Nigeria. Such emotional outbursts are understandable, when one takes into consideration the economic significance of a part of the area under contention, namely the Bakassi Peninsula. There is no doubt that many varied reactions will unfold in the weeks, months and years to come. There is no doubt too, that the ruling of this court and its implications will be very topical for students of political history and international relations, legal luminaries, economic analysts, politicians and various shades of commentators in the days ahead.

Permit me therefore, in this article to share my own thoughts on this controversial issue with you. I will base my reflection on the two main points, which worked in favour of Cameroon. The first is the 1913 treaty between Germany and Britain. The second is the Yaounde and Maroua accords of 1971 and 1975 between Ahmadu Ahidjo and Yakubu Gowon.

The treaty of 1913 between Germany and Britain was a colonial treaty in continuation of the Berlin Conference, where European countries sat together and shared Africa like a group of hunters sharing an animal-victim after a hunting expedition. African peoples were torn apart, close kiths and kin found themselves under different administrations. Incompatible tribes became forced to live under one country. In this colonial drama, some tribes were split between the present Cross River state of Nigeria and the South West Province of Cameroon. The Yoruba people were partly cut into Nigeria and partly into the neighbouring country of Benin Republic. There are other examples of African tribes who were cut into parts between various neighbouring countries. In the 1960s as the colonial masters began to grant independence to their former colonies, some Africans raised the issue of reversing the colonial order and redesigning the African continent and its countries to respect the rights of the people, their tribes and heritage. The acceptance of this proposal would have enabled the African continent to reject all colonial treaties and boundaries since these treaties neglected fundamental elements of African life and heritage. These treaties were like robbery. These treaties did not consider the rights of the people to decide for themselves. A reversal of these treaties and artificial boundaries would have enabled the African continent and countries to stand on her real foundation, namely the tribes. This reversal would have led to the creation of a new Africa, built on the will of the people and not on colonial treaties, a new Africa built on the real identity of the people rather than on artificial and unjust European boundaries.

This opportunity of the entire African continent rising up and questioning colonialism, its treaties, boundaries and legacies were painfully lost when the Nigerian government pressed on the Organisation of African Unity to declare at the wake of the Biafran crisis that all colonial treaties and boundaries must (ought to) be respected. By this declaration the OAU and the Nigerian government officially gave legitimacy to the criminal act of colonisation, its effects and features. Though this declaration gave the Nigerian government a temporary victory by undercutting Biafra's quest for independence, unknowingly however, it shot itself on the leg by being part of that OAU declaration. By ratifying the OAU declaration, Nigeria has lost the moral right to question the 1913 Anglo-German treaty. Certainly, the 1913 treaty is one of those colonial treaties and its boundary delineation is one of those colonial boundaries that ought to be respected.

The people of the Bakassi area may want to remain with their kith and kin in the Cross River State of Nigeria but the Nigerian government and their OAU counterparts negotiated away this right of the people to decide for themselves where to belong. The Nigerian submission at the International Court of Justice and the reaction of some of her officials after the judgement, all stressed that the inhabitants of the area are Efiks (who should be in Nigeria with other Efiks). But the criterion of tribal boundaries was made a non-issue by the Nigerian induced OAU declaration - that colonial boundaries and treaties ought to (must) be respected. After about thirty-five years of this declaration, which was meant to frustrate the Biafran dream, the Nigerian government was on 10 October, 2002 placed at the receiving end of its legitimisation of colonial treaties and boundaries. Who says that there is no nemesis?

There is an Igbo saying that the nza bird challenged his Chi to a wrestling contest after a sumptuous meal. Though Yakubu Gowon did not challenge his Chi to a wrestling contest, however the Yauounde and Maroua accords of 1971 and 1975 are indicative of such senselessness, which the nza bird exhibited after being well fed. Well, the defeat of Biafra was enough reason for Gowon to be uncontrollably happy. After all, King Herod in the Bible displayed the same tendencies as Gowon, when he promised the little daughter of Herodias that whatever she asked for, will be given to her. Thank God that Ahmadu Ahidjo did not ask that the heads of all Biafrans be brought to him on a platter.

The Maroua accord was like a reward for a work well done. The little daughter of Herodias got the head of John the Baptist on a platter as a reward for dancing well during the birthday party of King Herod. There are numerous other stories of people who have either become victims or benefited from promises made under ecstasy. The saga concerning the Maroua accord and the painful price, which the Nigerian government has to pay as a result of the recent ruling is yet another example of the effects of promises made under ecstasy. Cameroon did not support Biafra, may be because Ahmadu Ahidjo is a Fulani, who decided to support his fellow Fulanis who were spearheading the Genocide in Biafra. The support of Cameroon at this time was as important for Nigeria as the declaration by the OAU in order to frustrate the Biafran independence. Momentarily, Biafran independence was halted. Its government and people were humiliated. Millions of people died. Nigeria rejoiced. Biafra wept. However, the end of the day is not the end of the story.

Coincidentally, the two points, which hunted Nigeria at the ruling of the World Court, have one thing or the other to do with Biafra. While the 1913 treaty was an agreement between colonial countries on the administration of their territories, the acceptance by Nigeria and the OAU that all colonial treaties and boundaries should remain sacrosanct was made with aim of defeating Biafra. The 1971 and 1975 accords with Cameroon had the defeat of Biafra as its main inspiration. Taking these two positions into consideration, it becomes difficult therefore, to overlook the issue of the ghost of Biafra in the discussions concerning the loss of Bakassi Peninsula.

In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Mark Anthony exclaimed after the death of Brutus: 'Oh Caesar, thou art avenged.' Though the spirit of Biafra has not been completely avenged, however, such incidents as the recent ruling of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, brings some of us close to recasting the exclamation of Mark Anthony - 'Oh Biafra, thou art avenged.'

As people struggle to come to terms with the recent ruling and its implications, various questions and discussions continue to rage. Is the ruling, an international conspiracy against Nigeria? Is it a defect of international law? Is it a triumph of colonial treaties over the right of a people to determine where they will like to belong? Is it a sign of the naivety of African politics and politicians? Is the loss of the Bakassi Peninsula, which the ruling heralds, a self-inflicted injury by the Nigerian government? Is this ruling, a nemesis of Biafra, which has caught up with Nigeria? There are many other questions that can be raised in connection with this recent ruling. While we struggle in the days ahead to confront these and other related issues associated with the recent ruling of the International Court of Justice, the much I can do at this point is to say: goodbye Bakassi Peninsula!