The hope of Nigerians in the disputed Bakassi Peninsula in Cross River State was dashed yest-erday with the declaration by the federal government that they have no say in its decision to handover their land to the Republic of Cam-eroun.
The affected people of the area however vowed not to leave the place until due constitutional process is followed, just as a federal high court sitting in Abuja filed January 14, 2005 for the ruling on whether the area can be ceded to Cameroun without a recourse to the National Assembly for the necessary amendment of the 1999 constitution.
Counsel to the federal government, Mr Wole Aina, said that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to institute the action since the implementation of the ICJ judgement and recommendations of the Mixed Commission did not concern Nigerians residing in the disputed area in any way. He challenged the compe-tence of the court to entertain the case saying that the plaintiffs are Nigerians living on Cameroun’s land. “If Cameroun could cede certain areas to Nigeria, Nigeria is bound to reciprocate the gesture.”
Aina argued that section 6 and 27 of the 1999 constitution outlined the powers of the federal high court as a superior court of records, which did not give it jurisdiction to sit on an appeal over the ICJ judgement whether by way of setting it aside or staying it.
He said that the boundary in contention is an inter-national boundary not limited to Nigeria alone, adding that the execution of that judge-ment is the prerogative of the executive which is a political decision that precludes the court from hearing it.
Besides, he added that the suit is statute barred, coming two years after the judgement was pronounced. “Nigerian courts cannot det-ermine whether the judgment should be implemented or not.”
He argued that the posi-tion of the plaintiffs would lead to war and queried whe-ther it is not easier for Nige-rians to amend its const-itution, rather than ask Cameroun who won the suit to do so.
Earlier, counsel to the Bakassi people, Mr Kolapo Adabale had said that only the National Assembly can ratify any adjustment in Cross River State boundary as it affects Bakassi as stipulated by section 12 of the 1999 constitution.
The plaintiffs prayed the court for an injunction restr-aining the federal gover-nment from ceding the area to Cameroun until the due process of law is followed at the National Assembly.
Adabale insisted that his clients were not asking the court to stop the implem-entation of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), judge-ment, but to declare that the proposed handover of Bak-assi will amount to an adju-stment of Cross River State’s boundary which cannot take place without involving the National Assembly.
He described an agree-ment signed by the Nigeria/Cameroun Mixed Commi-ssion as a treaty whose imple-mentation must be in confo-rmity with the appropriate laws of the country.
He argued that the acti-ons and decisions of the Mixed Commission are null and void if the process that should be followed is igno-red, especially the National Assembly’s consent.
Adabale submitted that there was no urgency in the implementation of the international court’s judgement which he said, could take up to 50 years before implementation.
Justice Binta Murtala Nyako fixed ruling for Jan-uary 14, 2005.
